Abstract
This article analyzes the judiciary system’s tendency to unify multiple jurisprudences and eventual conflicts with cultural diversity. The judiciary system’s interpretation of laws is interpreted with skepticism, as they might result in derogation of the legislative prerogatives. Critics have gained strength from the actual procedure code’s disposals that made compulsory judiciaries pronounce in state and national levels. The present study investigates how judicial understandings of laws could provide voices to the diversity of cases that might eventually be submitted to the Courts’ analyses. The broad participation of the amicus curiae in each biding case along with the full applicability of atypical procedural agreements should be conceived as an indispensable condition to give plain social validity and maximum effectiveness to the judiciary pronunciation, especially whenever regarding the most fundamentals concepts of the democratic archetypes resembling the main ideas forecasted by the second generation of the Frankfurt Philosophical School, among whom Jürgen Habermas is considered as the field’s most influential author. The present study uses a dialect-inductive methodology to confirm the hypothesis that both state and superior Courts must analyze various juridical divergent theses so that the bindings might not lack social effectiveness, especially by using the amicus curiae’s opinion thoroughly.
Keywords:
Standardization of jurisprudence; Civil procedure code; Legal security; Cultural multiplicity.