Por que mudar? Uma análise da transformação da jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre a prisão civil de depositário infiel e da teoria dos precedentes

Por que uma corte muda seu posicionamento sobre determinado assunto? Esse trabalho objetiva analisar quais seriam as eventuais alegações e razões que acompanham a mudança de um precedente horizontal, quando da ocorrência de mudança de entendimento de um tribunal. Ainda que observando as diferenças na doutrina do stare decisis entre o commom law e o civil law no que tange à vinculação aos precedentes horizontais das Cortes, a pesquisa possui como foco a não aplicação dede um precedente horizontal do Supremo Tribunal Federal - STF sobre depositário infiel e hierarquia normativa de tratados de direitos humanos. Com vistas a analisar e classificar as manifestações dos Ministros, nesse caso em tela, procurou-se um enquadramento que oferecesse uma sistematização das razões mais comuns para uma Corte não seguir um precedente. Para tanto, foram estudados casos em que a Suprema Corte Americana alterou entendimento consolidado em precedentes horizontais e identificados os fundamentos que acompanharam a revogação dos precedentes.

Net Neutrality Compendium: Human Rights, Free Competition and the Future of the Internet

The ways in which Internet traffic is managed have direct consequences on Internet users’ rights as well as on their capability to compete on a level playing field. Network neutrality mandates to treat Internet traffic in a non-discriminatory fashion in order to maximise end users’ freedom and safeguard an open Internet. This book is the result of a collective work aimed at providing deeper insight into what is network neutrality, how does it relates to human rights and free competition and how to properly frame this key issue through sustainable policies and regulations. The Net Neutrality Compendium stems from three years of discussions nurtured by the members of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (DCNN), an open and multistakeholder group, established under the aegis of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

O desafio de reconhecimento do sujeito cego em espaços públicos de representação

This work is funded based on the uneasiness with the concept of State as a public machine for development. Of State as a public machine to deliberate valid practices for valid methods and to limit valid subjects in valid spaces. In midst of this specific context, this work dedicates itself to investigate the following research problem: the mistaken recognition of the blind subject in public spaces of representation. For this reason, it was addressed the following question: how the blind subject is recognized in public spaces of representation? To answer the question, it was necessary to contextualize how the blind subject is being recognized in various public spaces of representation. In the international scope, the human rights debate held between the National States was analyzed (BRAND, 2005; KOERNER, 2002; UN, 2006). In the national arena, constitutional rights, federal laws, public policies and institutions representing the blind subject were examined (CABRAL, 2008; SARAVIA, 2006). Finally, in a local context, the fundaments of the concept of citizen for the subject recognition were investigated (AGAMBEN, 2002; RORTY, 1999, DELEUZE AND GUATTARI, 1996). The methodology included reports of national and international representatives in the Lusophone Countries Meeting for Dissemination and Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and, mainly, interviews with blind subjects. The data was processed by content analysis and was discussed based on the following categories: representation spaces; representation modes; representation amplitude; representation premises. The results show, regarding such spaces of representation, the growing importance of thinking the rights of persons with disabilities ¿ group in which belongs the blind subject ¿ as of the international and national scenario. However, the blind subjects announced alternative local spaces for representation: church, internet, radio, etc. Regarding the representation modes, the role of law and standards has been advocated specially in the human rights field. The importance of the cooperation between the States and the civil society to ensure, in practice, the rights achieved was also emphasized. But other forms of representation, directly linked to each interviewee¿ history, was important. Regarding the representation amplitude, there were arguments in defense of a conception of human dignity and freedom to all inhabitants of the globe. The lusophone event highlighted the concern of the cultural peculiarities of those involved in the meeting. The blind interviewees argued for citizenship as construction of instruments for freedom and autonomy, but recognized that this is not a clear desire between the blind people in general, and even less in society as a whole. With respect to the representation premises, the fundaments for the recognition of the blind subject were based on the primacy of reason at the expense of personal experimentation. Experimentation that serves as the foundation of a new form of recognition of the blind subject in public spaces of representation, one more interested in singularities, impenetrable by reason, unmovable to another, and which are irreducible to each subject. The final considerations suggest that if the State has a reason to be, this is not another than to offer instruments to manifest as many as the existential possibilities of the subject. This is the concept of State for development.