THE ATTRIBUTIVE BILATERALITY IN JUDICIAL ACTIVISM BEFORE THE SUPREME FEDERAL COURT - JUDICIAL ACTIVISM VERSUS LEGAL PURISM, AN ATTEMPT TO DESCRIBE THE CONCEPT OF ATTRIBUTIVE BILATERALITY

Abstract

This composition is intended to analyze the application of attributive bilaterality in Judicial Activism, observing the dictates and directives of Kelsen's teachings, in order not only to understand the effectiveness of the intersubjective pillars that he instrumentalized, but to enable the perspective of Activism practiced by the Supreme Court, in order to designate the duty-to-be before the rise of the concept of justice. Moreover, the implementing guidelines of Hans Kelsen are necessary in the light of the coercible imperativeness demonstrated by the theory of attributive bilaterality as a way to make explicit the logical essence of the norm through reason and positivist principles, through the dictates of Kelsen's theory and the idea of Kantian morality. Therefore, the perspective of a rupture of the social utopia of justice, as well as the transmutability of the concept of morality and law, and thus the visibility of conduits administered by the Legislative Power and activism in a cultural sphere, is proposed. In this context, the admissibility of the Imperium of the theory of attributive bilaterality was demonstrated, in order to ascertain the interpretation of Kelsen's assumptions. Given that, it was affirmed that the judicial activism corresponds to the idealizations referenced by attributive bilaterality, not only in the intersubjective aspect but also to the conception of social identity, driven by the power of duty-to-be, since reality - whether legal or not - and the structuring of norms, is exercised through the axiom of Attributive Bilateral Theory.