Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2021 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Moura, Gisele Luiza Soares
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Dufloth, Simone Cristina
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Dufloth, Simone Cristina,
Souza, Letícia Godinho de,
Pinto, Luciana Moraes Raso Sardinha,
Garcia, Luciana Silva |
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Fundação João Pinheiro
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Mestrado em Administração Pública
|
| Departamento: |
Escola de Governo Professor Paulo Neves de Carvalho
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://repositorio.fjp.mg.gov.br/handle/tede/603
|
Resumo: |
The Brazilian Court Administration faces critical issues, such as excessive demands and an extremely time-consuming system with little capacity to handle the existing procedural stock. In this context, the present study deals with access to justice and the use of technological solutions in a multi-door scenario. Therefore, it is relevant to think about other ways of dealing with disagreements and about possible ways to resolve them, which include the use of ADR (Appropriate Methods for Dispute Resolution) and ODR (Online Dispute Resolution). This study aims to present the analysis of the contours and the context of access to justice from the perspective of the adoption of self-compositional methods, such as mediation and conciliation, as well as the implementation of technological tools in the scenario of the State Justice from a scenario of multiple ports. Thus, three fronts of execution of the judicial public policy were mapped: the Courts’ CEJUSCs; the body of mediators and conciliators; inst itutions dedicated to resolve conflicts by alternative methods, registered as private chambers in the Courts. The work is justified since the subject is recent, it deals with a public policy, contributes to the science of public administration and law, to the systematization of dispersed information and to the deepening of a topic lacking in literature. Methodologically, we chose to use qualitative and quantitative methods. The quantitative perspective was based on the analysis of data from the 2,732 mediators and conciliators registered on the CNJ platform and the responses obtained in the two questionnaires sent, one for the CEJUSCs and the other for the private chambers. A literature review was carried out, from a qualitative point of view, including bibliographic research, documentary research (including the normative scenario), participation in seminars and courses, nine semi-structured interviews and multiple case studies of five CEJUSCs for further study. The phenomenon observed is heterogeneous in the country in terms of the quantity and distribution of CEJUSCs, private and professional chambers; the offer of conciliation and/or mediation in CEJUSCs; the regulation of the remuneration of facilitators and the free or non-free service at CEJUSCs; the legal nature of private chambers and the methods used by them; the profiles of professionals in terms of qualifications, expectation of remuneration and areas of activity. The incorporation of technology was verified both in CEJUSCs and in the private chambers, in which the ADR methods were transplanted to the digital environment, and in these fully automated initiatives (ODR) were observed. In addition, we also verified the lack of uniformity between the data records and the volume of information available for public consultation on the subject, as well as differences between the preprocedural and procedural sessions and the conciliation and mediation sessions, such as the percentage of agreements, and between the number of scheduled hearings and the amount that actually takes place. It is suggested to deepen the study within each presented front, as well as to carry out an analysis of the agreements concluded in line with the characteristics of the participants and the use of ODR in the private chambers. |
