The Leviathan sailing on the waves of consensuality:

Decrypting the national judicial policy for the proper handling of conflicts

Abstract

Is the judiciary in crisis? The aim of this research is to decrypt the consensual methods of dispute resolution, based on the theoretical and methodological framework of the Theory of the Encryption of Power and on empirical research, with the compilation and analysis of secondary data published in the Justice in Numbers Report of the National Council of Justice (CNJ). Throughout the research, it was identified that the emergence of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) movement or Appropriate Methods of Dispute Resolution (MARC) is linked to the expansion of neoliberal politics as a result of globalization and, since law is a channel of coloniality, the institutionalization of these methods was based on theargument of the crisis in the judiciary, based on efficiency criteria, as a rhetorical foundation that masks a new world configuration in which the state, whose sovereignty is porous, has lost its cogent force and has become permeated with market-oriented techniques, including those that aim to depoliticize conflict and create a state of hegemony. Therefore, this research does not seek to analyze the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of this movement, but rather to propose a reflection on the discourse that has supported the promotion of consensual methods in
opposition to the judicial activity of the State, contributing to the understanding of consensus on the plane of contingency and not immanence, and thus to the discussion being based on the procedure as a space for the expression of immanent difference, either for the formation of consensus or for the formation of dissent.