Decisão judicial: um diálogo com as partes no processo

Abstract

The Dialectic, as the art in dialogue to demonstrate and discuss theses, which uses the apt argument to clearly define and distinguish the concepts involved in the discussion include the clash of opinions and research about the logic and ideas, although not formalized, generally accepted . Thus, the dialectic can be understood as essentially interrogative, and generally presupposes a situation of dialogue. Such a philosophical concept developed by Aristotle holds interest currently in the Brazilian State, when it brings home the obligation to solve through trial social conflicts. This is because the Federal Constitution of 1988, Article 93 makes clear that it is a mandatory state service "to judge", listing obligations such as the duty to provide judicial protection and the duty to inform their decisions. Thus, with a minimum guarantee of fundamental rights guaranteed by the state, the need to support such decisions handed down by the State, in fact, represents a democratic state, therefore, is eliminated the idea of authoritarianism, which can only exist in the case of essential dialogue between all parties involved in the conflict. The reasoning of court decisions demonstrates the proper course of law enforcement. It is a constitutional principle expressed and crystalline clear individual security and entrenchment clause, giving contour to the shape of the decisions. Therefore, it is concluded that the principle of reasoning highlights the construction of the court ruling, and thus its reasoning stems from a dialectical construction among all those involved in the dispute