The good from the perspective of environmental law and civil law: an irreconcilable dichotomy?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2011 |
Outros Autores: | |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/article/view/1518 |
Resumo: | This article aims to demonstrate the old dichotomy between public law and private law concerning the environmental good, as well as to common use, which is currently considered by the doctrine, diffuse goods, so it’s the right of everybody, as set out at art. 225 of the Constitution this way, the Civil Law in its article. 1228, incorporates a constitutional vision in finding that the property should be exercised in accordance with the purposes of economic, social and especially in regard to environmental legislation. But while at it’s art. 99, paragraph I states that environmental goods have the legal nature of public law, being inadequate, in a view of the current constitutional reality. The practical implications, the framework of the environmental good as a public good, would be the risk of the asset, be unaffected and free trade, or rather, the legislature in an attempt to protect these assets, provides in art. 100, CC, that “the public goods of common use and special use are inalienable, and while this qualification”, so this article protect and unprotect as these assets can be transformed into goods and consequently affected Sunday. It further implies that Brazilian society is restricted in its much larger: the environmental good, which is considered as a right to quality of life. This can not be without. |
id |
UNICEUB-3_8cdffdb28204a90a5e1868e81ae0fa3b |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:oai.uniceub.emnuvens.com.br:article/1518 |
network_acronym_str |
UNICEUB-3 |
network_name_str |
Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
The good from the perspective of environmental law and civil law: an irreconcilable dichotomy? O bem sob a ótica do direito ambiental e do direito civil: uma dicotomia irreconciliável? This article aims to demonstrate the old dichotomy between public law and private law concerning the environmental good, as well as to common use, which is currently considered by the doctrine, diffuse goods, so it’s the right of everybody, as set out at art. 225 of the Constitution this way, the Civil Law in its article. 1228, incorporates a constitutional vision in finding that the property should be exercised in accordance with the purposes of economic, social and especially in regard to environmental legislation. But while at it’s art. 99, paragraph I states that environmental goods have the legal nature of public law, being inadequate, in a view of the current constitutional reality. The practical implications, the framework of the environmental good as a public good, would be the risk of the asset, be unaffected and free trade, or rather, the legislature in an attempt to protect these assets, provides in art. 100, CC, that “the public goods of common use and special use are inalienable, and while this qualification”, so this article protect and unprotect as these assets can be transformed into goods and consequently affected Sunday. It further implies that Brazilian society is restricted in its much larger: the environmental good, which is considered as a right to quality of life. This can not be without.Este artigo tem como objetivo demonstrar a antiga dicotomia entre direito público e direito privado concernente ao bem ambiental, como bem de uso comum do povo, o qual atualmente é considerado, por parte da doutrina, bem difuso, portanto direito de todos, como estabelece o art. 225 da Constituição Federal (CF). Dessa forma, o Direito Civil em seu art. 1.228 incorpora uma visão constitucional ao considerar que a propriedade deve ser exercida em consonância com as finalidades econômicas, sociais e especialmente em respeito à legislação ambiental. Mas ao mesmo tempo em seu art. 99, inciso I, estabelece que os bens ambientais têm natureza jurídica de direito público, não se adequando, portanto, à realidade constitucional vigente. As implicações práticas, pelo enquadramento do bem ambiental como um bem público, seriam o risco desse bem ser desafetado e de livre comércio, ou melhor, o legislador, na tentativa de resguardar esses bens, estabelece no art. 100, do Código Civil, que “os bens públicos de uso comum do povo e os de uso especial são inalienáveis, enquanto conservarem essa qualificação”, de forma que protege e desprotege, porque esses bens podem ser transformados em bens dominicais e consequentemente desafetados. Implica ainda que a sociedade brasileira seja cerceada de seu bem maior: o bem ambiental, que é considerado como direito à vida com qualidade. Disso não se pode prescindir.UniCEUBCosta, Beatriz SouzaRezende, Elcio Nacur2011-09-15info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/article/view/151810.5102/rbpp.v1i3.1518Brazilian Journal of Public Policy; v. 1, n. 3 (2011); 43-70Revista Brasileña de Políticas Públicas; v. 1, n. 3 (2011); 43-70Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas; v. 1, n. 3 (2011); 43-702236-16772179-8338reponame:Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online)instname:Centro de Ensino de Brasília (UNICEUB)instacron:UNICEUBporhttps://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/article/view/1518/1479info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2018-12-18T22:50:06Zoai:oai.uniceub.emnuvens.com.br:article/1518Revistahttp://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/index.php/RBPPPRIhttps://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/oaiatendimento.seer@uniceub.br||rbppuniceub@gmail.com|| prisqua@gmail.com|| marcelodvarella@gmail.com2236-16772179-8338opendoar:2018-12-18T22:50:06Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online) - Centro de Ensino de Brasília (UNICEUB)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The good from the perspective of environmental law and civil law: an irreconcilable dichotomy? O bem sob a ótica do direito ambiental e do direito civil: uma dicotomia irreconciliável? |
title |
The good from the perspective of environmental law and civil law: an irreconcilable dichotomy? |
spellingShingle |
The good from the perspective of environmental law and civil law: an irreconcilable dichotomy? Costa, Beatriz Souza |
title_short |
The good from the perspective of environmental law and civil law: an irreconcilable dichotomy? |
title_full |
The good from the perspective of environmental law and civil law: an irreconcilable dichotomy? |
title_fullStr |
The good from the perspective of environmental law and civil law: an irreconcilable dichotomy? |
title_full_unstemmed |
The good from the perspective of environmental law and civil law: an irreconcilable dichotomy? |
title_sort |
The good from the perspective of environmental law and civil law: an irreconcilable dichotomy? |
author |
Costa, Beatriz Souza |
author_facet |
Costa, Beatriz Souza Rezende, Elcio Nacur |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Rezende, Elcio Nacur |
author2_role |
author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Costa, Beatriz Souza Rezende, Elcio Nacur |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
|
description |
This article aims to demonstrate the old dichotomy between public law and private law concerning the environmental good, as well as to common use, which is currently considered by the doctrine, diffuse goods, so it’s the right of everybody, as set out at art. 225 of the Constitution this way, the Civil Law in its article. 1228, incorporates a constitutional vision in finding that the property should be exercised in accordance with the purposes of economic, social and especially in regard to environmental legislation. But while at it’s art. 99, paragraph I states that environmental goods have the legal nature of public law, being inadequate, in a view of the current constitutional reality. The practical implications, the framework of the environmental good as a public good, would be the risk of the asset, be unaffected and free trade, or rather, the legislature in an attempt to protect these assets, provides in art. 100, CC, that “the public goods of common use and special use are inalienable, and while this qualification”, so this article protect and unprotect as these assets can be transformed into goods and consequently affected Sunday. It further implies that Brazilian society is restricted in its much larger: the environmental good, which is considered as a right to quality of life. This can not be without. |
publishDate |
2011 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2011-09-15 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/article/view/1518 10.5102/rbpp.v1i3.1518 |
url |
https://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/article/view/1518 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.5102/rbpp.v1i3.1518 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/article/view/1518/1479 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
UniCEUB |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
UniCEUB |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Brazilian Journal of Public Policy; v. 1, n. 3 (2011); 43-70 Revista Brasileña de Políticas Públicas; v. 1, n. 3 (2011); 43-70 Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas; v. 1, n. 3 (2011); 43-70 2236-1677 2179-8338 reponame:Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online) instname:Centro de Ensino de Brasília (UNICEUB) instacron:UNICEUB |
instname_str |
Centro de Ensino de Brasília (UNICEUB) |
instacron_str |
UNICEUB |
institution |
UNICEUB |
reponame_str |
Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online) |
collection |
Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online) - Centro de Ensino de Brasília (UNICEUB) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
atendimento.seer@uniceub.br||rbppuniceub@gmail.com|| prisqua@gmail.com|| marcelodvarella@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1798328490506846208 |