EFFECTIVENESS, PUBLIC TRUST, AND PROCEDURAL ADEQUACY: FOUNDATIONS FOR A PLURAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Abstract

The increasing complexity of contemporary disputes has exposed the limits of the traditional adjudicatory model in addressing controversies that extend beyond the strictly legal-formal structure of the claim. The rigid delineation of the litigated object by the parties, although safeguarding procedural guarantees and preserving the internal rationality of the proceeding, tends to obscure relational, contextual, and institutional dimensions essential for a comprehensive understanding of the conflict. This article examines the tension between the classical rationality of adjudication and the contemporary demands for effectiveness, democratic legitimacy, and social stability, assessing the need to articulate adjudicatory techniques with consensual mechanisms of dispute resolution. It investigates the extent to which procedural efficiency, understood in an institutional sense, depends on the compatibility between the method employed and the concrete structure of the dispute, and how multi-door systems and dialogic practices enhance the State’s capacity to deliver materially adequate solutions. The research adopts a qualitative theoretical approach and a deductive method, grounded in a systematic review of the literature, in order to identify normative and institutional parameters that guide procedural adequacy in complex conflicts. The findings indicate that the legitimacy and functionality of civil procedure hinge on the capacity to mobilize distinct decision-making techniques in a proportional and context-sensitive manner, overcoming the monolithic logic of adjudication and recognizing method pluralism as a necessary condition for socially stable outcomes that align with the constitutional purposes of jurisdiction.