A perspectiva tópico-retórica e pragmatista das decisões judiciais do movimento do direito alternativo no Brasil

Abstract

The dialectic rationality is applied to the field of human knowledge where there is no absolute essential, which law is one of the expressions. Legal norms are therefore, endoxa, good consensus shared in a given society without truth qualifying. This makes the validity of judicial decisions to be connected to the use of legal norms, not to an unquestionable foundation presented as reason. The use of such non- absolute premises was described by Aristotle through the dialectical and rhetorical (enthymeme) syllogisms. Based on this theory, Perelman developed the auditorium idea (universal and particular) and the use of particular arguments in speech. For this author, the speaker is able to search the accession of listeners (audience) and for this makes use of the premises already accepted by them, which guarantees validity. The judge makes the same process in judicial decisions, he decides and only then he searches at the legal order for sufficient elements to justify his decision before other citizens. This perspective is associated to the context of discovery and to the context of justification studied by Atienza. On the formation of the judicial decision, Cardozo points to the existence of subconscious elements, ie, the influence of non-legal factors in this process. In relation to the justification for the decision taken, Vihweg points to the topic-problematic reasoning, and Esser refers to the use of pragmatic legal principles. What judges do, in this way, is to use the legal norms to justify decisions, even if other factors were predominant for the choice made. In Brazil, a panel of judges at the beginning of the 1990s, known as the Alternative Law Movement, said to make use of law in an ideologically motivated way. Amilton Bueno de Carvalho divided into three forms this alternative practice: combative positivity; alternative use of the law; and alternative right in the strict sense. There is a connection between legal alternativism and topic - problematic use of legal norms, Analyzing some decisions of the movement this argument founds its foundation, for what these judges did, to justify decisions, it was to address the right in a pragmatic way. From this perspective, social reality prevails at the time of preparation of the judicial decision, but legal norms are the basis of the justification provided.