Search

The legal assessment about the unconstitutional stare decisis is a challenge for The Science of Law. The theme reveals the impossibility of the res iudicata, formal or material, opposes against the Federal Constitution and the difficulties that may eventually come due the principle of legal security and Court surety. Indeed, it is possible in legal terms challenge the judicial decision which conflicts with the State’s highest law. In Brazil, Article 5, XXXVI of the Federal Constitution only protects the intangibility of stare decisis with regard of retroactivity of law which could be review or even reversal individual rights. Nevertheless, if a judicial sentence eroded a constitutional precept, the Brazilian Criminal Procedure Code as also the Code of Civil Procedure, predicts mechanisms to nullify decisions guaranteed by a pronouncement by the Judiciary Power and ends its effects. This article presents the doctrine about this juridical discussion as well as evaluates the available instruments in Comparative Law to attack the immutability of res iudicata contaminated by the worst nullity: the unconstitutionality. In this vein, this text will highlight the jurisprudence of National High Courts to conclude the necessary submission of all state acts —executive, legislative or judicial— to the Constitution, including the stare decisis, which judgments has already been definitively decided and the issue cannot be litigated again. Proclaimed the vertical incompatibility in the face of Lex Magna, the stare decisis must be nullified and operate ex tunc effects as the only way to ensure the normative force of the Constitution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is the first of a series of studies about estoppel in arbitration. Since estoppel is a common law doctrine, we consider the continental law system is not familiar with it, but given the globalization of law and the increasing use of arbitration to solve national and international disputes, a study about it must be made, not only for its theoretical interest but also to be used for the lawyers and arbitrators than might face the doctrine in a case or once they know it, they could eventually apply it. This first research, is the product of the project Interpretation and Application of Private Law that has been carried out by the Study Group on private law in Pontificia Universidad Javeriana. The purpose of the article is to show how in some cases it is possible to allow a third party in a subsequent lawsuit to assert collateral estoppel against one of the arbitral parties, through a new interpretation of that doctrine's elements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]