As ações de improbidade administrativa, o foro por prerrogativa de função e o alcance ao agente político

A improbidade administrativa é um fenômeno antigo na história do Brasil, tendo suas raízes estranhadas na própria colonização do país. Nesse sentido, tornou-se indispensável a implementação de medidas para o combate à corrupção lato sensu1, mobilizando as diversas áreas do direito para tal finalidade. A promulgação da Constituição Federal da Republica de 1988 (CRFB/1988) conferiu rigidez constitucional aos meios de coibição à improbidade administrativa, estabelecendo peremptoriamente princípios e normas pertinentes ao tema, evidenciando a importância do controle dos atos praticados pelos agentes públicos. Todavia, ficou a cargo do legislador infraconstitucional regulamentar as ações de improbidade administrativa, o que ocorreu com a promulgação da Lei nº 8429/1992 (Lei de Improbidade Administrativa – LIA). A Lei regulou seus aspectos materiais, quais sejam: seus sujeitos (art. 1º e 2º), atos (art. 9, 10 e 11) e sanções (art. 12); como também seus aspectos procedimentais (art. 17). O tema central do estudo refere-se ao juízo competente para julgamento e processamento dos agentes públicos nas ações de improbidade administrativa, por eles gozarem de foro por prerrogativa de função no julgamento dos crimes comuns (responsabilidade penal) e de responsabilidade (responsabilidade política), e este ser um benefício relacionado exclusivamente com o cargo ocupado pelo agente. Neste sentido, por a ação de improbidade ser essencialmente sancionatória e dotada de aspectos políticos-administrativos, possuindo peculiaridades das duas esferas, muitos questionam a extensão da aplicação do benefício em questão levando em consideração o silêncio da lei. Visto isso, aprofundarei a discussão especificamente no que se refere aos agentes públicos, dividindo-a em dois aspectos: (1) os agentes políticos respondem por improbidade administrativa, visto já responderam no âmbito político-administrativo por crimes de responsabilidade? (2) em caso positivo, aplica-se foro de prerrogativa de função? Essas questões levantadas são alvo de bastante divergência na doutrina e, principalmente, na jurisprudência. Desta forma, o trabalho objetiva analisar se se estenderia a prerrogativa de foro às ações de improbidade administrativa visto que, mesmo constitucionalmente consagrada como ação civil, é uma ação dotada de peculiaridades relevantes, seja pelo forte conteúdo sancionatório, principalmente no que tange às penas previstas que ultrapassam as reparações pecuniárias do direito civil, seja por envolver interesses político e posições hierárquicas. Ultrapassada a questão, ainda busca analisar o ajuizamento destas ações em face dos agentes políticos, tanto em razão de sua possibilidade (visto já responderem por crimes de responsabilidade) quanto ao órgão jurisdicional competente para julgá-los (esbarrando novamente na questão da aplicação ou não da prerrogativa de foro).

Corporate Responsibility for Crimes - Thinking Outside the Box

Emeseh, Engobo, 'Corporate Responsibility for Crime: Thinking outside the Box' I University of Botswana Law Journal (2005) 28-49 RAE2008

Libya and the international community’s 'responsibility to protect'

The Libyan regime’s attacks on its own civilian population are a test case for the international community’s commitment to the notion of a “responsibility to protect” (R2P). The UN Security Council’s statement on 22 February 2011 explicitly invoked this concept by calling on “the Government of Libya to meet its responsibility to protect its population”. Yet, with Muammar Gaddafi encouraging further violence against protesters and threatening to fight “until the last drop of blood” it seems unlikely that the Security Council’s warning will be heeded. Greater pressure from the international community will be needed to bring an end to the atrocities in Libya. The international response to the Libyan crisis represents an opportunity to translate the theory of R2P into practice.

Responsibility to Protect and Sovereignty

The responsibility to protect ('R2P') principle articulates the obligations of the international community to prevent conflict occurring, to intervene in conflicts, and to assist in rebuilding after conflicts. The doctrine is about protecting civilians in armed conflicts from four mass atrocity crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. This book examines interventions in East Timor, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Kosovo. The chapters explore and question UN debates with respect to the doctrine both before and after its adoption in 2005; contrasting state attitudes to international military intervention; and what takes place after intervention. It also discusses the ability of the Security Council to access reliable information and credible and transparent processes to enable it to make a determination on the occurrence of atrocities in a Member State. Questioning whether there is a need to find a closer operational link between the responsibilities to prevent and react and a normative link between R2P and principles of international law, the contributions examine the effectiveness of the framework of R2P for international decision-making in response to mass atrocity crimes and ask how an international system to deal with threats and mass atrocities can be developed in the absence of a central authority. This book will be valuable to those interested in international law, human rights, and security, peace and conflict studies

The doctrine of command responsibility in the midst of war : legal fallacy or reflection of reality

The history of war is blighted with astonishing reminders of man’s ability to cast his sense of humanity aside and inflict unspeakable harm upon one another. The ruthless bombing of Dresden, the callousness of the Nazi concentration camps and the massacre of the Tutsis are but a few of the atrocities that have haunted our past. In response to these atrocities, society has imposed an ever-increasing number of laws and rules to regulate warfare. Amongst these is the doctrine of command responsibility. The doctrine of command responsibility states that a commander is criminally liable for the crimes of his subordinates if he knew or should have known of their crimes. This paper will examine whether the doctrine is an appropriate and realistic legal standard to hold commanders accountable to or whether the doctrine is more a reflection of social sentiment and legal rhetoric. If the doctrine, and indeed the law of war in general, is unrealistic then the law cannot fulfil its purpose - that is, the prevention of atrocities. Instead of being solely a reflection of moral authority and social sentiments the law must also be a tool that guides and shapes the decisions and actions of the military through the chaotic and brutal nature of war...

Engendering the responsibility to protect : women and the prevention of mass atrocities

This article explores the relationship between the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the pursuit of the so-called ‘Women, Peace and Security’ (WPS) agenda at the UN. We ask whether the two agendas should continue to be pursued separately or whether each can make a useful contribution to the other. We argue that while the history of R2P has not included language that deliberately evokes the protection of women and the promotion of gender in preventing genocide and mass atrocities, this does not preclude the R2P and WPS agendas becoming mutually reinforcing. The article identifies cross-cutting areas where the two agendas may be leveraged for the UN and member states to address the concerns of women as both actors in need of protection and active agents in preventing and responding to genocide and mass atrocities, namely in the areas of early warning.

The responsibility to protect in the Asia-Pacific region

In 2005, governments around the world unanimously agreed to the principle of the responsibility to protect (R2P), which holds that all states have a responsibility to protect their populations from genocide and mass atrocities, that the international community should assist them to fulfil this duty, and that the international community should take timely and decisive measures to protect populations from such crimes when their host state fails to do so. Progressing R2P from words to deeds requires international consensus about the principle’s meaning and scope. To achieve a global consensus on this, we need to better understand the position of governments around the world, including in the Asia-Pacific region, which has long been associated with an enduring commitment to a traditional concept of sovereignty. The present article contributes to such an endeavour through its three sections. The first part charts the nature of the international consensus on R2P and examines the UN secretary-general’s approach. The second looks in detail at the positions of the Asia-Pacific region’s governments on the R2P principle. The final part explores the way forward for progressing the R2P principle in the Asia-Pacific region.

Os crimes no triângulo amoroso: uma discussão psicanalítica historicamente contextualizada a respeito do conceito de violenta emoção no Direito Penal Brasileiro

A presente tese tem o objetivo de promover uma análise sobre a norma penal brasileira que versa sobre a violenta emoção, com base no estudo teórico da ação criminal passional. Tem por objeto de estudos a discussão sobre a temporalidade psíquica da ação que sustenta as distinções no instituto jurídico da violenta emoção apresentada nos artigos 28; 65, III, c; 121 1 e 129 4 do Código Penal Brasileiro. A partir de uma construção genealógica, buscou-se os antecedentes históricos dessas leis, posteriormente, interpretadas à luz de conceitos psicanalíticos e de contribuições da antropologia social acerca do imaginário cultural que sustenta a eclosão e o julgamento de crimes na esfera amorosa. O método de trabalho consistiu em um estudo teórico de caráter dedutivo-construtivo baseado em fontes oriundas de diferentes campos teórico-práticos e também de consultas abertas feitas a juristas e estudiosos da criminologia. As transformações históricas nos julgamentos indicam uma transposição da antiga indulgência em relação aos criminosos ao atual apelo por recrudescimento das penas, demonstrando que justificar ou punir crimes sob a rubrica da violenta emoção ligados à esfera amorosa representa um sintoma atrelado ao contexto social. O conceito de "violenta emoção" está sujeito a reducionismos teóricos, devido à ênfase dada à dimensão da "culpabilidade consciente" no sistema jurídico, ao predomínio de interpretações ligadas aos aspectos psicofisiológicos do ímpeto, bem como à incipiente atenção dada às condições inconscientes culturalmente determinantes do ato criminal violento em casais. Desse modo, o texto dos referidos artigos pode servir indevidamente à diminuição da pena em crimes envolvendo casais, assim como a devida atenuação pode ser desconsiderada quando a/o ré/u sofre de privações sociais e psíquicas prolongadas constitutivas de um mal-estar passional por vezes dissociado do tempo da ação. Com as limitações apontadas, reconhece-se a importância da existência da referência à violenta emoção enquanto uma atenuante criminal genérica e critica-se a sua aplicação como "privilégio" de diminuição de pena em crimes de ímpeto em casais. O estudo psicanalítico historicizado do tema assevera a necessidade de realçar tanto a responsabilidade subjetiva ligada à atualização de um potencial psicopatológico, mas, também, a responsabilidade social em relação aos crimes passionais, enfatizando a importância de se criar alternativas à resposta penal, buscando promover uma leitura e interpretação cuidadosa dos artigos sobre a violenta emoção no sentido de propiciar melhor entendimento da temporalidade inconsciente inerente a esses crimes.

Genocide and the International Court of Justice: Finally, a Duty to Prevent the Crime of Crimes

The International Court of Justice has issued its long-awaited decision in the suit filed by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro with respect to the 1992–1995 war. The decision confirms the factual and legal determinations of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ruling that genocide was committed during the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995 but that the conflict as a whole was not genocidal in nature. The Court held that Serbia had failed in its duty to prevent genocide in Srebrenica, although—because, the Court said, there was no certainty that it could have succeeded in preventing the genocide—no damages were awarded. The judgment provides a strong and authoritative statement of the general duty upon states to prevent genocide that dovetails well with the doctrine of the responsibility to protect.

Beyond Attribution: Responsibility of Armed Non-State Actors for Reparations in Northern Ireland, Colombia and Uganda

This chapter explores the responsibility of armed non-state actors for reparations to victims. Traditionally international law has focused on the responsibility of the state, and more recently the responsibility of convicted individuals before the International Criminal Court, to provide reparations for international crimes. Yet despite the prevalence of internal armed conflict over the past few decades, there responsibility of armed groups for reparations has been neglected in international law. Although there is a tentative emerging basis for armed groups to provide reparations under international law, such developments have not yet crystallized into hard law. However, when considering the more substantive practice of states in Northern Ireland, Colombia and Uganda, a greater effort can be discerned in ensuring that such organizations are responsible for reparations. This paper finds that not only can armed non-state actors be held collectively responsible for reparations, but due to the growing number of internal armed conflict they can play an important role in ensuring the effectiveness of reparations in remedying victims’ harm. Yet, finding armed groups responsible for reparations is no panacea for accountability, due to the nature of armed conflicts, responsibility may not be distinct, but overlapping and joint, and such groups may face difficulties in meeting their obligations, thus requiring a holistic approach and subsidiary role for the state.

L'apport des théories morales de la responsabilité pour penser l'imputabilité des crimes de guerre

réalisée en cotutelle entre les Universités de Montréal et de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (France)

Towards an understanding of “crimes againsthumanity” since Nuremberg

This article makes an historical analysis of the manner in which crimes againsthumanity have acquired an independent status from crimes of war and aggressionever since the concept was first introduced in discussions between the Allies duringthe establishment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. It describes themanner in which the concept has evolved and been discussed in several internationalbodies, and how it was finally included in the Rome Statute of the International CriminalCourt. The article shows how the Nuremberg trials have a fundamental legaland historical meaning in that they institutionalized individual responsibility for anew category of crimes before an international tribunal. It also shows how after theNuremberg trials, crimes against humanity have been gradually withdrawn fromthe competency of government sovereignty to become a matter for the internationalcommunity of nations.

Reflections about Complicity and its Application in some Socio Economics Crimes

In Colombia, the definitions of crimes are found in the special part of the Criminal Code. They are set out as though the only way of to commit them was by being the author of the punishable conduct there described. Nevertheless, in the general part of the Criminal Code, we find other forms of criminal responsibility for the conduct described in the special part. Complicity is one of those ways. Although complicity is established in the Criminal Code, it does not appear as a criminal definition and, as such it is ignored or, worse, applied incorrectly. For those reasons, this article tries to reflect upon the validity of complicity. Accordingly, this article analyzes: what is complicity, what is the difference between complicity and co-authorship and how would complicity work in some practical cases related to socio-economic crimes, in which it has being overlooked or, has been used incorrectly. The article concludes that complicity is still valid, and that the correct application of complicity materializes the ideal of justice.

Crimes financeiros e política criminal : estudo de acórdãos do TRF da 3ª Região sobre os crimes de gestão fraudulenta e gestão temerária no período de 2001 a 2010

Este trabalho visa produzir conhecimento sobre como o Tribunal Regional Federal da 3ª Região tem decidido sobre dois dos principais crimes afetos à administração das instituições financeiras: gestão fraudulenta e gestão temerária. Trata-se de delitos criticados pela doutrina em razão das falhas de definição dos tipos, desde a edição da Lei 7.492, em 1986. Além disso, a sua previsão legislativa possui características que os aproximam do paradigma do direito penal do risco, ou seja: são crimes de perigo abstrato, que tutelam bem jurídico supra-individual, praticados por administradores detentores do dever de probidade na condução das instituições frente aos riscos inerentes à dinâmica do sistema financeiro. A adoção desse paradigma é controversa na doutrina penal por implicar a flexibilização de garantias do Estado Democrático de Direito sob a perspectiva do paradigma do direito penal tradicional. Diante disso, adota-se a metodologia de análise de conteúdo de decisões para se responder a dois problemas de pesquisa: (1) Quais os critérios adotados pelo Tribunal para a configuração dos crimes? (2) As decisões aproximam-se de algum paradigma de direito penal? As hipóteses objeto de teste são: (1) que o Tribunal considera principalmente a prática da conduta sem analisar a sua potencialidade lesiva sob uma perspectiva ex ante; e, (2) que esse discurso de imputação de responsabilidade aproxima as decisões do paradigma do direito penal do risco, considerados, em contexto, outros elementos presentes nas decisões. Na primeira parte, é feita uma introdução metodológica; na segunda, estabelece-se o referencial teórico; na terceira e na quarta, realizam-se as análises dos resultados quantitativos e qualitativos obtidos com a sua discussão; por fim, procede-se à conclusão, levantando-se novo problema a ser investigado.

A eficácia, no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro, da responsabilização penal da pessoa jurídica pela prática de crimes ambientais

The environment, which fundamental importance has already been recognized in all the world, is an actual national and international discussion subject, whose interest grows for the society, and consequently to the Law, in order to prevent the natural resources to the present and future generations. The 1988 Brazilian Constitution, recognizing the importance of the environment, treated about it in many of its parts, even dedicating a specific chapter (Chapter V About Environment, inserted in Title VIII About Social Order). The brazilian constitutional text established to everyone the fundamental right of enjoying an equilibrated environment, obligating the State and all society to defend and preserve the environment to the present and future generations. The economic growing process, that predominated and still persist in the big majority of the countries, where is practiced the capitalist system, has in the enterprises (legal persons) one of its main actors. Many times, these enterprises, especially in the actual globalized world in where we live, where the gain of money is priorized, ends, at the moment they act, making damages to the environment. These damages are, many times, considered by the law. crimes against the environment. The 1988 Brazilian Constitution, according to the Modern Criminal Law, realizing that many crimes were being committed by the enterprises, established in article 225, §3rd, the criminal responsibility of the legal persons. Almost ten years after the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, was published the Law number 9.605/98, in which third article established the penal responsibility of the legal persons that practice crimes against the environment, without excluding the individual responsibility