Confrontation Between Judicial Activism and State of Exception

Abstract

The judiciary has excelled in the international and national scene, reaching role of great importance, thus creating opposition to the legislative and executive powers. The center of gravity of the sovereign power of the state moves toward the judiciary, that happens to have a more active role and controlling of the others powers, but also appears as a great defender of social and fundamental rights causes, seeking to make an effective constitution. Its great public notoriety has attracted great distrust of various sectors of society, especially by the two powers that have an increasing interference. Arises, therefore, a speech that the judiciary would be reversing into a big and uncontrollable power, increasing the suspicion that now it would be living in a real dictatorship of the judiciary through judicial activism. There is a growing concern with the expansion of activism and the role of the judiciary. The purpose of this work is to conceptualize and approach the judicial activism and the state of exception to search and reveal if there is any similarity, to then draw up a possible answer to the concern of forming a dictatorship of the judiciary. The state of exception is one of the rule of law paradoxes, while activism is a political manifestation of the judiciary. The similarity between the institutes appears as appalling in a dynamic expansion of political power of a state institution exercising judicial function, putting in check who would be the sovereign in a rule of law and democratic state.