To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
One of the main topics proposed for discussion at the eighteenth International Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law was the legislative role of Constitutional Courts in contemporary democracies. The Brazilian state, like many of those from the Iberic and Latin American tradition, can be characterized as a mixed legal system that attempts to reconcile a model of diffused and incidenter tantum judicial review with a concentrated and abstract model in which the Constitutional Court pronounces abstract decisions in direct actions of unconstitutionality. These decisions have erga omnes and strictly binding effects.
Before the Constitution of 1988, the Brazilian system of judicial review could be classified as much more akin to the American tradition of judicial review than to the Austrian model developed by Hans Kelsen, which concentrates the jurisdiction on constitutional matters in a single Constitutional Court. Every judge was (and still is) competent to assess a violation of the Constitution by the ordinary laws. The declaration of unconstitutionality was merely a step for the judge to follow in the justification of his or her decision. Even though a dispute over the constitutionality of an Act could eventually reach the higher courts by means of an appeal, there was no warranty that this would ever happen.
Although there was an abstract action for assessing the constitutionality of statutes, the scope of this action was very strict and only the General- Attorney of the Republic (who was at the same time the Procurador [Prosecutor] of the Federal Government and the Chief of the Public Ministry) was empowered to bring it before the Supreme Court.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.