Institutional dialogue between branches of power: from criticism of responsive theory to a new conceptual proposal
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21056/aec.v26i104.2108Keywords:
institutional dialogue, responsive dialogue theory, concept of dialogue, interaction between powers, separation of powersAbstract
The institutional dialogue theory presents itself as an alternative for understanding and mediating relations between powers. In the Canadian context, it gained prominence from the seminal work of Hogg and Bushell, generating debates about its effectiveness and adequacy in explaining institutional interactions. This article critically analyzes different concepts of institutional dialogue, focusing on Canadian responsive theory, and propose a new conceptual understanding of institutional dialogue. For this purpose, critical literature review on institutional dialogue and responsive theory was conducted. The analysis revealed the inadequacy of the term “dialogue” to describe interactions between powers when they are merely exercising their constitutional competences, not engaging in institutional dialogue. Responses between powers are better classified according to their content (deference, inertia, insistence, and overcoming), and the Brazilian model lacks mechanisms requiring interaction between powers. The study proposes two new conceptions of institutional dialogue: as a response produced in independent decision-making processes, requiring express and justified analysis of the challenged power's decision; and as interaction between powers in the same decision-making process or in processes that mandatorily require hearing the other power. In conclusion, these conceptions have a normative character, do not dismiss criticisms, and find no practical application in the current Brazilian model.
References
ANDRÉA, Gianfranco Faggin Mastro; FRANCISCO, José Carlos; GUNDIM, Wagner Wilson Deiró. Diálogo institucional e democracia: das experiências do Canadá e da África do Sul para o Brasil. Sequência, v. 42, p. 1-30, 2021.
BARBOSA, Antonio Ezequiel Inácio; LIMA, Martonio Mont’alverne Barreto. Influência das teorias dos diálogos institucionais e da última palavra provisória no pensamento constitucional brasileiro contemporâneo. Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, Curitiba, vol. 5, n. 1, p. 109-128, jan./abr., 2018.
BATEUP, Christine. The Dialogic promise: assessing the normative potential of theories constitucional dialogue. Brooklin Law Review, v. 71, p. 01-85, 2006.
BENVINDO, Juliano Zaiden. A “última palavra”, o poder e a história: O Supremo Tribunal Federal e o discurso de supremacia no constitucionalismo brasileiro. Revista de Informação Legislativa, ano 51, nº 201, jan./mar., 2014.
BOLONHA, C.; GANEM, F. F.; ZETTEL, B. Parâmetros deliberativos para os diálogos constitucionais: Razão pública, ética do discurso e backlash. Revista Brasileira De Direitos Fundamentais & Justiça, 7(25), 170–190, 2013.
BRANDÃO, Rodrigo. Supremacia judicial versus diálogos constitucionais: a quem cabe a última palavra sobre o sentido da constituição? 3ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, 2022.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade n° 5105. Requerente: Solidariedade. Requerido: Congresso Nacional e Presidente da República. Relator: Min. Luiz Fux, 01 de outubro de 2015. Jurisprudência do STF. Brasília, 2015.
BRITTO, Melina Carla de Souza; ERZINGER, Fernanda Huss; BARBOSA, Claudia Maria. O diálogo entre poderes e o reequilíbrio institucional: a (in)eficiência do diálogo no combate ao empoderamento judicial. Revista Eletrônica Direito e Política, v.16, n. 2, 2º quadrimestre, 2021.
CLÈVE, Clèmerson Merlin; LORENZETTO, Bruno Meneses. Diálogos institucionais: estrutura e legitimidade. Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, Curitiba, vol. 2, n. 3, setembro/dezembro, p. 183-206, 2015.
DIXON, Rosalind. Para fomentar el diálogo sobre los derechos socioeconómicos: uma nueva mirada acerca de las diferencias entre revisiones judiciales fuertes y débiles. In: GARGARELLA, Roberto (Comp). Por una justicia dialógica: el Poder Judicial como promotor de la deliberación democrática. 1. ed (e-book). Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores, 2014.
FISHER, Louis. Constitutional Dialogues: interpretation as political process. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.
GARGARELLA, Roberto. El derecho como una conversación entre iguales: qué hacer para que las democracias contemporáneas se abram - por fin - al diálogo ciudadano. Buenos Aires: Siglo veinteuno Editores Argentina, 2021.
GARGARELLA, Roberto. El nuevo constitucionalismo dialógico frente al sistema de los frenos y contrapesos. In: GARGARELLA, Roberto (Comp). Por una justicia dialógica: el Poder Judicial como promotor de la deliberación democrática. 1. ed (e-book). Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores, 2014.
GODOY, Miguel Gualano de; MACHADO FILHO, Roberto Dalledone. Diálogos institucionais: Possibilidades, limites e o importante alerta de Roberto Gargarella. Revista Informação Legislativa, Brasília, a. 59, n. 233, p. 117-133, jan./mar., 2022.
HACHEM, Daniel Wunder; PETHECHUST, Eloi. A superação das decisões do STF pelo Congresso Nacional via emendas constitucionais: diálogo forçado ou monólogos sobrepostos? Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, Curitiba, vol. 8, n. 1, p. 209-236, jan./abr. 2021.
HOGG, Peter W.; BUSHELL, Allison A. El diálogo de la Carta entre los tribunales y las Legislaturas (o quizá la Carta de Derechos no sea algo tan malo después de todo). In: GARGARELLA, Roberto (comp.). Por una justicia dialógica: el Poder Judicial como promotor de la deliberación democrática. 1ª ed. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores, 2014. p. 17-49.
HOGG, Peter W.; BUSHELL, Allison A. The Charter Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures (or perhaps the charter of rights isn't such a bad thing after all). Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 35.1, p. 75-124, 1997.
HOGG, Peter W.; THORNTON, Allison A. Bushell; WRIGHT, Wade K. Charter Dialogue Revisited: Or “Much Ado About Metaphors”. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 45.1, p. 1-65, 2007.
HOGG, Peter W.; THORNTON, Allison A. Reply to “Six Degrees of Dialogue”. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 37.3, p. 529-536, 1999.
LINARES, Sebastián. El diálogo democrático entre las cortes y las instituciones representativas. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, n. 3, jul./sept. 2008.
MANFREDI, Christopher P; KELLY, James B. Six Degrees of Dialogue: a response to Hogg and Bushell. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 37.3, p. 513-527, 1999.
MARINONI, Luiz Guilherme. Controle de constitucionalidade e diálogo institucional. 1. ed. São Paulo: Thomson Reuters Brasil, 2022. [livro eletrônico]
MATHEN, Carissima. Dialogue Theory, Judicial Review, and Judicial Supremacy: A Comment on “Charter Dialogue Revisted”. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, vol. 45.1, p. 125-146, 2007.
MENDES, Conrado Hübner. Direitos fundamentais, separação de poderes e deliberação. 2008, 224f. Tese (Doutorado), Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, 2008.
MEUWESE, Anne; SNEL, Marnix. “Constitutional Dialogue”: An Overview. Utrecht Law Review, volume 9, issue 2, march, p. 123-140, 2013.
NIEMBRO ORTEGA, R. Las respuestas legislativas a las declaraciones de inconstitucionalidad como forma de diálogo constitucional. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, 95, mayo-agosto, 2012.
OLIVEIRA, Tárcia Helena Dias de. Entre o parlamento e a corte: a resposta legislativa diante da atuação judicial. 2023, 168f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Direito) – Universidade federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, 2023.
PALMER, Matthew S.R. The Languages of Constitutional Dialogue: Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law. The 2007 Bora Laskin Lecture, Osgoode Hall Law School, SSRN, p. 1-14, jan., 2007.
PETTER, Andrew. Taking Dialogue Theory Much too Seriously (or Perhaps Charter Dialogue Isn't Such a Good Thing after all). Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 45.1, p. 147-167, 2007.
PETTER, Andrew. Twenty years of charter justification: from liberal legalism to dubious dialogue. UNB Law Journal, 52, p. 187-199, may, 2003.
ROACH, Kent, Dialogic Judicial Review and its Critics. Supreme Court Law Review (2nd), vol. 23, p. 49-104, 2004.
ROACH, Kent. Dialogic remedies. International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 17, n. 3, p. 860-883, jul., 2019.
SIGALET, Geoffrey, WEBBER, Grégoire, DIXON, Rosalind. Introduction: The ‘What’ and ‘Why’ of Constitutional Dialogue. LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers, Queen's University Legal Research Paper, n. 21, p. 1-31, nov., 2019.
SILVA, Virgílio Afonso da. O STF e o controle de constitucionalidade: deliberação, diálogo e razão pública. Revista de Direito Administrativo, v. 250, p. 197-227, 2009.
SOUZA, Jorge Munhós de. Diálogo institucional e direito à saúde. 2011. 350 f. Dissertação (mestrado). Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2011.
TREMBLAY, Luc B. The legitimacy of judicial review: The limits of dialogue between courts and legislatures. International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 3, n. 4, p. 617–648, oct., 2005.
TUSHNET, Mark V. Dialogue and Constitutional Duty. Harvard Public Law Working, nº. 12-10, march 20, 2012.
TUSHNET, Mark. Revisión judicial dialógica In: GARGARELLA, Roberto (comp.). Por una justicia dialógica: el Poder Judicial como promotor de la deliberación democrática. 1ª ed. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI Editores, 2014. p. 105-116.
YOSEF, Bell. A Double-Edged Sword: Constitutional Dialogue Confined. Forthcoming, International Journal of Constitutional Law, p. 1-42, apr. 12, 2022.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Samille Lima Alves, Deborah Dettmam
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this Journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the A&C - Administrative & Constitutional Law Review the right of first publication with the article simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons - Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International which allows sharing the work with recognition of the authors and its initial publication in this Journal.
- Authors are able to take on additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the paper published in this Journal (eg.: publishing in institutional repository or as a book), with a recognition of its initial publication in this Journal.
- Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish their work online (eg.: in institutional repositories or on their personal website) at any point before or during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as increase the impact and the citation of the published work (see theEffect of Open Access).
