Ponderação de bens e otimização do direito ao meio ambiente ecologicamente equilibrado na colisão de direitos fundamentais : uma abordagem a partir da teoria dos direitos fundamentais de Alexy

Abstract

The legal thought has shown dynamism in discussions about a new law theory paradigm. The structuralist consolidated positivist model by Hans Kelsen (the legal standard governing human behavior, should be), eminently logical-deductive, advocates a subsuntivo method of application of legal rules, ie, deductible and discretionary, as it allows the interpreter look how it will apply the rule, among the various possibilities recognized by legal positivism, when the normative guidelines that underpin the legal system (model rules) are not sufficient to achieve full effectiveness in solving a case. The issues of opening gaps and indeterminacy deficits in Brazilian law submitted by the constitutional model, especially the issues involving fundamental rights of collisions, favor an expansive interpretation of the regulatory provisions. The subsumption and the discretionary model, characteristic of logical-deductive discourse, that is, of positivist thinking that marked the foundation of Kelsiana theory are contested from the dialectic and practical general discourse proposed by Alexy. The prospect of the separation of legal provisions in rules (model adopted by Hart) and principles (model adopted by Dworkin) brings up a legal-political model that allows the application of legal rules by the judge through the use of an inductive reasoning (principles) not exclusively deductive (rules) in judicial decisions. The thought of Dworkin is a reference to the theory of legal reasoning of Alexy. From this perspective, Alexy argues, through its practical legal discourse, the introduction of principles to justify the rationality deficits and discretion in a correction claim of legal discourse, exceeding the close relationship between the Right and the Moral and proposing a broad resizing in structure of positivist law. This legal reasoning model has suffered a lot of criticism and debate in the political-legal and ideological sphere, since its practical discourse is also marked by gaps of rationality and subjectivity, especially in cases involving fundamental rights of collisions. From the initial understanding that fundamental rights are subject to collision and weighting, setting up final and prima facie legal positions, as the thought of Alexy, the issue of resolution of such collisions requires, on the part of the interpreter, the establishment of criteria and parameters that are sufficiently solid and rational and that could lead to an appropriate solution, motivated or intersubjectively controllable, without the risk of subjectivism and judicial decisionism. Calls point out that the theory of principles proposed by Alexy can not guarantee all the complexity of fundamental rights system, especially the ability to ensure the resolution of collisions between the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment with other fundamental rights of legally safe way. In addition to these philosophical and doctrinal formulations inspired by the work Theory of Fundamental Rights of Alexy, it is proposed also to analyze the phenomenon of the fundamental rights of an impact from concrete cases presented in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in order to verify its performance in decisions involving the judgment of weighting assets. In this sense, as the Theory of Fundamental Rights of Alexy does not fully satisfy the assumptions of fundamental rights of collision, it is proposed, with this work, check to what extent the principle of weighting assets allows confer rationality judicial decision in where the right to an ecologically balanced environment collides with other fundamental rights.