116 / 308
R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 19, n. 75, p. 96 - 130, jul. - set. 2016
116
cou seu posicionamento em
The History of an Idea
. Nessa oportunidade,
Fiss, após salientar que “the purpose of adjudication is not the resolution
of a dispute, not to produce peace, but rather justice”, lecionou que:
"The bargaining that normally takes place between litigants
- characterized, as I then assumed, by the pursuit of self-in-
terest, imbalances of material resources, inequalities of in-
formation, and strategic behavior - has no connection to jus-
tice whatsoever. It is obviously not constitutive of justice, nor
is it much of an instrument for achieving justice. On occasion,
bargaining might produce a just outcome, just as the judicial
process might sometimes fail and produce an unjust outcome.
But there is no reason to presume that the outcome of the bar-
gaining process -a settlement - is just. All we can presume of a
settlement is that it produces peace - often a very fragile and
temporary peace - and although peace might be a precondi-
tion for the achievement of justice, it is not justice itself."
47
Essas considerações de Fiss ecoaram em diversos juristas de tomo.
É o caso, por exemplo, de Ugo Mattei, para quem
ADR
seria um meca-
nismo instituído à vista de uma situação de emergência artificialmente
forjada com o intuito de mascarar projetos de dominação.
48
Para o Professor da Universidade de Torino, os meios alternativos
são apresentados como a cura para a famigerada
explosão da litigiosida-
de
propagada pelas classes mais abastadas. Acerca desse fenômeno, é
imperioso fazer uma parentética referência a Marc Galanter, autor de um
clássico trabalho no qual se propôs a questionar o senso comum
49
no sen-
tido de que os norte-americanos possuem uma propensão à judicialização
das controvérsias.
47
"The History of an Idea"
, 78
Fordham Law Review
, 2009, p. 1.277.
48
"Emergency-Based Predatory Capitalism: The Rule of Law, Alternative Dispute Resolution, and Development"
.
In
:
Fassin, Didier; Pandolfi, Mariella (orgs.).
Contemporary states of emergency
. New York: Zone Books, 2010. Disponí-
vel em:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1472370. Acesso em: 29.11.2014.
49 “For almost a decade now, there has been increasing concern about the excessive legalization of American so-
ciety. Many observers are convinced that America has suffered a hypertrophy of its legal institutions – manifested
in the presence of too much law, too much lawyers, excessive expenditure on legal services, too much litigation,
an obsessively contentious population enthralled with adversary combat, and an intrusive activist judiciary – and
a concomitant erosion of community, decline of self-relience and atrophy of informal self-regulatory mechanisms”
(
"The day after the litigation explosion"
. 46,
Maryland Law Review
3, 1986, p. 4/5).