The limits of the extraction of abestos in Brazil as a parameter for the current (in)discrimined use of nonotechnologies: between support and legal effectiveness

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Maia, Selmar José
Data de Publicação: 2022
Outros Autores: Engelmann, Wilson
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Scientia Iuris (Online)
DOI: 10.5433/2178-8189.2022v26n2p88-102
Texto Completo: https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/43850
Resumo: This research proposes a bibliographic and jurisprudential analysis of the positive and negative effects that may result from the indiscriminate use of nanotechnologies for public health and the environment, highlighting the role of law through regulated and disconnected self-regulation of dogmatic law, but compromised with the scientific results from the research of the nanotechnologies themselves, especially because this new technological discovery is revolutionizing the means of production on a national and global scale. In addition, it is stressed that the judicialization regarding the effects arising from asbestos, more precisely its results, can help regulating nanotechnologies, mainly because this precedent can be used as a parameter in the case of nano-legal effects in the Brazilian Supreme Court. Thus, it is possible to perceive that the solution would not be the partial or total prohibition through the judiciary, but the clarification of public and private risks that may result from the indiscriminate use of this new technological, as well as pointing out the need to anticipate legal problems and the duty to create criteria for the usage of nano technology in the country.  
id UEL-6_40f58d38765d6e2bd448a5dee5e88591
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/43850
network_acronym_str UEL-6
network_name_str Scientia Iuris (Online)
spelling The limits of the extraction of abestos in Brazil as a parameter for the current (in)discrimined use of nonotechnologies: between support and legal effectivenessOs limites da extração de amianto no Brasil como um parâmetro para o uso (in)discriminado das nonotecnologias na atualidade: entre aporia e efetividade jurídicaLegal decision. Nanotechnology. Risk. Danger. Criteria. Judicial democracy.decisão jurídica; nanotecnologia; risco; perigo; critérios; democracia judicial. This research proposes a bibliographic and jurisprudential analysis of the positive and negative effects that may result from the indiscriminate use of nanotechnologies for public health and the environment, highlighting the role of law through regulated and disconnected self-regulation of dogmatic law, but compromised with the scientific results from the research of the nanotechnologies themselves, especially because this new technological discovery is revolutionizing the means of production on a national and global scale. In addition, it is stressed that the judicialization regarding the effects arising from asbestos, more precisely its results, can help regulating nanotechnologies, mainly because this precedent can be used as a parameter in the case of nano-legal effects in the Brazilian Supreme Court. Thus, it is possible to perceive that the solution would not be the partial or total prohibition through the judiciary, but the clarification of public and private risks that may result from the indiscriminate use of this new technological, as well as pointing out the need to anticipate legal problems and the duty to create criteria for the usage of nano technology in the country.  A presente pesquisa propõe uma análise bibliográfica e jurisprudencial acerca dos efeitos positivos e negativos que poderão resultar do uso indiscriminado das nanotecnologias para a saúde pública e ao meio ambiente, destacando o papel do direito através de uma autorregulação regulada e desconectada do direito dogmático, mas comprometida com os resultados científicos advindos das pesquisas das próprias nanotecnologias, mormente porque essa nova descoberta tecnológica está revolucionando os meios de produção em escala nacional e mundial. Ademais, destaca-se que a judicialização quanto aos efeitos oriundos dos asbestos, mais precisamente acerca dos resultados do amianto, pode ajudar na regulação das nanotecnologias, principalmente porque esse precedente poderá ser usado como parâmetro no caso dos efeitos nanojurídicos na Suprema Corte brasileira. Em aportes finais, é possível perceber que a solução não seria a proibição parcial ou total por meio do judiciário, mas o aclaramento dos riscos públicos e privados que poderão resultar do uso indiscriminado dessa nova descoberta tecnológica, além de apontar a necessidade de antever problemas jurídicos e do dever de se criar critérios para uso da tecnologia nano no país.    Universidade Estadual de Londrina2022-09-21info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArtigo avaliado pelos Paresapplication/pdfhttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/4385010.5433/2178-8189.2022v26n2p88-102Scientia Iuris; v. 26 n. 2 (2022); 88-1022178-81891415-6490reponame:Scientia Iuris (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)instacron:UELporhttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/43850/47764Copyright (c) 2022 Scientia Iurishttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMaia, Selmar JoséEngelmann, Wilson2023-01-26T20:19:52Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/43850Revistahttps://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iurisPUBhttps://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/oairevistamdireito@uel.br2178-81891415-6490opendoar:2023-01-26T20:19:52Scientia Iuris (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv The limits of the extraction of abestos in Brazil as a parameter for the current (in)discrimined use of nonotechnologies: between support and legal effectiveness
Os limites da extração de amianto no Brasil como um parâmetro para o uso (in)discriminado das nonotecnologias na atualidade: entre aporia e efetividade jurídica
title The limits of the extraction of abestos in Brazil as a parameter for the current (in)discrimined use of nonotechnologies: between support and legal effectiveness
spellingShingle The limits of the extraction of abestos in Brazil as a parameter for the current (in)discrimined use of nonotechnologies: between support and legal effectiveness
The limits of the extraction of abestos in Brazil as a parameter for the current (in)discrimined use of nonotechnologies: between support and legal effectiveness
Maia, Selmar José
Legal decision. Nanotechnology. Risk. Danger. Criteria. Judicial democracy.
decisão jurídica; nanotecnologia; risco; perigo; critérios; democracia judicial.
Maia, Selmar José
Legal decision. Nanotechnology. Risk. Danger. Criteria. Judicial democracy.
decisão jurídica; nanotecnologia; risco; perigo; critérios; democracia judicial.
title_short The limits of the extraction of abestos in Brazil as a parameter for the current (in)discrimined use of nonotechnologies: between support and legal effectiveness
title_full The limits of the extraction of abestos in Brazil as a parameter for the current (in)discrimined use of nonotechnologies: between support and legal effectiveness
title_fullStr The limits of the extraction of abestos in Brazil as a parameter for the current (in)discrimined use of nonotechnologies: between support and legal effectiveness
The limits of the extraction of abestos in Brazil as a parameter for the current (in)discrimined use of nonotechnologies: between support and legal effectiveness
title_full_unstemmed The limits of the extraction of abestos in Brazil as a parameter for the current (in)discrimined use of nonotechnologies: between support and legal effectiveness
The limits of the extraction of abestos in Brazil as a parameter for the current (in)discrimined use of nonotechnologies: between support and legal effectiveness
title_sort The limits of the extraction of abestos in Brazil as a parameter for the current (in)discrimined use of nonotechnologies: between support and legal effectiveness
author Maia, Selmar José
author_facet Maia, Selmar José
Maia, Selmar José
Engelmann, Wilson
Engelmann, Wilson
author_role author
author2 Engelmann, Wilson
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Maia, Selmar José
Engelmann, Wilson
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Legal decision. Nanotechnology. Risk. Danger. Criteria. Judicial democracy.
decisão jurídica; nanotecnologia; risco; perigo; critérios; democracia judicial.
topic Legal decision. Nanotechnology. Risk. Danger. Criteria. Judicial democracy.
decisão jurídica; nanotecnologia; risco; perigo; critérios; democracia judicial.
description This research proposes a bibliographic and jurisprudential analysis of the positive and negative effects that may result from the indiscriminate use of nanotechnologies for public health and the environment, highlighting the role of law through regulated and disconnected self-regulation of dogmatic law, but compromised with the scientific results from the research of the nanotechnologies themselves, especially because this new technological discovery is revolutionizing the means of production on a national and global scale. In addition, it is stressed that the judicialization regarding the effects arising from asbestos, more precisely its results, can help regulating nanotechnologies, mainly because this precedent can be used as a parameter in the case of nano-legal effects in the Brazilian Supreme Court. Thus, it is possible to perceive that the solution would not be the partial or total prohibition through the judiciary, but the clarification of public and private risks that may result from the indiscriminate use of this new technological, as well as pointing out the need to anticipate legal problems and the duty to create criteria for the usage of nano technology in the country.  
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-09-21
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Artigo avaliado pelos Pares
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/43850
10.5433/2178-8189.2022v26n2p88-102
url https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/43850
identifier_str_mv 10.5433/2178-8189.2022v26n2p88-102
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/iuris/article/view/43850/47764
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2022 Scientia Iuris
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2022 Scientia Iuris
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Londrina
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Londrina
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scientia Iuris; v. 26 n. 2 (2022); 88-102
2178-8189
1415-6490
reponame:Scientia Iuris (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)
instacron:UEL
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)
instacron_str UEL
institution UEL
reponame_str Scientia Iuris (Online)
collection Scientia Iuris (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Scientia Iuris (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv revistamdireito@uel.br
_version_ 1822182884222435328
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv 10.5433/2178-8189.2022v26n2p88-102

Registros relacionados