Structural challenges in a multipolar and multicultural global legal era : BRICS’ global legal politics beyond cultural and economic partnerships

New emerging international dynamics introduce a global poly-axiological polycentric disorder which undermines the tradition of a unique global legal order in international law. Modern Era was characterized by Western European civilizational model – from which human rights is a byproduct. This consensus had its legitimacy tested by XXst century’s scenario – and the ‘BRICS factor/actor’ is a symptom of this reality. Its empowerment in world politics lead to the rise of distinct groups of States/civilizations provided with different legal, political, economic and social traditions – promoting an unexpected uprise of otherness in international legal order and inviting it to a complete and unforeseeable reframing process. Beyond Washington or Brussels Consensus, other custom-originated discourses (Brasília, Moscow, New Delhi, Peking or Cape Town Consensus, among other unfolded possibilities) will probably henceforth attempt shaping international law in present global legal disorder.

The role of the BNDES in the Brazilian development financing: contributions from the paper “towards a legal theory of finance” of Katharina Pistor

This paper aims to verify the main contributions and adjustments that the paper “Towards a Legal Theory of Finance” from Katharina Pistor may bring to the role of the Brazilian National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES) in the Brazilian development financing. In order to do so, I work with two questions in this paper: (i) such theory presents elements which allow analyzing the role of the BNDES and from there, if it is required, adjustments can be made in the governance of the BNDES? and (ii) there are academics and scholars that, together with the theory, also contribute with the improvement of the BNDES role in the development of Brazil?

Important, unimportant a critical anticipation of the assumptions of legal positivism in Alice in Wonderland

Almost a full century separates Lewis’ Alice in Wonderland (1865) and the second, lengthier and more elaborate edition of Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law (1960; first edition published in 1934). And yet, it is possible to argue that the former anticipates and critically addresses many of the philosophical assumptions that underlie and are elemental to the argument of the latter. Both texts, with the illuminating differences that arise from their disparate genre, have as one of their key themes norms and their functioning. Wonderland, as Alice soon finds out, is a world beset by rules of all kinds: from the etiquette rituals of the mad tea-party to the changing setting for the cricket game to the procedural insanity of the trial with which the novel ends. Pure Theory of Law, as Kelsen emphatically stresses, has the grundnorm as the cornerstone upon which the whole theoretical edifice rests2. This paper discusses some of the assumptions underlying Kelsen’s argument as an instance of the modern worldview which Lewis satirically scrutinizes. The first section (Sleepy and stupid) discusses Lewis critique of the idea that, to correctly apprehend an object (in the case of Kelsen’s study, law), one has to free it from its alien elements. The second section (Do bats eat cats?) discusses the notion of systemic coherence and its impact on modern ways of thinking about truth, law and society. The third section (Off with their heads!) explores the connections between readings of systems as neutral entities and the perpetuation of political power. The fourth and final section (Important, Unimportant) explains the sense in which a “critical anticipation” is both possible and useful to discuss the philosophical assumptions structuring some positivist arguments. It also discusses the reasons for choosing to focus on Kelsen’s work, rather than on that of Lewis’ contemporary, John Austin, whose The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (published in 1832) remains influential in legal debates today.

Citizens vs. banks: institutional drivers of financial market litigiousness in Brazil

This article analyzes the institutional drivers of Brazil’s alarmingly high levels of litigation between clients and financial institutions. Most of the policy oriented literature that explores that phenomenon discusses the impacts of a perceived debtor-friendly bias of Brazilian courts on generating feedback loops of litigation that further increases interest rates and creates adverse selection within the pool of potential debtors. This literature therefore addresses the way courts behave once disputes reach their doorstep; conversely, we take a step back to understand the underlying reasons for why such a large number of disputes end up in courts in the first place. We accordingly attribute endemic litigation in Brazilian financial markets to a framework of political, economic and legal institutions and circumstances, which this article aims to unbound and explain.

The art of law & macroeconomics

In the world’s current condition of macroeconomic turmoil, a justifiable question arises: what is the contribution that legal scholars, as opposed to economists, can make to macroeconomic regulation? Since mainstream Law & Economics scholarship adapts much more easily to micro (rather than macro) economics, an alternative paradigm is needed. I propose that legal scholars explore the Art of Law & Macroeconomics, a concept that links legal knowledge and the art of economics. Legal scholars are therefore expected to offer policy advice based on their understanding of the internal rationality and structure of the legal system.

Para além da norma: reflexões sobre as instituições de regulação das organizações da sociedade civil de interesse público

Alterações normativas são de eficácia limitada quando não acompanhadas do aperfeiçoamento das instituições encarregadas de aplicar, zelar e desenvolver as normas jurídicas. Esse documento contrasta o modelo regulatório brasileiro com dois outros modelos paradigmáticos (o do Reino Unido, baseado em uma agência reguladora própria, e o das Filipinas, um caso inédito de autorregulação reconhecida pelo Estado). A Análise conclui que inexiste, no Brasil, um órgão ou espaço institucional com competência exclusiva para regular o setor, estando as competências regulatórias espalhadas ente vários órgãos (principalmente os Ministérios da Justiça, Desenvolvimento Social, Saúde e Educação), sem uma instância superior de coordenação

Courts as healthcare policy-makers: the problem, the responses to the problem and problems in the responses

This article starts by analysing healthcare litigation in Brazil by means of a literature review of articles that contribute with empirical findings on this phenomenon. Based on this review, I argue that health care litigation in Brazil makes the public health system less fair and rational. In the second part of this article, I discuss the three most overarching responses to control the level of litigation and its impact on the public health system: (i) the public hearing held by the Supreme Federal Court and the criteria the court established thereafter; (ii) the recommendations by the National Council of Justice aimed at building courts’ institutional capacity; and (iii) the enactment of the Federal Law 12.401/11, which created a new health technology assessment system. I argue that latter is the best response because it keeps the substantive decisions on the allocation of healthcare resources in the institution that is in the best position to make them. Moreover, this legislation will make the decisions about provision of health treatments more explicit, making easier for courts to control the procedure and the reasons for these decisions.

Em busca da ousadia: comentários sobre o anteprojeto de lei apresentado pelo grupo de trabalho “Marco Regulatório das Organizações da Sociedade Civil”

A agenda de aperfeiçoamento do marco regulatório das organizações da sociedade civil (OSCs) no Brasil permanece paralisada há mais de uma década. O último avanço significativo ocorreu em 1999, quando foi editada a Lei das Oscips – Organizações da Sociedade Civil de Interesse Público. Em 2010, contudo, a então candidata Dilma Rousseff assumiu o compromisso de instalar um Grupo de Trabalho (GT) para desenvolver, em um ano, proposta de legislação que contemplasse “de forma ampla e orgânica” os diversos desafios do setor. Em setembro do ano seguinte, o GT foi efetivamente constituído, tendo apresentado, em agosto de 2012, o seu Relatório Final, cuja principal proposta é um anteprojeto de lei que estabelece novas normas sobre fomento e colaboração do Governo Federal com as OSCs. O presente artigo tem por objetivo analisar essa iniciativa, destacando os aspectos positivos e problemáticos tanto do processo conduzido pelo Governo Federal quanto do anteprojeto de lei que dele resultou.

What kind of judiciary do we want?: the access to justice in Brazil

The goal of this paper is to discuss a key issue in the Democratic Rule of Law State: what are the role and main functions of the Judiciary in Brazil? Is the Judiciary mainly a public service provider, adjudicating disputes and guaranteeing individual rights? Or also as a state power, it should mainly control and guide the moral values of the society, changing the status quo and reducing social conflicts? In this sense, what are the conflicts that must be examined by the Judiciary? We will seek to answer these questions based on a discussion subsidized by courts official statistics and the results of surveys conducted with the Brazilian general population. The surveys measured how do citizens feel about their judicial system and what are the circumstances and the facts that determine the judicialization of conflicts. We work with the perceptions and attitudes of citizens relating to the Judiciary as it is today and discuss the Judiciary they want. Then, we compare how attitudes and perceptions relate to actual behavior and use of courts.

Compliance to law and effectiveness of the rule of law in Brazil

The goal of this paper is to debate the degree of effectiveness of the rule of law in Brazil, through a survey measuring perceptions, attitudes and habits of Brazilians in regard to compliance to law. The survey conducted in Brazil is based on the study conducted by Tom R. Tyler in the United States, entitled Why People Obey the Law? (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990). The main argument of Tyler´s study is that people obey the law when they believe it’s legitimate, and not because they fear punishment. We test the same argument in Brazil, relying on five indicators: (i) behavior, which depicts the frequency with which respondents declared to have engaged in conducts in disobedience to the law; (ii) instrumentality, measuring perception of losses associated with the violation of the law, specially fear of punishment; (iii) morality, measuring perception of how much is right or wrong to engage in certain conducts in violation of the law; (iv) social control, which measures perception of social disapproval of certain types of behavior in violation of the law, and (v) legitimacy, which measures the perception of respect to the law and to some authorities. Results indicate that fear of sanctions is not the strongest drive in compliance to law, but more than legitimacy, indicators of morality and social control are the strongest in explaining why people obey the law in Brazil.

A guerra dos clones: a replicação de modelos de negócio na legislação brasileira e seu impacto no desenvolvimento do setor de internet e tecnologia

O presente artigo busca trazer uma perspectiva jurídica ao debate sobre o impacto da replicação de modelos de negócio na Internet. O objetivo é oferecer uma análise sobre os copycats – empresas que reproduzem modelos de negócio inovadores desenvolvidos por empresas terceiras – em conjunto com os institutos da liberdade de concorrência e propriedade intelectual, examinando a contraposição existente entre esses no arcabouço jurídico nacional e buscando responder, como pergunta de trabalho, se esses mecanismos podem ser interpretados, à luz do ordenamento brasileiro, como mecanismos de incentivo ou restrição ao desenvolvimento de copycats no país.

Os juízes no país da imprevisibilidade? Qualidade e previsibilidade no Brasil

Há um grau de incerteza que é próprio da atividade jurisdicional e não é possível de ser mitigado em razão da própria natureza dos juízos a respeito de normas jurídicas. Decisões judiciais não são e nem podem ser absolutamente previsíveis. Há, contudo, um grau de incerteza que é evitável e o deve ser evitado, por ser prejudicial à saúde de um sistema jurídico. Outros pesquisadores no Brasil trabalharam com esta noção, e foi muito bem sucedida a formulação dos conceitos de incerteza estrutural e incerteza patológica de Joaquim Falcão, Luís Fernando Schuartz e Diego Arguelhes. Contudo, acreditamos que a concepção de incerteza patológica apresentada dos autores precisa de reformulação, especialmente para que pudesse ser verificada a partir de elementos da decisão judicial e não apenas de elementos sociológicos e psicológicos. Propomos uma concepção de incerteza patológica calcada na qualidade da fundamentação das decisões judiciais e concluímos que o cultivo de uma cultura de precedentes é necessária no Brasil para mitigar os efeitos nocivos da incerteza patológica.

Extreme poverty and development: the role of state in the assurance of minimal existence conditions

This paper follows the idea of Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize of economic, about the role of State in the assurance of minimal existence condition, and aim to answer how countries of Latin America (specifically Brazil) and countries of Europe (specifically United Kingdom) deal with the assurance of this minimal existence conditions. According to Amartya Sen’s view, development must be seen as a process of expanding substantive freedoms, such expansion being the primary purpose of each society and the main mean of development. Substantive freedoms can be considered as basic capabilities allocated to individuals whereby they are entitled to be architects of their own lives, providing them conditions to “live as they wish”. These basic capabilities are divided by Amartya Sen in 5 (five) kinds of substantive freedoms, but for this article’s purpose, we will consider just one of this 5 (five) kinds, specifically the Protective Safety capability. Protective Safety capability may be defined as the assurance of basic means of survival for individuals who are in extreme poverty, at risk of starvation or hypothermia, or even impending famine. Among the means available that could be used to avoid such situations are the possibility of supplemental income to the needy, distributing food and clothing to the needy, supply of energy and water, among others. But how countries deal whit this protective safety? Aiming to answer this question, we selected the problem of “fuel poverty” and how Brazil and United Kingdom solve it (if they solve), in order to assess how the solution found impacts development. The analysis and the comparison between these countries will allow an answer to the question proposed.

Global governance, currency and trade: implications of one on the other, common problems and how to address cooperation through law at the international level

How to deal with the impacts of the exchange rate on the trade balance of Brazil? There is not a single answer to such question. In order to find out some legal approaches for this matter, this paper aims to describe and analyze the role of the IMF, WTO and the governments of Brazil and the United States on the currency misalignments, especially the extraterritorial effects of such misalignment on the Brazil’s bilateral trade with the United States. The article concludes that the Currency Swap Agreements and other bilateral solutions may minimize the distortions that the Brazilian balance of payment against the USA is carrying, due to the lack of legal solutions for the problem of the exchange rate misalignments that Brazil is facing.

Para que serve a dupla avaliação cega por pares?: poder estatal e autorregulação na avaliação dos programas de pós-graduação

Este texto analisa o papel das revistas no processo de avaliação do sistema brasileiro de pós-graduação de acordo com as regras do Qualis e do SciELO. Sustenta que as revistas são titulares do “direito-função” de selecionar artigos por meio da dupla avaliação cega por pares, direito este que deve ser exercido em prol da comunidade acadêmica. Por esta razão, o texto mostra que as revistas são um mecanismo de autorregulação da avaliação da pós-graduação brasileira. Em sua parte final, o artigo discute a relação entre este modelo de avaliação e a tradição jurídica brasileira, em especial, nossa maneira de praticar e refletir sobre a dogmática jurídica no Brasil.