Incerteza científica e deferência judicial: os riscos de non liquet
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30899/dfj.v23i52.1435Palavras-chave:
Controle de constitucionalidade, incertezas científicas, devido processo científico, separação de poderesResumo
Em ambiente de incerteza científica, os tribunais costumam ser deferentes às decisões das agências reguladoras e do legislador. O entendimento do que seja incerteza científica é quase sempre reduzido a controvérsias entre cientistas sobre uma dada teoria. Na comunidade científica, porém, a regra é a controvérsia. A incerteza é uma qualidade mais plural e complexa do que aquela compreendida pelos juízes. A deferência judicial acaba por configurar um descumprimento do dever de proteção dos direitos fundamentais, muitas vezes, afetados pelas decisões. O papel do Judiciário deve ser o de promotor e mediador de um diálogo entre comunidade de pesquisadores, reguladores e sociedade sobre as incertezas científicas e os riscos a elas associados que devam ser tolerados.
Referências
ADLER, Matthew D. Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure of American Constitutional Law. Michigan Law Review, v. 97, p. 1-173, 1998.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federa BVerfGE 86, 148, de 27/5/1992 . Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv086148.html>. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2021
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE, 49, 89 (Kalkar I), de 8/8/1978. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv049089.html>. Acesso em 12 fev. 2021
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 50, 290, de 01/03/1979. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv050290.html >. Acesso em: 11 mar. 2021.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 111, 333 (Brandenburgisches Hochschulgesetz), de 26/10/2004. Disponível em: <https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv111333.html>. Acesso em: 12 fev. 2021.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 39, 210, de 19/3/1975 (Mühlenstrukturgesetz). Disponível em: <https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv039210.html>. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2021
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE 7, 377, julgamento 11/6/1958. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/Dfr/bv007377.html>. Acesso em: 12 fev. 2021
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE, 106, 62, de 24/10/2002 (Altenpflegegesetz). Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv106062.html>. Acesso em 11 fev. 2021.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE, 90, 145 (Cannabis), de 9/3/1994a. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv090145.html>. Acesso em: 11 fev. 2021.
ALEMANHA. Tribunal Constitucional Federal. BVerfGE, 91, 1, de 16/03/1994b. Disponível em: < https://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv091001.html>. Acesso em: 11 mar. 2021.
ALEXY, Robert. Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality. Ratio Juris, v. 16, n. 2, p. 131-140, 2003.
ASSELT, Marjolein B.A. van. Uncertainty in Decision Support: From Problem to Challenge. Maastricht, Netherlands: University of Maastricht/International Centre for Integrative Studies (ICIS), 1999.
BARBER, Nicolas W. Prelude to the Separation of Powers. The Cambridge Law Journal, v. 60, n. 1, p. 59-88, 2001.
BASSOK, Or. The Two Countermajoritarian Difficulties. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, v. 31, n. 2, p. 333-382, 2012.
BECK, M.B. The Selection of Structure in Models of Environmental Systems. The Statistician, v. 35, n. 2, p. 151-161, 1986.
BECK, Ulrich. Risk society: towards a new modernity. Trad. Mark Ritter. London: Sage, 1994.
BEECHER-MONAS, Erica. The heuristics of intellectual due process: a primer for triers of science. New York University Law Review, v. 75, p. 1563-1657, 2000.
BEEHCHER-MONAS, Erica. The Heuristics of Intellectual Due Process: A Primer for Triers of Science. New York University Law Review, v. 75, p. 1563-1657, 2000.
BRADY, Alan David P. A Structural, Institutionally Sensitive Model of Proportionality and Deference under the Human Rights Act 1998. Thesis submitted to the Department of Law of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London: The London School of Economics and Political Science, 2009. Disponível em: <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4187695.pdf>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
BRADY, Alan David P. Proportionality and Deference under the UK Human Rights Act. An Institutionally Sensitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Pleno. ADC 42/DF. Rel. Min. Luiz Fux, julgado em 28/02/2018. Disponível em: <http://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=750504737>. Acesso em: 12 fev. 2021.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Pleno. ADI 2396/MS. Rel. Min. Ellen Gracie, julgado em 08/05/2003. Disponível em: <http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/inteiroTeor/obterInteiroTeor.asp?id=375387>. Acesso em 11 fev. 2021
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Pleno. ADI 4923/DF, j. 08/11/2017. Disponível em: <http://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=14595775>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Pleno. ADI 5592/DF. Rel. p/acórdão Min. Edson Fachin, julgado em 11/09/2019. Disponível em:<http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/inteiroTeor/obterInteiroTeor.asp?idDocumento=752184165>. Acesso em 11 fev. 2021.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Pleno. RE-RG 627.189/SP, j. 08/06/2016. Disponível em: < http://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=12672680>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
BRESSMAN, Lisa S. Deference and Democracy. George Washington Law Review, v. 75, p. 761-803, 2006.
BRIGHOUSE, Harry; FLEURBAEY, Marc. Democracy and proportionality. The Journal of Political Philosophy, v. 18, n. 2, p. 137-155, 2010.
CALDEIRA, Gregory A. Neither the Purse nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court. The American Political Science Review, v. 80, n. 4, p. 1209-1226, 1986.
CHAN, Cora Judicial Deference at Work: Some Reflections on Chan Kin Sum and Kong Yun Ming. Hong Kong Law Journal, v. 4, n. 1, 2010. Disponível em: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1765502. Acesso em: 20 fev. 2021.
CHAN, Cora, Proportionality and Invariable Baseline Intensity of Review. Legal Studies, v. 33, n. 1, p. 1-26, 2013.
CLÉRICO, Laura. El examen de proporcionalidad en el derecho constitucional. Buenos Aires: Eudeba, 2009.
CLÉRICO, Laura. Sobre la prohibición por acción insuficiente, por omisión o defecto y el mandato de proporcionalidade. In SIECKMANN, Jan-R. (ed.). La teoria principialista de los derechos fundamentales. Estudios sobre la teoria de los derechos fundamentales de Robert Alexy. Madrid: Marcial Pons, p. 169-206, 2011.
DWORKIN, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously. Eighth impression. London: Ducworth, 1977 [1996].
EASTERBROOK, Frank H. Judges as Honest Agents. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Pol'y, v. 33, n. 3, p. 915-923, 2010.
ELHAUGE, Einer. Preference-Estimating Statutory Default Rules. Columbia Law Review, v. 102, n. 8, 2, p. 2027-2161, 2002.
ENDICOTT, Timothy. Proportionality and Incommensurability. In HUSCROFT, Grant; MILLER, Bradley W.; WEBBER, Grégoire (eds). Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 311-342, 2014.
EPSTEIN, Lee; KNIGHT, Jack; SHVETSOVA Olga. The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government. Law & Society Review, v. 35, n. 1, p. 117-164, 2001.
ESKRIDGE JR, William N.; FRICKEY, Philip P. The Supreme Court, 1993 Term: Law as Equilibrium: Foreword. Harvard Law Review, v. 108, p. 26-108, 1994.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v Garret, 531 U.S. 356 (2001). Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/356/ >. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, 393 U.S. 129 (1968). Disponível em: < https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/393/129 >. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). Disponível em: < https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/507/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc. 508 U.S. 307 (1993a). Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/307/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Fullilove v. Klutznick 448 U.S. 448 (1980b). Disponível em: < https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/448/448/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Gonzales v. Carhart (Carhart II), 550 U.S. 124 (2007). Disponível em: < https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/124/ >. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189 (1898). disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/170/189/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993b). Disponível em: < https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/509/312/ >. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n, 452 U.S. 264 (1981a). Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/452/264/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905). Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Jones v. United States, 463 U. S. 354 (1983). Disponível em: < https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/463/354/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 US 346, (1997a). Disponível em: < https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/346/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926)). disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/581/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 US 356 (1973). Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/356/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Marshall v. United States, 414 US 417 (1974). disponível em: < https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/417/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007a). Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/549/497/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981b). Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/453/57/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004). Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/541/509/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Townsend v. Yeomans, 301 U.S. 441(1937). Disponível em: < https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/301/441/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC (Turner II), 520 US 180 (1997b). Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/180/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. United States R.R. Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980a). Disponível em: <https://casetext.com/case/us-railroad-retirement-bd-v-fritz>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Suprema Corte. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). Disponível em: < https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/598/>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
FALLON JR, Richard H. Strict Judicial Scrutiny. University of California Law Review, v. 54, p. 1267-1337, 2007.
FEREJOHN, John. Judicializing Politics, Politicizing Law. Law and Contemporary Problems, v. 65, n. 3 p. 41-68, 2002.
FINKEL, Adam M. Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management: A Guide for Decision Makers. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future/Center for Risk Management, 1990.
FRIEDMAN, Barry E. The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution. New York: Farrar, Straus and Gioux, 2009.
GARDBAUM, Stephen. A Democratic Defense of Constitutional Balancing. Law & Ethics Human Rights, v. 4, n. 1, 2010. UCLA School of Law Research Paper n. 09-09. Disponível em: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=1345348>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
GHISELLI, Edwin E.; CAMPBELL, John P.; ZEDECK, Sheldon Zedeck. Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1981
GRIBNAU, Hans. Legitimacy of the Judiciary. In HONDIUS, Ewoud; JOUSTRA, Carla. (red.). Netherlands Reports to the Sixteenth International Congress of Comparative Law. Antwerpen; Oxford; New York: Intersentia, p. 25-45, 2002.
GRIMM, Dieter. Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence. The University of Toronto Law Journal, v. 57, n. 2, p. 383-397, 2007.
GROSS, Alan G. The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1990.
HANDMER, John. Emergency management thrives on uncertainty. In BAMMER, Gabriele; SMITHSON, Michael (eds). Uncertainty and risk: Multidisciplinary perspectives. London; Sterling: Earthscan, p. 231-243, 2008.
HENCKELS, Caroline. Proportionality and the separation of powers in constitutional review: Examining the role of judicial deference. Federal Law Review, v. 45, n. 2, p. 181-197, 2017.
HESSE, Konrad. Die verfassungsrechtliche Kontrolle der Wahrnehmung grundrechtlicher Schutzpflichten des Gesetzgebers. In DÄUBLER-GMELIN; KINKEL, Klaus; MEYER, Hans; SIMON, Helmut (Hrsg). Gegenrede. Aufklärung – Kritik – Öffentlichkeit. Festschrift für Ernst Gottfried Marenholz. Baden-Baden: Nomos, p. 541-559, 1994.
HORSLEY, Thomas. Subsidiarity and the European Court of Justice: Missing pieces in the subsidiarity jigsaw?. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, v. 50, n. 2, p. 267-282, 2012.
HUNT, Murray. Sovereignty’s Blight: Why Public Law Needs “Due Deference”. In BAMFORTH, Nicolas; LEYLAND, Peter (eds). Public Law in a Multi-Layered Constitution. Oxford: Hart Publishing, p. 337–370, 2003.
HUNT, Murray. Sovereignty’s Blight: Why Public Law Needs “Due Deference”. In BAMFORTH, Nicolas; LEYLAND, Peter (eds). Public Law in a Multi-Layered Constitution. Oxford: Hart Publishing, p. 337–370, 2003.
JACKSON, Vicki C. Being proportional about proportionality. Constitutional Commentary, v. 21, p. 803-859, 2004.
JOWELL, Jeffrey. Judicial deference: servility, civility or institutional capacity?. Public Law, v. 4, p. 592-601, 2003.
KAPLAN, Stanley; GARRICK, B. John. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, v. 1, n. 1, p. 11-27, 1981.
KAVANAGH, Aileen. Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
KAVANAGH, Aileen. Deference or Defiance? The Limits of the Judicial Role in Constitutional Adjudication. In HUSCROFT, Grant (ed.). Expounding the Constitution: Essays in Constitutional Theory. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 184-216, 2008.
KAVANAGH, Aileen. Proportionality and Parliamentary Debates: Exploring Some Forbidden Territory. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, v. 34, n. 3, p. 443-479, 2014.
KELLY, Ann H.; LEZAUN, Javier; LÖWY, Ilana; MATTA, Gustavo C.; NOGUEIRA, Carolina de O; RABELLO, Elaine T. Uncertainty in times of medical emergency: Knowledge gaps and structural ignorance during the Brazilian Zika crisis. Social Science & Medicine, v. 246, p. 1-45, 2020.
KENNY, Susan. Maintaining public confidence in the judiciary: a precarious equilibrium. Monash University Law Review, v. 25, p. 209-224, 1999.
KING, Jeff A. Institutional approaches to judicial restraint. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, v. 28, n. 3, p. 409-441, 2008.
KITCHER, Philip. Science in a Democratic Society. In GONZALEZ, Wenceslao J. (ed.). Scientific Realism and Democratic Society: The Philosophy of Philip Kitcher (Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, vol. 101). Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi, p. 95-112, 2011.
KLATT, Matthias; MEISTER, Moritz. The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
KNIGHT, Frank H. Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1921
KRIMSKY Sheldon. The Funding Effect in Science and Its Implications for the Judiciary. Journal of Law & Policy, v. 13, p. 43-68, 2005.
KRUPNICK, Alan; MORGENSTERN, Richard; BATZ, Michael; NELSON, Peter; BURTRAW, Dallas; SHIH, Jhih‐Shyang; McWILLIAMS, Michael. Not a Sure Thing: Making Regulatory Choices under Uncertainty. [s.l.]: Ressources for the Future, 2006. Disponível em: < https://media.rff.org/documents/RFF-Rpt-RegulatoryChoices.pdf >. Acesso em: 21 abr. 2021
LAUDER, Karl-Heinz. A critique of balancing and the principle of proportionality in constitutional law – a case for ‘impersonal rights’? Transnational Legal Theory, v. 7, n. 2, p. 228-256, 2016.
LAUDER, Karl-Heinz. A critique of balancing and the principle of proportionality in constitutional law – a case for ‘impersonal rights’? Transnational Legal Theory, v. 7, n. 2, p. 228-256, 2016
MASUR, Jonathan. Judicial Deference and the Credibility of Agency Commitments. Vanderbilt Law Review, v. 60, n. 4, p. 1021-1076, 2007.
MENAUT, Antonio Carlos P. Teoría constitucional. Santiago: Lexis-Nexis, 2006.
MEßERSCHMIDT, Klaus. Evidence-based review of legislation in Germany. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, v. 4, n. 2, p. 209-235, 2016.
MORGAN, M. Granger; HENRION, Max; SMALL, Mitchell J. Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
NOVAIS, Jorge Reis. As Restrições aos Direitos Fundamentais Não Expressamente Autorizadas pela Constituição. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 2003.
PACE, Alessandro. El Legislador de los Derechos Fundamentales. In PINA, Antonio L. (dir). La Garantia Constitucional de los Derechos Fundamentales. Madrid: Civita, 1991.
PETERSEN, Niels. Balancing and judicial self-empowerment – on the rise of balancing in the jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court. NYU School of Law/ Jean Monnet Working Paper 20/14, 2014. Disponível em: <https://jeanmonnetprogram.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/JMWP20Petersen.pdf>.Acesso em: 20 abr. 2021.
PILDES, Richard H. Why Rights are not Trumps: Social Meanings, Expressive Harms, and Constitutionalism. The Journal of Legal Studies, v. 27, n. S2, p. 725-776, 1998.
POOLE, Thomas. Courts and Conditions of Uncertainty in “Times of Crisis”. Publica Law, n. 2, p. 234-259, 2008.
POPPER, Karl R. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London; New York: Basic Books, 1962. Disponível: < http://www.paulrosenfels.org/Popper.pdf>. Acesso em: 20 mar. 2021.
POPPER, Karl R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London; New York: Routledge, 1992.
POSNER, Richard A. Pragmatic Adjudication. In DICKSTEIN, Morris (ed). The revival of pragmatism: New essays on social thinking, law, and culture. Durham; London: Duke University Press, p. 235-253, 1998.
PULIDO, Carlos B. El principio de proporcionalidad y los derechos fundamentales. 4ª. Ed. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia, 2014.
PULIDO, Carlos B. Estructura y límites de la ponderación. Doxa, n. 26, p. 225-238, 2003.
RRERO, Manuel M. La vinculación negativa a los derechos fundamentales. Madrid: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
RUSSELL, Peter H. The Paradox of Judicial Power. Queen's Law Journal, v. 12, p. 421-437, 1987.
SAMPAIO, Jose Adércio L. Teoria da Constituição e dos Direitos Fundamentais. Belo Horizonte: Del Rey. 2013.
SCHAUER, Frederick. A Comment on the Structure of Rights. Georgia Law Review, v. 27, n. 2, p. 415-434, 1993.
SCHLINK, Bernhard. Abwägung im Verfassungsrecht. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1976.
SCHULTZ, Martin T.; MITCHELL, Kenneth N.; HARPER, Brian K.; BRIDGE, Todd S. Decision Making Under Uncertainty. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2010.
SHAPIRO, Martin. The Success of Judicial Review and Democracy. In SHAPIRO, Martin; SWEET, Alec S. (eds). On law, politics, and judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
SIECKMANN, Jan. Prinzipien und Argumentation. Elemente einer normativen Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. In: JESTAEDT, Matthias (Hrsg.). Recht als Wissenschaft. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, p. 295–324, 2008.
SMITH, George D. Increasing the accessibility of data. British Medical Journal, V. 308, p. 1519-1520, 1994.
SUNSTEIN, Cass R.; VERMEULE, Adrian. Institutions and Interpretation. Michigan Law Review, v. 101, 885–951, 2003.
SWEET, Alec S. Governing with judges. Constitutional politics in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
TAI, Stephanie. Uncertainty about uncertainty: The impact of judicial decisions on assessing scientific uncertainty. Journal of Constitutional Las, v. 11, n. 3 p. 671-727, 2008.
URBINA, Francisco J. A critique of proportionality. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, v. 57, p. 49-80, 2012.
WAGNER, Wendy E. The Science Charade in Toxic Risk Regulation. Columbia Law Review, v. 95, n. 7, 1613-1723, 1995.
WALDRON, Jeremy. Fake Incommensurability: A Response to Professor Schauer. Hastings Law Review, v. 45, n. 4, p. 813-824, 1994
WALTER, Vern R. The Myth of Science as a “Neutral Arbiter” for Triggering Precautions. Boston College International & Comparative Law Review, v. 26, n. 2, p. 197-228, 2003.
WYNNE, Brian. Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventive Paradigm. Global Environmental Change, v. 2, p. 111-127, 1992.
XIA, Dengyou; LI, Chengyao; XIN, Jing; ZHU, Yi. A method for emergency response alternative decision-making under uncertainty. Journal of Control and Decision, p. 1-14, 2021.
YOUNG, Ernest A. “The Ordinary Diet of the Law”: The Presumption Against Preemption in the Roberts Court. The Supreme Court Review, v. 2011, n. 1, p. 253-344, 2012
ZIMAN, John. Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2025 Revista Brasileira de Direitos Fundamentais & Justiça
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Para acesso ao conteúdo do periódico, favor entrar em contato com:
Editora Fórum
0800 704 3737
vendas@editoraforum.com.br
