The judicial practice faces a tension between normative discretion and institutional capacities of the judiciary. It means that there are clarity graduations of the statutory text which can force different specialization levels of the actors responsible for applying the law. Some problems arise from this tension, specially a greater discretion without a proportional specialization. The legal clarity, whose lack can be countered by specialization, reduces problems in relation to an undue discretional power and to jurisprudential dissonance by itself. When the lack of legal clarity is over judicial interpretation, a significant insecurity frame is verified, in order to be surpassed by decisional uniformity mechanisms. Brazil brings examples of significant influence on its jurisdictional practice, as the súmulas, the enunciates, and the binding súmulas (binding summarized decisions). Despite of the resistance presented to the latter, mainly based on the judges' independence, even countries of the Common Law tradition develop new methods. The British Guidelines face the lack of legal clarity problem and promote a decisional consonance situation which supports the idea of Rule of Courts.
Generalist Judge; Normative Clarity; Normative Discretion; Institutional Capacities; Judicial Dissonance
