Borrowing Justification for Proportionality: On the Influence of the Principles Theory in Brazil

349 Pages·2018·4.39 MB·English

by  João Andrade Neto

Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 72
João Andrade Neto
Borrowing
Justification for
Proportionality
On the Influence of the Principles
Theory in Brazil
Ius Gentium: Comparative
Perspectives on Law and Justice
Volume 72
Series editors
Mortimer Sellers, University of Baltimore
James Maxeiner, University of Baltimore
Board of Editors
Myroslava Antonovych, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
Nadia de Araújo, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
Jasna Bakšic-Muftic, University of Sarajevo
David L. Carey Miller, University of Aberdeen
Loussia P. Musse Félix, University of Brasilia
Emanuel Gross, University of Haifa
James E. Hickey Jr., Hofstra University
Jan Klabbers, University of Helsinki
Cláudia Lima Marques, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
Aniceto Masferrer, University of Valencia
Eric Millard, West Paris University
Gabriël A. Moens, Curtin University
Raul C. Pangalangan, University of the Philippines
Ricardo Leite Pinto, Lusíada University of Lisbon
Mizanur Rahman, University of Dhaka
Keita Sato, Chuo University
Poonam Saxena, University of Delhi
Gerry Simpson, London School of Economics
Eduard Somers, University of Ghent
Xinqiang Sun, Shandong University
Tadeusz Tomaszewski, Warsaw University
Jaap de Zwaan, Erasmus University Rotterdam
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7888
ã
Jo o Andrade Neto
fi
Borrowing Justi cation
for Proportionality
fl
On the In uence of the Principles Theory
in Brazil
123
João Andrade Neto
PadreArnaldo Janssen Faculty of Law
BeloHorizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
and
Pontifical Catholic University ofMinas
Gerais(PUCMinas)
BeloHorizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
ISSN 1534-6781 ISSN 2214-9902 (electronic)
Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives onLawandJustice
ISBN978-3-030-02262-4 ISBN978-3-030-02263-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02263-1
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018957254
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2018
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
To the memory of my grandmother, Ana
Cléria.
Foreword
Constitutionalideasmigrate,andtheproportionalitytestisanexcellentexamplefor
such a process. In the emerging discipline of international constitutional law, few
problems have raised as much interest as the proportionality test. Given both its
pervasiveness in the world’s most developed jurisdictions and the number and
severity of theoretical problems it still poses, the importance of progress in its
analytical understanding can hardly be overestimated. As for proportionality’s
migration across the globe, the important question arises whether and how this
migration could be justified, in both theoretical and more practical terms. In light
of the disparity of the institutional arrangements and constitutional settings
worldwide, theuniversalityclaim raised bytheprinciples-theoretical variant ofthe
proportionality test poses pressing questions.
The present book takes issue with these and a number of related problems that
areofhighrelevanceandcomplexity.ItoriginatesfromadoctoralstudythatIhad
the pleasure of supervising as its main mentor, and it is hence the first English
representative of the “grandchild generation” of Alexy’s principles theory. I am
truly delighted to see it in print. Joao Andrade Neto’s book is the first study ever
thataddressestheinfluenceofproportionalityinBrazilinasystematicandanalytic
manner. The book can be characterized by two major achievements: First, it
includes highly interesting reflective discussions of some problems in comparative
constitutionallaw,asfarastheyarerelevant tothisstudy,whichmove farbeyond
theprinciplestheoryandprovidefreshandcontroversialinputtothefield.Second,
thestudydoeschallengeAlexy’saccountonproportionalityincertainrespectsand
elaborates a well-founded and distinct standpoint that clearly contrasts with the
current understanding of most principles theory scholars.
Graz Matthias Klatt
November 2018
vii
Acknowledgements
There are a number of institutions and people I would like to acknowledge for all
the help during my writing. My supervisors were a source of inestimable advice.
Professor Matthias Klatt has welcomed and encouraged the project since the very
beginning. He gently gave my thoughts meticulous consideration and offered his
expert guidance on intricate issues raised by the principles theory. Professor
Karl-Heinz Ladeur was extremely kind and solicitous. I appreciated the many
pleasanttalkswehadaboutGermanandBraziliancaselawandlegaltheory.Other
professors also made valuable contribution to my research. In particular, I would
like to thank Professors Stefan Oeter, Tilman Repgen, and Hans Heinrich-Trute,
members of the governing board of the Albrecht Mendelssohn Barthody Graduate
School of Law (AMBSL).
I am deeply grateful to have been admitted to the first class of the AMBSL
program at the Universität Hamburg (UHH) and for having been granted a schol-
arship that enabled me to work on this project for three years. I would also like to
extend my sincere thanks to all the staff at the UHH. In particular, Eike
Westermann, Jan Hövermann, and Ta-Som Yun, members of the AMBSL coor-
dinationteam,ClaudiaZavala,memberofthedepartmentofdoctoralstudiesofthe
FacultyofLaw,andAndreasKnobelsdorf,lawlibrarian,fortheirattentivenessand
helpfulness.
I was fortunate inattracting generous people who devoted time and attention to
hear my ideas, read my texts, and offer critical comments: Tilman Quarch and Jan
Peter Schmidt, from the Latin America Unit of the Max Planck Institute for
Comparative and International Private Law, and my classmates Aydın Atılgan,
ChristophFitting, MartynaKryžiūtė-Gineitienė,PlarentRuka,Victor Ventura,and
XenophonKontargyris.Otherkindcolleagueswhosehelpwastrulyappreciatedare
Annalisa Morticelli, Çilem Simsek, Fuluk Liu, Julian Nowag, Philipp Siedenburg,
and Shino Ibold. I can gladly say to have made some good friends among these.
I have been lucky to find support from fellow Brazilians. My parents João and
Gracinda,andmysisters,JulianaandJúnia,havealwaysbeenasourceofloveand
strength. Gustavo Silveira Siqueira has been a supportive friend and an inspiration
ix
x Acknowledgements
in the academic life. My co-workers Roberta Gresta, Lara Ferreira, and Diogo
Cruvinelhavesharedwithmemorethantheirpreciousthoughts.Iamalsograteful
to Felipe Motta, Ivens Hübert, Emília Castro, Mariana Keppen, Thêmis Aragão,
Filipe Corrêa, Daniele Vieira, Fábio Gosi, Gabriela Heckler, and Mariana Carpes,
whom I met in Germany and have the privilege to call friends; to the members
of the Grupo de Discussão sobre Temas Brasileiros (GDTB), and especially to the
coordinatorsAnaTerezaQuintãoandCristinaFrancisco;tomydearfriendAdriano
GomesforadviceonthefinalEnglishversionandFelipeBalotin(B3CInt.)forthe
dedication and perfectionism with the proofreading.
Idedicateafinalandspecialacknowledgmenttosomeofmyforeigncolleagues
whobecameverygoodfriendsandwerethemainresponsibleformakingmefeelat
home even while living abroad. A warm thanks to Sarah Bachmann for having
openedthedoorsofGermanytome.Andfinally,mydearAdrianaPereiraArteaga,
Matthias Packeiser, Nora Rzadkowski, Sezgi Sözen, Simon Kaulich, and Pipitsa
Kousoula,thankyoufortheinestimabletimewespenttogether.Youhadanimpact
on every page of this book.
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Terminological Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 Methodological Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 A Further Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4 Judicial Borrowings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.5 The Problem of Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.6 Reasons for Borrowing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.7 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.8 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2 On the Migration of Proportionality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.1 Germany: The System of Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.1.1 First Phase: Origins of Proportionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.1.2 Second Phase: Proportionality and Constitutional
Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.1.3 Third Phase: Consolidation and Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2 Explaining the Migration of Proportionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.2.1 Functionalist Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.2.2 Contextualist Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.2.3 Naturalistic Explanations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2.3 Brazil: The System of Destination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.3.1 The Openness of Brazilian Interpretative Practice . . . . . . . 51
2.3.2 The Ellwanger Case (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.3.3 Peculiarities of the STF’s Structure and Functioning . . . . . 54
2.4 Justifying the Borrowings of Proportionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.4.1 Weak Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.4.2 Strong Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.4.3 Moderate Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
xi