O reconhecimento de grupos como sujeitos de direitos e o liberalismo igualitário: uma análise a partir dos povos tradicionais brasileiros

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Lima, Ana Paula Brito Abreu de
Data de Publicação: 2018
Tipo de documento: Tese
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSM
dARK ID: ark:/26339/001300000v4pn
Texto Completo: http://repositorio.ufsm.br/handle/1/18114
Resumo: Far from being a consensus among legal philosophers, political philosophers and jurists around the world, arguments about the group rights today often assume the same character as arguments about the ascription of rights to foetuses, dead or future generations or non-human animals. In each of these cases, the central issue is whether we should allow that the relevant entity has the moral standing to bear rights. The fact that human rights have become the lingua franca of the international standard entails a tendency to present any significant international standard in that language. Social and collective rights, rights of minorities, among others, are rights listed among human rights, which in turn shows a tendency to consider individuals separately and groups, or social and collective entities, according to the liberal thought, as a sum of individual rights. This tendency hinders the understanding and acceptance of the idea of groups as subjects of rights and, consequently, the attribution of rights to groups in national and international legal practice and in the conduct of public policies. Based on this premise, I seek to defend, from the perspective of egalitarian liberalism, based on Rawls, and not on the neoliberal view, the attribution of rights to groups, considering the group an entity that is not the mere sum of the rights of its members. Groups rights are relevant, even though they're not specifically , despite legal doctrine consider so, human or individual rights. This can be demonstrated by the most emblematic recognition policy in Brazil, that is enshrined in a constitutional provision, Article 68 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT), which states that: "The remnants of quilombo communities occupying their lands shall be recognized as the definitive property, and the state should issue them the titles. " A striking difference of these minority communities lies in their community life form, based on the economics of sharing, as defined by Mauss (1922), or in supportive economy, according to Singer's conception (2018), without the internal advent of private property land, which differentiates them substantially from the majority society in which they are based, based on market economy and private property. The case of the difficulty of granting titles to quilombola communities, which do not have "legal personality", reveals a gap to be filled, in favor of the theoretical admissibility of the group rights, and the impropriety of almost unanimous consideration in the Brazilian legal doctrine of collective rights as the sum of individual rights. Similar to the difficulty of granting titles to quilombola communities, which do not have "legal personality" and which shows a gap to be filled, in favor of the theoretical admissibility of the rights of groups, is the difficulty found in the formal process of recognition of the identity of people, category without consensual definition and without "legal personality". From this impropriety, resulting from the consideration of collective rights as the sum of individual rights, will be presented a proposal of definition of people compatible as what is accepted in international law and the adoption of a theory of group rights, which recognizes rights of self-government to national minorities, such as quilombolas and indigenous peoples, in Brazil, using the concept of self-determination, similarly to what is taken into consideration for national states, together with the principle of solidarity. This principle is used in foreign policy and international relations to prevent the "other" or "others" from being indifferent to the sovereign-ego, or to the national interest, in line with the concept of ICD-International Development Cooperation, which evokes moral precepts such as social justice and solidarity.
id UFSM_d6d02d5cf74350ba18d666c80abe12cd
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.ufsm.br:1/18114
network_acronym_str UFSM
network_name_str Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSM
repository_id_str
spelling O reconhecimento de grupos como sujeitos de direitos e o liberalismo igualitário: uma análise a partir dos povos tradicionais brasileirosThe recognition of groups as rights holders and the egalitarian liberalism: an analysis from brazilian traditional peoplesDireitos de gruposDireitos individuaisLiberalismo igualitárioGroup rightsIndividual rightsEgalitarian liberalismCNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIAFar from being a consensus among legal philosophers, political philosophers and jurists around the world, arguments about the group rights today often assume the same character as arguments about the ascription of rights to foetuses, dead or future generations or non-human animals. In each of these cases, the central issue is whether we should allow that the relevant entity has the moral standing to bear rights. The fact that human rights have become the lingua franca of the international standard entails a tendency to present any significant international standard in that language. Social and collective rights, rights of minorities, among others, are rights listed among human rights, which in turn shows a tendency to consider individuals separately and groups, or social and collective entities, according to the liberal thought, as a sum of individual rights. This tendency hinders the understanding and acceptance of the idea of groups as subjects of rights and, consequently, the attribution of rights to groups in national and international legal practice and in the conduct of public policies. Based on this premise, I seek to defend, from the perspective of egalitarian liberalism, based on Rawls, and not on the neoliberal view, the attribution of rights to groups, considering the group an entity that is not the mere sum of the rights of its members. Groups rights are relevant, even though they're not specifically , despite legal doctrine consider so, human or individual rights. This can be demonstrated by the most emblematic recognition policy in Brazil, that is enshrined in a constitutional provision, Article 68 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT), which states that: "The remnants of quilombo communities occupying their lands shall be recognized as the definitive property, and the state should issue them the titles. " A striking difference of these minority communities lies in their community life form, based on the economics of sharing, as defined by Mauss (1922), or in supportive economy, according to Singer's conception (2018), without the internal advent of private property land, which differentiates them substantially from the majority society in which they are based, based on market economy and private property. The case of the difficulty of granting titles to quilombola communities, which do not have "legal personality", reveals a gap to be filled, in favor of the theoretical admissibility of the group rights, and the impropriety of almost unanimous consideration in the Brazilian legal doctrine of collective rights as the sum of individual rights. Similar to the difficulty of granting titles to quilombola communities, which do not have "legal personality" and which shows a gap to be filled, in favor of the theoretical admissibility of the rights of groups, is the difficulty found in the formal process of recognition of the identity of people, category without consensual definition and without "legal personality". From this impropriety, resulting from the consideration of collective rights as the sum of individual rights, will be presented a proposal of definition of people compatible as what is accepted in international law and the adoption of a theory of group rights, which recognizes rights of self-government to national minorities, such as quilombolas and indigenous peoples, in Brazil, using the concept of self-determination, similarly to what is taken into consideration for national states, together with the principle of solidarity. This principle is used in foreign policy and international relations to prevent the "other" or "others" from being indifferent to the sovereign-ego, or to the national interest, in line with the concept of ICD-International Development Cooperation, which evokes moral precepts such as social justice and solidarity.Longe de ser um consenso entre filósofos do direito, filósofos políticos e juristas em todo o mundo, os argumentos sobre os direitos dos grupos assumem hoje frequentemente o mesmo caráter das questões sobre a atribuição de direitos a fetos, às gerações mortas ou futuras ou a animais não-humanos. Em cada um desses casos, a questão central é se devemos permitir que a entidade em causa tenha a autoridade moral necessária para que seja sujeito de direitos. O fato dos direitos humanos terem-se tornado a língua franca do padrão internacional acarreta uma tendência em se apresentar todo padrão internacional significativo nessa língua. Os direitos sociais e coletivos, direitos das minorias, entre outros, são direitos elencados entre os direitos humanos, o que evidencia, por sua vez, uma tendência a se considerarem os indivíduos separadamente e os grupos, ou entes sociais e coletivos, segundo o pensamento liberal dominante, como uma soma de direitos individuais. Essa tendência dificulta o entendimento e a aceitação da ideia de grupos como sujeitos de direitos e, consequentemente, a atribuição de direitos a grupos na prática jurídica, nacional e internacional, e na condução de políticas públicas. Com base nessa premissa, procuro defender, pela ótica do liberalismo igualitário, baseado em Rawls, e não pela neoliberal, a atribuição de direitos a grupos, coniderando o grupo um ente que não seja a mera soma dos direitos de seus integrantes.Esses direitos de grupos são relevantes, mesmo não sendo especificamente, apesar da doutrina jurídica assim considerar, direitos humanos ou individuais. Essa relevância pode ser demonstrada a partir da política de reconhecimento mais emblemática no Brasil que está consignada em dispositivo constitucional, o Artigo 68 do Ato das Disposições Constitucionais Transitórias (ADCT), o qual diz que: “Aos remanescentes das comunidades dos quilombos que estejam ocupando suas terras é reconhecida a propriedade definitiva, devendo o Estado emitir-lhes os respectivos títulos”. Uma diferença marcante dessas comunidades minoritárias está em sua forma de vida comunitária, baseada na economia do compartilhamento, conforme a definição de Mauss (1922), ou na economia solidária, segundo a concepção de Singer (2018), sem o advento, internamente, da propriedade privada da terra, que as diferenciam substancialmente da sociedade majoritária na qual estão inseridas, baseada na economia de mercado e na propriedade privada. O caso da dificuldade de outorga de títulos às comunidades quilombolas, que não têm "personalidade jurídica", evidencia uma lacuna a ser preenchida, em favor da admissibilidade teórica dos direitos de grupos, e da impropriedade da consideração majoritária na doutrina jurídica brasileira de direitos coletivos como sendo a soma de direitos individuais. Caso semelhante ao da dificuldade de outorga de títulos às comunidades quilombolas, que não têm "personalidade jurídica" e que evidencia uma lacuna a ser preenchida, em favor da admissibilidade teórica dos direitos de grupos, é a dificuldade encontrado no processo formal de reconhecimento da identidade de povos, categoria sem definição consensual e sem "personalidade jurídica". A partir de mais esta impropriedade, resultante da consideração de direitos coletivos como a soma de direitos individuais, será apresentada uma proposta de definição de povo condizente com o que se aceita no direito internacional e a adoção de uma teoria de direitos de grupos que reconheça direito de autogoverno às minorias nacionais, ou povos tradicionais, como quilombolas e indígenas, no Brasil, utilizando o conceito de autodeterminação, analogamente ao que se adota em consideração aos estados nacionais, aliados ao princípio da solidariedade. Esse princípio é empregado em política externa e relações internacionais para impedir que "o outro" ou "os outros" sejam indiferentes ao interesse nacional, em consonância com o conceito de CID-Cooperação Internacional para o Desenvolvimento, que evoca preceitos morais como justiça social e solidariedade.Universidade Federal de Santa MariaBrasilFilosofiaUFSMPrograma de Pós-Graduação em FilosofiaCentro de Ciências Sociais e HumanasSautter, Frank Thomashttp://lattes.cnpq.br/2804652028967760Froehlich, Charles Andradehttp://lattes.cnpq.br/8909098378595189Bedin, Gilmar Antoniohttp://lattes.cnpq.br/0553982956028307Missaggia, Juliana Oliveirahttp://lattes.cnpq.br/0477980802909030Corrêa, Rogério Fabianne Saucedohttp://lattes.cnpq.br/2743121284935177Lima, Ana Paula Brito Abreu de2019-09-02T17:43:36Z2019-09-02T17:43:36Z2018-03-16info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesisapplication/pdfhttp://repositorio.ufsm.br/handle/1/18114ark:/26339/001300000v4pnporAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSMinstname:Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)instacron:UFSM2019-09-03T06:02:59Zoai:repositorio.ufsm.br:1/18114Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertaçõeshttps://repositorio.ufsm.br/ONGhttps://repositorio.ufsm.br/oai/requestatendimento.sib@ufsm.br||tedebc@gmail.comopendoar:2019-09-03T06:02:59Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv O reconhecimento de grupos como sujeitos de direitos e o liberalismo igualitário: uma análise a partir dos povos tradicionais brasileiros
The recognition of groups as rights holders and the egalitarian liberalism: an analysis from brazilian traditional peoples
title O reconhecimento de grupos como sujeitos de direitos e o liberalismo igualitário: uma análise a partir dos povos tradicionais brasileiros
spellingShingle O reconhecimento de grupos como sujeitos de direitos e o liberalismo igualitário: uma análise a partir dos povos tradicionais brasileiros
Lima, Ana Paula Brito Abreu de
Direitos de grupos
Direitos individuais
Liberalismo igualitário
Group rights
Individual rights
Egalitarian liberalism
CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIA
title_short O reconhecimento de grupos como sujeitos de direitos e o liberalismo igualitário: uma análise a partir dos povos tradicionais brasileiros
title_full O reconhecimento de grupos como sujeitos de direitos e o liberalismo igualitário: uma análise a partir dos povos tradicionais brasileiros
title_fullStr O reconhecimento de grupos como sujeitos de direitos e o liberalismo igualitário: uma análise a partir dos povos tradicionais brasileiros
title_full_unstemmed O reconhecimento de grupos como sujeitos de direitos e o liberalismo igualitário: uma análise a partir dos povos tradicionais brasileiros
title_sort O reconhecimento de grupos como sujeitos de direitos e o liberalismo igualitário: uma análise a partir dos povos tradicionais brasileiros
author Lima, Ana Paula Brito Abreu de
author_facet Lima, Ana Paula Brito Abreu de
author_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Sautter, Frank Thomas
http://lattes.cnpq.br/2804652028967760
Froehlich, Charles Andrade
http://lattes.cnpq.br/8909098378595189
Bedin, Gilmar Antonio
http://lattes.cnpq.br/0553982956028307
Missaggia, Juliana Oliveira
http://lattes.cnpq.br/0477980802909030
Corrêa, Rogério Fabianne Saucedo
http://lattes.cnpq.br/2743121284935177
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Lima, Ana Paula Brito Abreu de
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Direitos de grupos
Direitos individuais
Liberalismo igualitário
Group rights
Individual rights
Egalitarian liberalism
CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIA
topic Direitos de grupos
Direitos individuais
Liberalismo igualitário
Group rights
Individual rights
Egalitarian liberalism
CNPQ::CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIA
description Far from being a consensus among legal philosophers, political philosophers and jurists around the world, arguments about the group rights today often assume the same character as arguments about the ascription of rights to foetuses, dead or future generations or non-human animals. In each of these cases, the central issue is whether we should allow that the relevant entity has the moral standing to bear rights. The fact that human rights have become the lingua franca of the international standard entails a tendency to present any significant international standard in that language. Social and collective rights, rights of minorities, among others, are rights listed among human rights, which in turn shows a tendency to consider individuals separately and groups, or social and collective entities, according to the liberal thought, as a sum of individual rights. This tendency hinders the understanding and acceptance of the idea of groups as subjects of rights and, consequently, the attribution of rights to groups in national and international legal practice and in the conduct of public policies. Based on this premise, I seek to defend, from the perspective of egalitarian liberalism, based on Rawls, and not on the neoliberal view, the attribution of rights to groups, considering the group an entity that is not the mere sum of the rights of its members. Groups rights are relevant, even though they're not specifically , despite legal doctrine consider so, human or individual rights. This can be demonstrated by the most emblematic recognition policy in Brazil, that is enshrined in a constitutional provision, Article 68 of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT), which states that: "The remnants of quilombo communities occupying their lands shall be recognized as the definitive property, and the state should issue them the titles. " A striking difference of these minority communities lies in their community life form, based on the economics of sharing, as defined by Mauss (1922), or in supportive economy, according to Singer's conception (2018), without the internal advent of private property land, which differentiates them substantially from the majority society in which they are based, based on market economy and private property. The case of the difficulty of granting titles to quilombola communities, which do not have "legal personality", reveals a gap to be filled, in favor of the theoretical admissibility of the group rights, and the impropriety of almost unanimous consideration in the Brazilian legal doctrine of collective rights as the sum of individual rights. Similar to the difficulty of granting titles to quilombola communities, which do not have "legal personality" and which shows a gap to be filled, in favor of the theoretical admissibility of the rights of groups, is the difficulty found in the formal process of recognition of the identity of people, category without consensual definition and without "legal personality". From this impropriety, resulting from the consideration of collective rights as the sum of individual rights, will be presented a proposal of definition of people compatible as what is accepted in international law and the adoption of a theory of group rights, which recognizes rights of self-government to national minorities, such as quilombolas and indigenous peoples, in Brazil, using the concept of self-determination, similarly to what is taken into consideration for national states, together with the principle of solidarity. This principle is used in foreign policy and international relations to prevent the "other" or "others" from being indifferent to the sovereign-ego, or to the national interest, in line with the concept of ICD-International Development Cooperation, which evokes moral precepts such as social justice and solidarity.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-03-16
2019-09-02T17:43:36Z
2019-09-02T17:43:36Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis
format doctoralThesis
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://repositorio.ufsm.br/handle/1/18114
dc.identifier.dark.fl_str_mv ark:/26339/001300000v4pn
url http://repositorio.ufsm.br/handle/1/18114
identifier_str_mv ark:/26339/001300000v4pn
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Santa Maria
Brasil
Filosofia
UFSM
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia
Centro de Ciências Sociais e Humanas
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Federal de Santa Maria
Brasil
Filosofia
UFSM
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia
Centro de Ciências Sociais e Humanas
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSM
instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)
instacron:UFSM
instname_str Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)
instacron_str UFSM
institution UFSM
reponame_str Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSM
collection Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSM
repository.name.fl_str_mv Manancial - Repositório Digital da UFSM - Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv atendimento.sib@ufsm.br||tedebc@gmail.com
_version_ 1815172399733145600