O reconhecimento de grupos como sujeitos de direitos e o liberalismo igualitário: uma análise a partir dos povos tradicionais brasileiros
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |