Constitutional judicial dialogue: international standards and judicial practice

Dialogue between courts is a mechanism for improving modern constitutional jurisdiction. The growth of information in this century has led to complex conflicts, making it difficult to provide a constitutional response solely based on the internal context of the country. Thus, there is a tendency among constitutional judges to look for other experiences to summarize their impasses, dialogical activities, and exchange of legal reasoning between courts, an expression capable of contributing to reducing the discretion of the constitutional interpreter and the protection of fundamental rights.After the thematic detailing, the methodological aspects applicable to these vocalizations are evaluated, explaining in general their conditions, characteristics, modalities, object, hypotheses and objectives, to address in the following topic the assumptions and legitimizing bases of judicial dialogue, to prove how constitutional theory serves as a support for the construction of this network of legal interaction, highlighting, in particular, the perspective of constitutionalism as a dynamic process, the contribution of constitutional hermeneutics, countermajoritarian the position of the Court and the improbability of building a Global Constitution in the world.Finally, we try to systematize judicial dialogues between Constitutional Courts, offering a procedural interpretation of how a foreign judgment can be internalized in the national reality of the Supreme Court, emphasizing the possibility of a step-by-step approach to contextualize constitutional orders inserted in different contexts, mainly using comparison as an interpretive method. In this context, the work is the result of the reflexive organization of the exchange of influences between constitutional judges, who play an essential role in the collaboration of the rationalization and control of power with the exchange of horizontal experiences, given that the dissemination of jurisprudential agreements between constitutional courts are tools capable of reducing the limits of the interpreter’s discretion and protecting fundamental rights that are vulnerable due to the level of rooting of paradoxes and their global projection in constitutional jurisdiction.