IBGE data demonstrate that the largest portion of the district population is made up of black people, but TSE data prove that the majority of federal deputies elected by the Federal District are white. The consequences of slavery and incomplete abolition spanned generations, bringing benefits to the descendants of slave owners and keeping the descendants of the enslaved in a precarious situation. Structural racism, the result of this process of dehumanization of black people, contri-buted to the policy of excluding black people by keeping them out of decision-making centers. In this way, the distribution of the FEFC also suffers the effects of a racist society structure, preventing black people from occupying political positions proportional to their presence in society.

This dissertation summarizes the concern resulting from a critical look at issues involving consumer law within the scope of the Superior Court of Justice in more than 20 years of professional experience in the cabinets of ministers comprising the Second Section of the Court. It starts from the revisiting of the histori-cal context that served as a scenario for the construction of Consumer Law in Brazil until the effective promulgation of the Brazilian Consumer Protection Code. It goes on to point out liberal ideological struc-tures as responsible for the exacerbation of economic values in society and for defining the role of the Ju-diciary as an instrument for inducing a consensus on these values and ideas that, ultimately, privilege the interests of the economic sectors. In the end, the research seeks to illustrate, through examples taken from the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice, the intervention of the Judiciary to recover legisla-tive concessions and neutralize consumer gains. Against a background marked by the profound change in the relationship between society and economy, in which fundamental aspects of human life began to be subordinated to market relations, the functioning of the State is considered based on the analysis of its structural elements, which end up converging for the natural process of emptying the CDC. In the name of a right to freedom, political power is restricted, in order to shift economic relations to the private field. As a result, the individual is the one who must determine their economic and social relations, defending, in iso-lation, interests that are, in reality, collective or general. At the same time, with the public function re-stricted to specific areas, such as territorial security, private property and the fulfillment of contracts, the State ends up operating as a mere guarantor of private relations, creating and preserving differences and hierarchies, by simply ensuring free game of market forces. With this, it ensures the remuneration of capi-tal at the expense, including the vilification of consumer rights, in order to affirm the freedom of exploitation of ordinary citizens by the economically privileged, building a social liberality qualified by property. In this structure, the Judiciary acts to preserve the status quo and strengthen the liberal society project, some-times guaranteeing the maintenance of these structures, sometimes recovering the space eventually lost, through the legislative process, by the economic sectors. The examples taken from the STJ's jurispru-dence give concreteness to the argument, making it very clear the contradictory role played by the Judici-ary in vandalizing consumer protection structures and, on the other hand, in maintaining abuses and privi-leges.

The objective of this work is to demonstrate, even more than three decades after the promulgation of the Political Charter of our Nation (1988), the profound existence of a structural racism in our society, which is manifested by the marginalization and exclusion of a large portion od the population to equitable access to quality education and, as a result, better employment opportunities, in addition to the necessary representation in spaces of power, whose presence of black and brown people is still small, which goes against the principle of equal opportunity in John Rawls’s conception of a just and well-ordered society, as will be shown in the first part of the work. From this initial finding, we will seek to assess whether or not there is a criminal selectivity by the respective bodies responsible for criminal prosecution and to what extent this has contributed to the so-called "Unconstitutional State of Affairs" already recognized by the Supreme Court within ADPF 347/DF, addressing its historical origin, elements and historical evolution, as well as its recognition in the Brazilian reality in which, due to state inertia, especially the Executive Branch, responsible for the structure of the prison system, aggravated especially by the judicial interpretation of Law n. 11,343/2006, among other legislative changes and concrete cases that tend to aggravate this alarming situation, where there is a massive violation of fundamental rights, provided for in the Federal Constitution, as well as Law n. 7.210/1984 itself, which regulates in our country the execution of the sentence applied in a previous criminal process in which the state punitive claim was accepted. We also will address proposals for the construction of a more just and well-ordered society where, in fact and in law, the legal system is effectively and substantially applied to the whole of society, and not only to a privileged minority, adopting, among other parameters, the ideas of the philosopher John Rawls, who in his books "A Theory of Justice" and "Political Liberalism") brings arguments and ideals that, Although designed for the American reality, they have applicability in our reality. Thus, through the reading and filing of doctrinal articles, master's dissertations, books and other academic documents on the subject, as well as the concrete cases in which the institute was recognized in Colombia and Brazil, we will seek to define the concept of what is the "Unconstitutional State of Things" of the Brazilian prison system, as well as proposing some measures to be implemented within the scope of the Judiciary with the scope of at least mitigating this framework with a view to the realization of the fundamental right regarding the prohibition of cruel penalties, the principle of the dignity of the human person, as well as the individualization of the penalty, among others provided for at the level of infra constitutional legislation. Moreover, this work will have as its main objective to propose some measures that the Federal Supreme Court, on the occasion of the judgment of the merits of ADPF n. 347, may determine to the other instances of the Judiciary, as well as to the other Powers, with a view to the deconstruction of what is characterized as a generalized framework of violation of the most salutary rights and guarantees guaranteed to those who, much more than deprived of their liberty in response to the commission of a crime, they must also deal with the deprivation of other rights that, although provided for in the legal system, are not effectively observed by the State, as well as propose ideas with the scope of providing the creation of a society that will be marked by equal access to what John Rawls calls "primary goods", which will necessarily impact on the reduction of violence and crimes committed within Brazilian society and, in this way, avoid the continuation of a policy of mass incarceration of the most economically vulnerable population.

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems in the Brazilian Judiciary is an expanding reality. Considering the need to adhere to parameters for the ethical development and use of AI, the National Council of Justice issued Resolution n. 332/2020. This research aims to evaluate the governance strategies outlined in said normative act, its practical application, as well as other mechanisms capable of ensuring the ethical use of technology and mitigating the associated risks, especially the establishment of AI ethics committees in the courts, aimed at supporting future institutional initiatives. To this end, in the first chapter, the roles played by regulation, ethics, and governance and their intersection in controlling risks related to technology use are analyzed. In the second chapter, the risks of AI use in the Judiciary and the relevant regulations are examined, including the analysis of international documents such as the European Ethical Charter on the use of AI in judicial systems and their environment, along with a critical examination of the governance instruments provided for in Resolution CNJ No. 332/2020. In the third chapter, the creation of AI ethics committees is evaluated as a mechanism to address the complexity of the development cycle of AI projects and the ethical issues inherent in their implementation in the sensitive context of the Judiciary. After analyzing different formats of AI ethics committees, a proposal is presented for the creation not only of AI ethics committees within each court but also of a national network of AI ethics committees within the Judiciary, a national AI ethics committee, and a national AI ethics advisory council, with details on their structure, composition, objectives, and attributions. In the conclusion, the suggestions for improving the governance strategies of AI use in the Judiciary highlighted throughout the study are compiled.

The dissertation addresses the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal context, focusing on the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), investigating its ability to improve the quality of judicial decisions, considering the brazilian precedent system. Through bibliographic review, document analysis and the deductive method, the concept of AI and its categories are explored, such as machine learning, deep learning and natural language processing. Next, the correlation between AI, law and the Judiciary is discussed, highlighting the initiatives and regulations on the subject within the scope of the National Council of Justice (CNJ) and the AI projects in production and development at the STJ, such as the Sócrates System and the Athos Platform. Furthermore, the legal traditions of common law and civil law, Dworkin's Theory of Law as Integrity, the crisis of the Brazilian Judiciary and judicial decision-making, the evolution of jurisprudential law in Brazil and the structuring of the precedent system in the Civil Procedure Code of 2015 (CPC/2015) are examined. The criticisms and risks of using AI in the decision-making process are also presented, including algorithmic biases, technological syllogism and opacity. Finally, the work concludes that artificial intelligence can contribute to the quality of judicial decisions, from the perspective of stability, coherence and integrity defined in CPC/2015, as long as ethical and responsibility requirements are observed.

This dissertation addresses the debates that preceded the drafting of The Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (MCI) and analyzes the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), with the aim of understanding how the STJ interpreted, in the last ten years, the themes covered in the first law of the general regulatory framework for the internet in Brazil. The first chapter presents general aspects about internet regulation and governance, focusing on the debate that took place in the United States of America (USA), following the popularization of the internet, and its influence on the national debate, which included public hearings in the National Congress. The dilemmas raised by the literature after the publication of the MCI are also presented. The second chapter details the methodology, which resulted in the qualitative analysis of 206 judgments published from April 23, 2014, the date of promulgation of the MCI, as well as the initial classification of subjects into thematic blocks. The first results are also shown, with a presentation of the macro view of the STJ's jurisprudence. The third chapter presents the refinement of results in two major areas, private and criminal, with details of the most recurring issues in the thematic blocks. The fourth chapter consists of a discussion of a paradigmatic case that dealt with the civil liability of an access provider for harmful content inserted by a third party on a social network. Jurisprudence entered the themes discussed in the American debate, sometimes indirectly and, more presently, in the themes discussed in the debates of the National Congress. Finally, the regulatory role of the STJ proved to be remarkable, going into details that only concrete cases could bring, so that the jurisprudence became complementary to the regulations introduced by the MCI.

The objective of this research is to understand the theoretical contributions related to the issue of excessive time in preventive detention and the judgment technique devised by supranational courts and adopted by the Brazilian justice system; identify the decision-making standards within the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice, assess whether they are coherent with the three criteria technique and whether they are sufficient to limit subjectivity in the judgment; present a proposal to improve the examination technique based on evidence and legal alternatives to repair illegal excess, based on the principle of fraternity. The data examined were collected from the Citizenship Court's information systems through two applications and compared with the three criteria technique, devised by the European Court of Human Rights. It was found that examination standards are insufficient to guide judgments, as well as the absence of a clear method for verifying excessive time in criminal proceedings. In the end, the study presents a proposal to improve the way in which prison terms are examined, based on the system of precedents, and the possibility of applying remedial measures for unjustified excess, as a way of valuing the fraternal character that guides the Brazilian State.

This dissertation explores the relationship between tax policy and the promotion of fraternity and tax justice in Brazil, focusing specifically on protecting the existential minimum and adhering to the principle of the ability to pay. Using the inductive method, the research was developed through an extensive bibliographic review, including books, magazines, journals, and journalistic material, in addition to a thorough analysis of relevant legislation and jurisprudence. The work is based on the theoretical framework proposed by Carlos Augusto Alcântara Machado, who recognizes fraternity as an essential legal category, and the studies of Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca, who views fraternity as a fundamental constitutional principle for the justice system. Furthermore, the research is grounded in John Rawls's theory of justice, exploring its applicability in structuring a tax system that is both just and socially effective. The findings indicate an urgent need for deeper reforms that ensure the non-taxation of the existential minimum and respect the citizens' ability to pay. Therefore, it is proposed that the state's tax collection activities be reformed not only to sustain its expenditures on essential public policies but also to promote fairer income distribution and contribute to reducing social inequalities. This study contributes to the academic debate by highlighting the importance of integrating principles of fraternity and social justice into tax policies, aiming to develop a society that is freer, fairer, and more solidary, in accordance with the objectives of the Federal Constitution of Brazil of 1988.

The fact that at some point in their existence the citizen will need to resort to the Judiciary to obtain a solution to his demand becomes increasingly evident, especially when it comes to defending his rights to health and life. It turns out that, despite the constitucional provision for safeguarding these guarantees, such defense may prove to be ineffective, given the instrument made available in national procedural law for this purpose, and, more specifically, when the demand concerns authorization for the supply of medicine not yet regulated by ANVISA through precautionary measures, currently provided for in subjective legislation as urgent protections by the STJ. In this dissertation, we will briefly analyze the evolution of the old precautionary measures to the current urgent protections in the Code of Civil Procedure, we will verify the genesis and reason for being of the Regulatory Agencies and, after a case by case exposition of precedents within the scope of the STJ, we will verify whether under the pantheon of provide jurisdiction more quickly, through a summarized procedure – in compliance with the inescapable principle of access to justice -, the performance of the Infraconstitutional Superior Court pays homage to the principle of the Regulatory State of reserving technical judgment. The structural division will be through chapters distributed as follows: . Chapter 1 – considerations about precautionary measures from their genesis in Civil Procedural Law to the emergency protections in current legislation, with an approach to the satisfactory nature of some of them; . Chapter 2 – we will deal with Regulatory Agencies from their inception mirrored in the Local Authorities, we will make considerations about the technical judgment of regulatory entities in relation to the political judgment of the regulatory State and we will conclude with a specific approach on the National Health Surveillance Agency-ANVISA, its creation, competence and the drug regulation procedure adopted by it; . Chapter 3 – we will address the case series selected within the scope of the decisions handed down by the Superior Court of Justice regarding the marketing/supply of medicines not yet regulated by ANVISA. . Chapter 4 – we will make a brief comparison between the competence of ANVISA and the Superior Court of Justice, in view of their legally defined attributions; . Chapter 5 – conclusion. We will conclude the study in the sense of the need for, despite the judging body playing its role always attentive to the principle of indefeasibility of jurisdiction, the essentiality of paying due homage to the technical judgment, as the essence of the regulatory body, is indispensable.

A multiplicity of cases have reached the STJ, in which there are different solutions given by the ordinary courts to the same question of criminal law, often mitigating the principle of strict legality, which enjoys the status of a fundamental guarantee in a democratic state. So how has the STJ interpreted the principle of legality as applied to criminal law in its precedent-setting decisions? Has the Court of Citizenship relativized the principle of legality? Does it use only the principle of legality or also methods of interpretation, criminal dogmatics, methodological aspects of the descriptive sciences and/or discourses characterized by induction, dialectics and logic to support its decisions qualified as precedents? In order to answer the problem of this research, which will be conducted empirically, it will be based on qualified precedents handed down by the Third Section of the STJ, which will be analyzed taking into account the conception of the principle of legality in the civil law tradition, as well as the insertion in the Brazilian legal system of the institute of stare decisis, which comes from the Norman common law culture. The dissertation is divided into three chapters, in addition to the introduction and conclusion, and evolves from an abstract perspective to a concrete one. In the first and second chapters, the main concepts of the research will be problematized, such as the principle of legality and its fallibility in the face of the complexities caused by the occurrence of new social phenomena. Later, in the second chapter, the main characteristics of common law culture will be discussed, especially stare decisis, the definition of which is being shaped and incorporated into the Brazilian legal system. Finally, the strategies used to arrive at the refined base, made up of 26 judgments handed down under the system of repetitive special appeals in the Third Section of the STJ, will be detailed. We will then proceed to diagnose the stance of the STJ, after examining the decisions referred to, which will be done in four blocks, in which the empirical findings reveal the existence of decision-making techniques and strategies that indicate a direction in terms of reasoning.

Understanding how Brazilians, who work in cabotage navigation, historically influenced the preservation of national security, by protecting maritime traffic and marine biodiversity, is the central point of this work. In view of this objective, the proposal presented is to identify which protective measures, through regulatory arrangements mediated with port authorities, public administration, judiciary, regulated and users, can be adopted by the regulatory agency of Brazilian waterway transport - ANTAQ, for the increase in training, qualification and number of Brazilian seafarer crew

The National Council of Justice (CNJ) was established as a control body of the Judiciary, with the competence to oversee the administrative and financial performance of courts and the fulfillment of judges' duties. Composed of fifteen members with fixed terms, the CNJ has financial, administrative, functional, and decision-making autonomy, making it a regulatory body for judicial activities. One of the ways to exercise this regulation is through the issuance of resolutions, which have been recognized by the Supreme Court as primary normative acts, i.e., with the force of law. Since its inception, the CNJ has issued hundreds of resolutions. Given the importance of these norms, the research problem arises: what does the CNJ regulate? The general objective of this study was to map the normative activity of the National Council of Justice through an analysis of all resolutions issued by the body from 2005 to 2023. The quantities of resolutions issued and revised over time, the themes addressed by the CNJ, the number of resolutions with and without efficacy, and those subject to Supreme Court review were traced. The resolutions were also analyzed and classified according to a structured analysis model divided into 3 broad areas and 16 subfunctions, providing an overview of the CNJ's activities. It was found that, although most normative acts are focused on judicial administration, the CNJ also establishes rules and procedures related to the adjudication of cases, regulating not only the means but also the ends of judicial activity. A significant activity in the area of public policies was identified, promoting measures in favor of vulnerable and minority groups, evidencing a social responsibility agenda. Norms that dialogue with Sunshine regulation were also identified, notably benchmarking and "name and shame," through policies of rewarding good practices and disclosing results, highlighting the most and least efficient courts.

The work investigates the position of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in the analysis of public policies to face the Covid-19 pandemic that were judicialized, considering the special moment of crisis and the peculiar brazilian context, marked by the Federal Constitution of 1988, with the objective of verifying whether and to what extent the Court is intrusive, determining the correction of the route initially traced by the national Executive Powers, or self-contained, safeguarding a space of political choices for public managers. To answer this question, a census diagnosis of 303 decisions of the Court was carried out, applying the variables 'deference for the speech', 'deference for the result' and 'deference for the breadth of control', forged by Jordão and Cabral Junior in a work of 2018, which was configured as the theoretical-methodological framework of the present research. For the treatment of the research object, the work is divided into three chapters. In the first chapter, the theoretical bases on deference, activism, self-restraint, public policies and crisis jurisprudence were launched, concepts that supported the empirical approach. In the second chapter, the methodological focus is detailed, justifying the choices that led to the structuring of the database. In the third and last chapter, the empirical findings were problematized, revealing the existence of decision-making techniques and strategies, such as the instrumentalization of procedural obstacles and the majority judgment for monocratic decisions. It also demonstrates the impact of administrative procedures on judicial deference and launches perspectives and theoretical suggestions both for carrying out research on the doctrine of deference in Superior Courts, and for informed and rational judicial review of political choices, agreeing it is known that the decision-making practice of the STJ regarding public policies to combat Covid-19 can be classified as moderate deference.

This study aims to explore the profile of incarcerated women, focusing specifically on pregnant women and mothers of dependent children, and analyze the response of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in handling their requests for release and house arrest during the COVID-19 pandemic. By examining the legislative and jurisprudential history, conducting empirical research, and amplifying the voices of women involved in this struggle, this study seeks to unveil the STJ's performance and approach concerning these requests. The investigation reveals a concerning resistance by the STJ in granting release to mothers and pregnant women, as it fails to comply strictly with the principles outlined in key legal and jurisprudential documents, including the "Bangkok Rules," collective HC n. 143.641/SP of the STF, art. 318-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Recommendation n. 62 of March 17, 2020, of the CNJ. The study exposes the persistence of gender stereotypes that continue to influence the analyzed decisions, even in the midst of the global health crisis. These stereotypes perpetuate the notion of deviant motherhood and subject women involved in criminal activity to a dual judgment, exacerbating the disproportionate harm they face, particularly in the context of the so-called war on drugs, where drug trafficking is a primary focus of this research.

The research problem of this master's thesis consists in investigating whether the principle of fraternity has applicability within the scope of relations between the State Powers, and, with or without room for this principled incidence, what are the consequences for the exercise of state economic regulation. As a hypothesis, we understand that harmony among powers will not be obtained by the free exercise of equal powers (binomial "freedom and equality"), but in a context of fraternal constitutionalism, in which independence is performed from the perspective of the ethics of otherness ( fraternity). In this sense, we seek to find fraternal ethics in the exercise of state power, in the dialogical understanding of a functional communitarian exercise of State Powers. In order to prove the hypothesis proposed for the research problem, this dissertation will have three distinct parts: (a) it will present the classic formulation of the principle of separation of powers, getting its basic assumptions of applicability and already demonstrating in them the presence of an idea of alterity; (b) the current insertion of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers in fraternal constitutionalism; (c) the consequences of the incidence of the principle of fraternity in the context of relations between State Powers for the exercise of economic regulation power. Within our itinerary, we will start from the classic demonstration of the separation of powers, identifying in it the presence of a fraternal ideology, especially in the communitarian exercise of functional prerogatives between the powers. In a second moment, we will demonstrate that there is a need for the powers (or functions) of the State to exercise their prerogatives in a fraternal environment, especially when the practice of a typical function directly and drastically affects the typical functions of another power. In this context, we will give an example involving the fiscal health of the Brazilian State, and the risk that paradigmatic judicial processes have represented for the execution and construction of public policies by the Executive and Legislative powers. Finally, in the third chapter, within the regulatory power of the State, we will find in the principle (or in the exercise) of deference an example that seems to us very characteristic of a fraternal ambience for the principle of separation of powers. In the end, we will defend the hypothesis that the exercise of state functions needs to be developed in an environment informed by the principle of fraternity, and regulatory technical issues are shown as a positive example in the context of this fraternal constitutionalism, within which the classic understanding of separation of powers is reread.

This dissertation provides a comprehensive overview of the functioning of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), with a particular focus on elucidating the procedural path of the Special Appeal within the Court. Additionally, delves into discussions concerning the Judgment of Conformity, Judgment of Admissibility, and Judgment of Merit of the Special Appeal, encompassing a detailed enumeration and explanation of the admissibility requirements for both the Special Appeal and the Appeal, their purpose, and an examination of the so-called "defensive jurisprudence." The work also presents pertinent statistics reflecting the admissibility judgments carried out by the STJ, within the framework of the "standard jurisprudence" applied by the STJ's Presidency, with the assistance of the Office of Admissibility, Repetitive Appeals, and Relevance of the Presidency – ARP. This study investigates the rationality in the construction of the appeals' admissibility and how the STJ fits within the apex court context. Furthermore, it discusses the concepts of "public" and "private" supreme courts and the system of mixed jurisdiction, resulting from the fusion of civil law and common law, and how this may help the STJ to construct an "Ethics of Requirements," based on the Precedents Ethics proposed by Professor Marinoni, along with the development of a new theoretical paradigm of society's expectation of justice to be delivered by the STJ. Finally, the research's findings and conclusions are presented, addressing the research question: are admissibility requirements heroes or villains?

This work examines the recent trend towards “monocratization” of the Brazilian constitutional jurisdiction, a phenomenon that has been developing in parallel with the consolidation of the institutional role of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), after the re-democratization enshrined in the 1988 Constitution. is to investigate and discuss the phenomena called “monocratization” and “minicracy”. It appears that the number of collegiate decisions is decreasing, to the detriment of the ever-increasing increase in monocratic decisions. It asks, above all, what role to be played by the jurisdictional power in the paradigm of the Democratic State of Law, considering deliberative democracy as an important basis for discussion and deliberation in the decision-making process, and how this fragmentation of the Court has made constitutional jurisdiction more individual and less collegiate. More specifically, the research focuses on the study of data obtained from the STJ and the study of cases referring to the decisions handed down in the last ten years by the 2nd Section of the STJ (3rd and 4th Panels), in the context of the theme referring to the plans of health, which is among the topics most widely distributed by the Superior Court. It is intended to verify the existence of effects of this “monocratization” in the conduct adopted by the ministers of the 2nd Section in the release of their decisions.

This investigation describes the mechanisms through which the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) processes the information contained in its decisions and generates the database used for jurisprudence research. Furthermore, it also outlines the transformations that have occurred in the treatment and provision of jurisprudential information from the establishment of the Court until 2022. The research has a descriptive nature and analyzed primary documents, namely, the annual reports from the unit responsible for organizing and disseminating STJ's jurisprudence from its inception until 2021, the jurisprudence analyst manuals from 1991, 2002, and from 2004 to 2022, the Research Module from 2000, and the annual reports of the Tribunal Federal de Recursos (TFR) from 1980 to 1989. The objective is to contribute to the development of empirical research in Law by providing insights into the creation and maintenance of STJ's jurisprudence database. As a result, it is possible to affirm that the jurisprudence database from the Court isa referential, because the research is carried out on a document called "Espelho do Acórdão", which contains both identifying information about the collegiate decision and extracted content from the full judgment, inserted into fields that generate searchable metadata. The technical-documentary treatment aims to minimize the difference between the full judgment and the abstract ("ementa"), as well as to form a thematic database that portrays all the legal thesis decided by the Court.

Disinformation has gained unimaginable proportions in the midst technological innovations. There is an increasing dependence on social networks. This framework favors the dissemination of fraudulent content, which does not pass through the filters of journalistic standards. In the electoral context, this informational chaos represents a serious threat to democracy, as it interferes in a harmful way in the formation of voters' will. Therefore, the debate on how to regulate the performance of digital platforms gains importance, since, nowadays, the model introduced by the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (Law n. 12.965/2014) proves to be insufficient, unable to contain the phenomenon. The present study proposes to investigate how the Superior Electoral Court acted to face disinformation in the 2022 elections.

The effectiveness of judicial decisions determining the restriction of access to content on the Internet depends not only on the technical-operational conditions of the elements to which they are destined, on achievable parameters in the context of the state order. The absence of these conditions are treated, in this work, as capacity deficits, like those explored by John Braithwaite in his proposal of responsive regulation by networks of agents for developing economies. This dissertation aims at presenting the elements of Braithwaite's theory to overcome capacity deficits, which exist as barriers to the implementation of a responsive regulatory model, and the observation that, based on this model, collaborative networks may be woven in favor of effective state action.

This dissertation makes an ex post analysis of the Repetitive Appeals Law (BRAZIL, 2008), in the light of the Theory of Legislative Argumentation proposed by Manuel Atienza. It begins with the collection of data related to the processing of the Bill - PL nº 1.213/2007 (BRAZIL, 2007), later converted into Law nº 11.678/2008 (BRASIL, 2008), as well as the rescue of the justification presented and the reasons that gave rise to the approval of the text, in order to verify the rationality and reasonableness of the implementation of a new technique of judgments that, at first, brought doctrinal questions about its pertinence, given the Brazilian procedural system. It proceeds with the analysis of the legislation, based on the levels of rationality proposed by Atienza (1989; 1997), to verify whether the issue of excessive litigation and, especially, the expressive procedural collection of the Superior Court of Justice could be resolved through the proposed legislation. . Subsequently, although there are several addressees of the norm, it was decided to discuss the implementation of the Repetitive Appeals Law from the perspective of the Superior Court of Justice, not only because of the declared purpose of the legislation (to reduce its procedural acquis) but , mainly because it is the body that has the constitutional attribution of interpreting the federal law and standardizing its jurisprudence, with emphasis on the use of artificial intelligence tools and the roles of COGEPAC and NUGEPNAC. In order to make this work possible, bibliographic and documental research was used to collect the data and, through the inductive approach method, it was sought to verify if Law nº 11.672/2008, from the correction criteria proposed by Atienza , was endowed with rationality and reasonableness. In the final considerations, it was concluded that the legislative innovation was unreasonable, taking into account that several factors, of extreme importance for the success of the proposal, were not taken into account, summarized as follows: lack of integration of state and regional Courts and their respective judges in the process under development; the deficiency in the legal training of the various legal actors to deal with jurisprudential law; in addition to the absence of means and instruments that could help to increase the new policy (which only came to light almost a decade after the new law was enacted).

It’s undeniable that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the main tool for technological innovation in the 21st Century. Recently, the National Council of Justice (CNJ) launched the Justice 4.0 Program for the development of intelligent systems capable of improving the provision of judicial services in order to guarantee greater transparency, productivity and efficiency, in addition to supporting the implementation of judicial policies. based on evidence for the promotion of human rights. It’s questioned, however, whether the use of AI in the exercise of jurisdictional provision has the potential to help tackle social inequalities or whether, on the contrary, it only has the power to intensify them. The present study aims to investigate the potential (or not) of this extraordinary tool for the jurisdictional control of public policies aimed at reducing inequalities from the perspective of the decision-making technique of the "Unconstitutional State" (ECI), asking if it’s possible to think about systems that, without replacing the fundamental role of the judge, are able to optimize the inter-institutional dialogue, present viable alternatives and/or list the possible practical consequences of the structural measures necessary to overcome a situation of massive violation of fundamental rights. Through a bibliographic review and the deductive method, the research initially brings a multidisciplinary conceptual approach to AI, its applications to Law, brief comments on Resolution CNJ n. 332/2020 and the enumeration of technological tools in use or under development within the Judiciary. In a second moment, the commitment of the Brazilian State to the reduction of inequalities is explained, presenting the characteristics of the decision-making technique of the ECI, its connection with structural injuctions and the perpetuation of structural (and institutional) racism as an example of an unconstitutional state situation. Next, the potential of using AI systems to support the provision of jurisdiction within the scope of the ECI is outlined, given the possibility of developing indicators based on human rights doctrine focused on experiences from the Global South. Finally, it is evaluated whether the hypothesis of AI usefulness for the jurisdictional activity in the ECI is correct in the light of the peculiarities of this decision-making technique.