Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Brazilian judges and the judicialization of corporatist interests

Bibliographic Data

ID16927623
AuthorsFabiana L De Oliveira (0000-0003-2324-0106, Public Agenda, corresponding author)
Year2023
Volume14
Issue4
Pages2293-2293
Publication date2023-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueRevista Direito e Práxis (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2179-8966 • E-ISSN: 2179-8966
PublisherFapUNIFESP (SciELO) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1590/2179-8966/2022/65400
OpenAlexW4389817017
SCIELO_PIDS2179-89662023000402293
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited6

This paper discusses the judicialization of the corporatist interests of Brazilian judges, as well as the amount of space their agenda has been able to garner in the Federal Supreme Court (STF) docket. We base our work on judicial review cases from the period spanning 1978 - 2014, concentrating on those petitioned by judges and their professional associations. Our aim is to identify the agenda of claims sent to the STF, analyzing the extent to which judges and their associations have used their own political power to i) guarantee and advance career interests and benefits; ii) ensure and expand their institutional power and iii) defend general interests (“the common good”). We also seek to identify patterns of STF response to judges’ demands, as compared to its response to claims made by other interest groups. The discussion falls within the arena of judicial behavior studies and draws from the field of the sociology of professions. Our major conclusion is that the Federal Supreme Court favored the deliberation of the judges’ career interests, thereby awarding greater priority to their claims, above those of any other organized interest group during the period we studied

Deliberation · Interest group · Judicial opinion · Period (music) · Political science · Politics · Power (physics) · Sociology · Supreme court · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Legal and Constitutional Studies

  • Sentencing discretion, authoritarian legacies and punitive consensus in Brazil

    Open Access•Gabriel Silveira De Queirós Campos•Theoretical Criminology•2026

  • Professionalism

    Eliot Freidson•Professionalism•2013

  • What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everybody Else Does)

    Richard A Posner•Supreme Court Economic Review•1993

  • Politics and Civic Professionalism

    Open Access•Terence C Halliday•Law & Social Inquiry•1999

  • Agenda decisória do Supremo Tribunal no período de transição democrática

    Open Access•Fabiana L De Oliveira•Plural•2019

  • Grupo de pressão de magistrados e governabilidade democrática

    Open Access•Roberto A O Santos•Revista do Instituto de Estudos…•1996

Unique citing works1
Citations per year1
Citation span2026 - 2026 (1)
Citation velocitycurrent
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 1

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae