Structural litigation, destabilization rights and trans-judicial cooperation networks: lessons from comparative constitutional law

This paper intends to present a comparative analysis of practices of structural litigation and reform, exploring the combination of both judicial and extrajudicial agencies, mechanisms and procedures. By specifying a destabilizing function that fundamental rights may take and comparing the reconstructive role that different actors may perform in cooperation, the study advances the hypothesis that thesuccess of structural reforms rely both on the careful design of judicial decrees and revisable monitoring mechanisms (when courts are called upon action) and on the cooperation with trans-judicial agencies, such as administrative organs,the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the Public Defenders’ Offices. The Brazilian experience of judicial review is then placed within a wider context, covering both the American practice of structural injunctions of complex enforcement and akin Latin American experiences.