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

The present article intends to analyze the jurisprudence of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justica, or STJ), in order to identify which hypotheses of judicialization of refuge, according to the categories stipulated by Jubilut (2011), are presented in that court and if there is or not judicial deference to the Executive branch decisions on expulsion or denial of refugee status. This empirical article analyzed the entire content of 13 decisions of the STJ, among full bench and monocratic decisions. The methodology employed is institutionalist, focused on the jurisprudential construction of the rules and their impact on the achievement of their purposes. The study concludes that the STJ developed a doctrine of great deference to the Executive branch, stressing the impossibility of judicial review of the merits of administrative decisions on issues related to Brazil’s foreign policy. Finally, we argue, as a future agenda for research, that the judicial trend of total deference may indicate a position of the Brazilian State regarding a foreign policy of non-reception of refugees.

A judicialização do refúgio no STJ: deferência ao Executivo e incoerência interpretativa