English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Analyze a judicial discricionarity on some basic assumptions of positivism, postpositivism and neoconstitutionalism, for understand whether the 1988 Constitution established limits to creativity and discricionarity judicial, aiming of presenting premises for a coherent conception of creativity. The text is structured by the hypothetical-deductive method, through hypothesis-based conjectures. Concludes that, spite of necessity of value the dignity of legislation, often the judge when declaring the right in a limit situation, must carry out an exegetical-functional exercise, seeking the best possible solution, without changing the original meaning of rule; and that establishing reasonable limits to discricionarity is a challenges of contemporary dogmatics.

revista brasileira de teoria constitucional

DISCRICIONARIEDADE JUDICIAL OU JUÍZES LEGISLADORES: ANOTAÇÕES SOBRE O LIMITE E O ALCANCE DA ATIVIDADE INTERPRETACIONAL DOS JUÍZES POR MEIO DE UMA CONCEPÇÃO COERENTE DA DISCRICIONARIEDADE