FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FROM A TRANSNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: DIALOGUE BETWEEN CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS

Abstract

This article analyzes the phenomenon of judicial dialogue among Constitutional Courts, emphasizing its theoretical foundations, purposes, and contemporary challenges. In a context marked by globalization, interdependence among States, and the increasing circulation of legal arguments and precedents, fundamental rights often demand responses that transcend national borders. The study engages, among others, with Barroso (2019), Neves (2014), Menezes (2019), and Andrade (2018), contrasting the cooperative potential of transconstitutionalism with the risks of uncritical importation of legal models and the reproduction of asymmetries among constitutional orders. The methodology is qualitative, bibliographic, and documentary, based on legal scholarship and judicial decisions concerning inter-court dialogue. The findings indicate that foreign references may increase the argumentative density of judicial decisions and contribute to the protection of fundamental rights, provided that they are contextualized, methodologically explicit, and respectful of each State’s constitutional identity. It is concluded that judicial dialogue may operate as an instrument of horizontal cooperation among distinct legal orders without implying constitutional uniformity or a waiver of national interpretive autonomy.