Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2012 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Brilhante, Igor Aragão
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Araújo, Marcelo Labanca Corrêa de
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Teixeira, Sergio Torres
,
Batista Junior, Edil
|
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Católica de Pernambuco
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Mestrado em Direito
|
| Departamento: |
Direito
|
| País: |
BR
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://tede2.unicap.br:8080/handle/tede/499
|
Resumo: |
The notion of inalienability of public interest has traditionally served to justify the obligation of the public advocate, in claims filed against the State, uncritically exhausted the means of opposition proceedings. This work aims to demonstrate the unsustainability of this paradigm of thoughtless procedural resistance, revealing the fragility of its theoretical foundations and the increasing adverse effects of its practice. It will be demonstrated that, often, it is not the judicial contesting that performs the best public interest. There will be a particular analysis of how certain bureaucratic disfunctions have been functioned as an instrument of manutency of the traditional profile of public advocates's performance. Finally, will be presented and analysed institutional improvements that would eliminate or reduce the excesses that still mark the position of the Executive Branch as judicial defendant |
