{"id":795,"date":"2023-10-26T14:36:37","date_gmt":"2023-10-26T17:36:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.globalcrossings.com.br\/?p=795"},"modified":"2023-10-26T14:36:37","modified_gmt":"2023-10-26T17:36:37","slug":"projeto-clobal-crossings-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.globalcrossings.com.br\/en\/2023\/10\/26\/projeto-clobal-crossings-2\/","title":{"rendered":"GLOBAL CROSSINGS PROJECT"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

C\u00c1TEDRA JEAN MONNET\/UFU<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

COORDENA\u00c7\u00c3O: PROFA. Dra. CLAUDIA LOUREIRO<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

ORGANIZA\u00c7\u00c3O: Ma. MARCELA BREY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

NEWSLETTER OUTUBRO\/2023<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SE\u00c7\u00c3O 1: PRINCIPAIS JULGAMENTOS DO TRIBUNAL DE JUSTI\u00c7A DA UNI\u00c3O EUROPEIA<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

EIXO CIDADANIA GLOBAL<\/u><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Reintrodu\u00e7\u00e3o dos controles nas fronteiras internas: a Diretiva \u201cRegresso\u201d \u00e9 aplic\u00e1vel a qualquer nacional de um pa\u00eds terceiro que tenha entrado no territ\u00f3rio de um Estado-Membro sem preencher as condi\u00e7\u00f5es de entrada, perman\u00eancia ou resid\u00eancia. (Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o do Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a da Uni\u00e3o europeia no processo C-143\/22)<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Texto e tradu\u00e7\u00e3o livre de Lucas Araujo Niemes, graduando em Rela\u00e7\u00f5es Internacionais pela Pontif\u00edcia Universidade Cat\u00f3lica de S\u00e3o Paulo. Pesquisador do Projeto Global Crossings <\/em>da Universidade Federal de Uberl\u00e2ndia, C\u00e1tedra Jean Monnet \u2013 Uni\u00e3o Europeia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    A Uni\u00e3o Europeia, em sua pol\u00edtica imigrat\u00f3ria, considera um conjunto de normas comunit\u00e1rias e sociais ao tratar quest\u00f5es de imigra\u00e7\u00e3o em seu territ\u00f3rio. Com a Diretiva de Retorno, aprovada em 2008 pelo Parlamento Europeu, o direcionamento da imigra\u00e7\u00e3o europeia visa o regresso volunt\u00e1rio de imigrantes ilegais, al\u00e9m de estabelecer normas referentes \u00e0 interdi\u00e7\u00e3o e garantias processuais. Representando um marco da coopera\u00e7\u00e3o dos Estados-Membros, o Acordo de Schengen \u00e9 parte do Direito Comunit\u00e1rio da Uni\u00e3o Europeia, e disp\u00f5e da retirada de fronteiras interiores dos pa\u00edses membros, para uma amplia\u00e7\u00e3o das fronteiras externas, de forma a permitir uma liberdade de movimenta\u00e7\u00e3o de pessoas em seu interior. Para al\u00e9m desta diretiva, \u00e9 v\u00e1lido ressaltar a autonomia dos Estados na regula\u00e7\u00e3o migrat\u00f3ria, em que h\u00e1 exig\u00eancias para o que \u00e9 considerado necess\u00e1rio em cada pa\u00eds na obten\u00e7\u00e3o de vistos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    O Pedido de decis\u00e3o prejudicial apresentado pelo Conseil d’\u00c9tat (Fran\u00e7a) em 1 de mar\u00e7o de 2022 (Processo C-143\/22) traz a discuss\u00e3o essencial ao questionar se um Estado-Membro, ao optar por implementar controles nas fronteiras internas de acordo com as regras estabelecidas pelo C\u00f3digo das Fronteiras Schengen, \u00e9 obrigado a seguir as disposi\u00e7\u00f5es da Diretiva 2008\/115 ou se tem a op\u00e7\u00e3o de utilizar o Artigo 14 deste c\u00f3digo para tomar uma decis\u00e3o de recusa de entrada em rela\u00e7\u00e3o a um cidad\u00e3o de um pa\u00eds terceiro. O Artigo 14 do C\u00f3digo das Fronteiras Schengen estabelece as exig\u00eancias e procedimentos em rela\u00e7\u00e3o \u00e0 recusa de entrada de nacionais de pa\u00edses terceiros, e abrange a qualifica\u00e7\u00e3o para recusa da entrada, as decis\u00f5es fundamentadas pelas raz\u00f5es espec\u00edficas emitidas por autoridade competente na legisla\u00e7\u00e3o nacional, assegurando, tamb\u00e9m, o direito de recurso as pessoas a quem a entrada foi recusada t\u00eam o direito de recorrer da decis\u00e3o, de acordo com o direito nacional. Em conclus\u00f5es ao Processo C\u2011143\/22, o Advogado-Geral Athanasios Rantos refor\u00e7a delibera\u00e7\u00f5es sobre os Direitos da Uni\u00e3o, abordando as aplicabilidades das diretivas acima mencionada, e prop\u00f4s ao Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a que as disposi\u00e7\u00f5es da diretiva 2008\/115 s\u00e3o aplic\u00e1veis \u00e0 reintrodu\u00e7\u00e3o tempor\u00e1ria do controlo nas fronteiras internas, enquanto o artigo 14.o do C\u00f3digo das Fronteiras Schengen n\u00e3o se aplica, com base em pr\u00f3pria opini\u00e3o, do racioc\u00ednio seguido pelo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a nos processos que deram origem aos Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3os Affum e Arib. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Publicado em 21 de setembro de 2023, o Acord\u00e3o do Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a do Processo C\u2011143\/22, delimita temas como Espa\u00e7o de liberdade, seguran\u00e7a e justi\u00e7a \u2014 Controlo nas fronteiras, asilo e imigra\u00e7\u00e3o \u2014 Reintrodu\u00e7\u00e3o tempor\u00e1ria por um Estado\u2011Membro do controlo nas suas fronteiras internas \u2014 Decis\u00e3o de recusa de entrada \u2014 Equipara\u00e7\u00e3o das fronteiras internas \u00e0s fronteiras externa. Ainda, salienta as contribui\u00e7\u00f5es da an\u00e1lise do advogado-geral, e se alinha \u00e0s conclus\u00f5es sobre o artigo 2. \u00b0, n.\u00ba 2, al\u00ednea a), da Diretiva 2008\/115 n\u00e3o autoriza um Estado\u2011Membro que tenha reintroduzido controlos nas suas fronteiras internas a introduzir derroga\u00e7\u00f5es \u00e0s normas e aos procedimentos comuns previstos nesta diretiva, de forma a interceptar um nacional de pa\u00eds terceiro, sem visto de resid\u00eancia, que tenha sido abordado em controle de fronteiras, situados no territ\u00f3rio desse Estado\u2011Membro e onde sejam efetuados esses pontos de controle. Por fim, a decis\u00e3o final do documento orienta que os casos devem ser julgados pelos fundamentos do Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a, e que devem ser interpretados no sentido de que quando um Estado-Membro reintroduz controles em suas fronteiras internas, ele pode adotar, em rela\u00e7\u00e3o a um nacional de pa\u00eds terceiro que se apresenta em um ponto de cruzamento de fronteira autorizado localizado em seu territ\u00f3rio e onde tais controles s\u00e3o realizados, uma decis\u00e3o de recusa de entrada, por for\u00e7a de uma aplica\u00e7\u00e3o mutatis mutandis<\/em> do Artigo 14 desse regulamento, desde que a esse nacional sejam aplicadas as normas e os procedimentos comuns previstos nesta diretiva com vista ao seu afastamento. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    REFER\u00caNCIAS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    CASTELOS, Montserrat Abad.  La pol\u00edtica de inmigraci\u00f3n en la Uni\u00f3n Europea. In: CANLE, In\u00eas   C.   Iglesias.   (Org.). Inmigraci\u00f3n y Derecho. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch, 2006.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    DE ALMEIDA LEITE, Rodrigo. Os paradoxos do tratamento da imigra\u00e7\u00e3o ilegal na Uni\u00e3o Europeia frente \u00e0 Diretiva de Retorno. Revista Espa\u00e7o Acad\u00eamico, v. 9, n. 108, p. 61-70, 2010.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    SILVA, Jo\u00e3o Carlos Jarochinski. A Diretiva Europeia de Retorno. TRAVESSIA-revista do migrante, n. 64, p. 63-80, 2009.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    TRIBUNAL DE JUSTI\u00c7A DA UNI\u00c3O EUROP\u00c9IA. Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o do Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a no processo C-143\/22. Luxemburgo: Dire\u00e7\u00e3o de Comunica\u00e7\u00e3o, 2023. Dispon\u00edvel em: https:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/document\/document.jsf;jsessionid=1778F407666C26CE51F266AD275B54DD?text=&docid=277630&pageIndex=0&doclang=PT&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3172477<\/a>. Acesso em: 24 out. 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Vers\u00e3o em Ingl\u00eas<\/u><\/strong><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    SECTION 1: MAIN JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    AXIS: GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. KEY JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      Text and free translation by Lucas Araujo Niemes, undergraduate in International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of S\u00e3o Paulo. Researcher of the Global Crossings Project at the Federal University of Uberl\u00e2ndia, Jean Monnet Chair \u2013 European Union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The European Union, in its immigration policy, considers a set of community and social norms when addressing immigration issues within its territory. With the Return Directive, approved in 2008 by the European Parliament, the direction of European immigration policy aims at the voluntary return of illegal immigrants, while also establishing norms regarding detention and procedural guarantees. Representing a milestone in the cooperation among Member States, the Schengen Agreement is part of the European Union’s Community Law, allowing for the removal of internal borders among member countries, thereby enabling the free movement of people within its territory. In addition to this directive, it is worth highlighting the autonomy of States in regulating immigration, with each country having specific requirements for visa issuance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The preliminary ruling requested by the Conseil d’\u00c9tat (France) on March 1st, 2022 (Case C-143\/22) raises a fundamental question: whether a Member State, when choosing to implement controls at its internal borders in accordance with the rules established by the Schengen Borders Code, is obliged to follow the provisions of Directive 2008\/115 or has the option to use Article 14 of this code to make a decision to refuse entry to a third-country national. Article 14 of the Schengen Borders Code establishes the requirements and procedures regarding the refusal of entry to third-country nationals, covering the qualification for entry refusal, decisions based on specific reasons issued by a competent authority in national legislation, and ensuring the right to appeal. Individuals to whom entry is denied have the right to appeal the decision in accordance with national law. In the conclusions of Case C\u2011143\/22, Advocate General Athanasios Rantos reinforces deliberations on EU rights, addressing the applicability of the aforementioned directives, and proposed to the Court of Justice that the provisions of Directive 2008\/115 apply to the temporary reintroduction of controls at internal borders, while Article 14 of the Schengen Borders Code does not apply, based on the reasoning followed by the Court of Justice in the cases that led to the Affum and Arib judgments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Published on September 21st, 2023, the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C\u2011143\/22 addresses themes such as the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice – Border Control, Asylum, and Immigration – Temporary reintroduction by a Member State of controls at its internal borders – Entry refusal decision – Equating internal borders with external borders. It also highlights the contributions of the Advocate General’s analysis and aligns with the conclusions regarding Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008\/115, which does not allow a Member State that has reintroduced controls at its internal borders to introduce exceptions to the common standards and procedures provided in this directive to intercept a third-country national, without a residence permit, who has been encountered at border controls located on the territory of that Member State. In conclusion, the final decision of the document guides that cases should be judged according to the foundations of the Court of Justice and should be interpreted to mean that when a Member State reintroduces controls at its internal borders, it can adopt a decision to refuse entry, by virtue of a mutatis mutandis application of Article 14 of this regulation, provided that the common standards and procedures laid down in this directive are applied to that national with a view to their removal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      REFERENCES<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      CASTELOS,  Montserrat  Abad.  La  pol\u00edtica  de inmigraci\u00f3n en la Uni\u00f3n Europea. In: CANLE, In\u00eas   C.   Iglesias.  (Org.). Inmigraci\u00f3n  y Derecho. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch, 2006.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      DE ALMEIDA LEITE, Rodrigo. Os paradoxos do tratamento da imigra\u00e7\u00e3o ilegal na Uni\u00e3o Europeia frente \u00e0 Diretiva de Retorno. Revista Espa\u00e7o Acad\u00eamico, v. 9, n. 108, p. 61-70, 2010.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      SILVA, Jo\u00e3o Carlos Jarochinski. A Diretiva Europeia de Retorno. TRAVESSIA-revista do migrante, n. 64, p. 63-80, 2009.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      TRIBUNAL DE JUSTI\u00c7A DA UNI\u00c3O EUROP\u00c9IA. Ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o do Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a no processo C-143\/22. Luxemburgo: Dire\u00e7\u00e3o de Comunica\u00e7\u00e3o, 2023. Retrieved from: https:\/\/curia.europa.eu\/juris\/document\/document.jsf;jsessionid=1778F407666C26CE51F266AD275B54DD?text=&docid=277630&pageIndex=0&doclang=PT&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3172477. Accessed on: Oct. 24, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      SE\u00c7\u00c3O 2: CORTE EUROPEIA DE DIREITOS HUMANOS \u2013 PRINCIPAIS JULGADOS  <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      EIXO: MUDAN\u00c7AS CLIM\u00c1TICAS E ECOC\u00cdDIO<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. Caso Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and Others (communicated case) – 39371\/20<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        Texto de Val\u00e9ria Em\u00edlia de Aquino, Doutoranda em Direitos Humanos pela Universidade Federal de Goi\u00e1s, Brasil e bolsista-sandu\u00edche CAPES pela Universidade de Floren\u00e7a, It\u00e1lia. Pesquisadora do Projeto Global Crossings <\/em>da Universidade Federal de Uberl\u00e2ndia, C\u00e1tedra Jean Monnet \u2013 Uni\u00e3o Europeia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        No dia 27 de Setembro de 2023, em Strasbourg, ocorreu o julgamento do Caso Duarte Agostinho e outros vs. Portugal e 32 outros Estados (\u00c1ustria, B\u00e9lgica, Bulg\u00e1ria, Chipre, Rep\u00fablica Checa, Alemanha, Gr\u00e9cia, Dinamarca, Est\u00f4nia, Finl\u00e2ndia, Fran\u00e7a, Cro\u00e1cia, Hungria, Irlanda, It\u00e1lia, Litu\u00e2nia, Luxemburgo, Let\u00f4nia, Malta, Holanda, Pol\u00f4nia, Portugal, Rom\u00eania, Eslov\u00e1quia, Eslov\u00eania, Espanha, Su\u00e9cia, Noruega, Su\u00e9cia, R\u00fassia, Su\u00ed\u00e7a, Turquia, Ucr\u00e2nia e Reino Unido) perante a Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos. O caso em quest\u00e3o \u00e9 pioneiro, ao questionar a responsabilidade dos Estados europeus no que diz respeito \u00e0s pol\u00edticas e a\u00e7\u00f5es clim\u00e1ticas, e os requerentes alegam que estes Estados n\u00e3o cumpriram com suas obriga\u00e7\u00f5es, em mat\u00e9ria de direitos humanos, ao n\u00e3o adotarem redu\u00e7\u00f5es de emiss\u00f5es compat\u00edveis com a meta de 1,5\u00baC, nos termos do Acordo de Paris.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Os seis jovens europeus apresentaram o caso \u00e0 Corte em 2020, em virtude dos inc\u00eandios florestais e ondas de calor em Portugal em 2017, que afetaram sua sa\u00fade e bem-estar. No caso, os jovens apontam que os Estados europeus falharam em adotar metas mais ambiciosas e precisas no que diz respeito \u00e0 redu\u00e7\u00e3o das emiss\u00f5es de gases de efeito estufa, o que acabou violando os artigos 2, 8 e 14 da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o Europeia de Direitos Humanos, respectivamente o direito \u00e0 vida, privacidade, e ao direito de n\u00e3o sofrer discrimina\u00e7\u00e3o.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    Entre as alega\u00e7\u00f5es de defesa dos Estados, est\u00e3o as de que os requerentes n\u00e3o satisfazem as condi\u00e7\u00f5es de v\u00edtima, al\u00e9m do n\u00e3o esgotamento dos recursos internos (em Portugal), bem como mencionaram a dificuldade de precisar as fontes, e, sobretudo, a margem de discricionariedade dos Estados, que permite certa flexibilidade em adotar as metas de redu\u00e7\u00e3o de emiss\u00f5es. Outrossim, os Estados tamb\u00e9m apresentaram, em sua defesa, a falta de provas que comprovem os danos sofridos pelos requerentes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                    A audi\u00eancia durou quase cinco horas, e o caso ainda aguarda senten\u00e7a, mas teve a participa\u00e7\u00e3o de diversos amicus curiae<\/em>, entre eles: Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Greenpeace, Save the Children, Anistia Internacional, Climate Action Network, ESCR-Net e outros. Por fim, importante destacar que o caso em quest\u00e3o soma-se aos casos Car\u00eame v. Fran\u00e7a, e Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz e outros vs. Su\u00ed\u00e7a, no que diz respeito aos casos de litig\u00e2ncia clim\u00e1tica perante a Corte.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        REFER\u00caNCIAS<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        ECHR. Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others (no. 39371\/20), <\/strong>Grand Chamber hearing – 27 September 2023. Dispon\u00edvel em: https:\/\/www.echr.coe.int\/w\/duarte-agostinho-and-others-v-portugal-and-others-no-39371\/20-<\/a>. Acessado em: 18 out. 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        CLIMATE CASE CHART. Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States. <\/strong>Dispon\u00edvel em: https:\/\/climatecasechart.com\/non-us-case\/youth-for-climate-justice-v-austria-et-al\/<\/a>. Acessado em: 18 out. 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Vers\u00e3o em Ingl\u00eas<\/u><\/strong><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        SECTION 2: EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS \u2013 MAIN JUDGMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        AXIS: CLIMATE CHANGE AND ECOCIDIUM<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        1. Case <\/strong>Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and Others (communicated case) – 39371\/20<\/strong><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

          Text Val\u00e9ria Em\u00edlia de Aquino, Ph.D. Student, Human Rights, Law School, University Federal of Goias, Brazil and CAPES scholarship, Brazil\/ University of Florence, Italy, and free translation by Marcela Bittencourt Brey, master\u2019s degree in Human Rights from the Law School of University of S\u00e3o Paulo (USP). Researchers of the Global Crossings Project at the Federal University of Uberl\u00e2ndia, Jean Monnet Chair \u2013 European Union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          On September 27, 2023, in Strasbourg, the trial of the Case of Duarte Agostinho and others vs. Portugal and 32 other States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal , Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Sweden, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom) before the European Court of Human Rights. The case in question is pioneering, as it questions the responsibility of European States with regard to climate policies and actions, and the applicants allege that these States have not complied with their human rights obligations by not adopting compatible emission reductions. with the target of 1.5\u00baC, under the terms of the Paris Agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The six young Europeans presented their case to the Court in 2020, due to the forest fires and heat waves in Portugal in 2017, which affected their health and well-being. In this case, young people point out that European States failed to adopt more ambitious and precise targets with regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which ended up violating articles 2, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, respectively the right to life, privacy, and the right not to suffer discrimination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Among the States’ defense allegations are that the applicants do not meet the conditions of being victims, in addition to the failure to exhaust internal resources (in Portugal), as well as mentioning the difficulty of specifying the sources, and, above all, the margin of States’ discretion, which allows certain flexibility in adopting emission reduction targets. Furthermore, the States also presented, in their defense, the lack of evidence proving the damages suffered by the applicants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          The hearing lasted almost five hours, and the case is still awaiting ruling, but it was attended by several amicus curiae, including: Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Greenpeace, Save the Children, Amnesty International, Climate Action Network, ESCR- Net and others. Finally, it is important to highlight that the case in question joins the cases of Car\u00eame v. France, and Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and others vs. Switzerland, with regard to climate litigation cases before the Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          ECHR. Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others (no. 39371\/20), <\/strong>Grand Chamber hearing – 27 September 2023. Retrieved from: https:\/\/www.echr.coe.int\/w\/duarte-agostinho-and-others-v-portugal-and-others-no-39371\/20-<\/a>. Accessed on: Oct. 18, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          CLIMATE CASE CHART. Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States. <\/strong>Retrieved from: https:\/\/climatecasechart.com\/non-us-case\/youth-for-climate-justice-v-austria-et-al\/<\/a>. Accessed on: Oct. 18, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          SE\u00c7\u00c3O 3<\/strong>: CORTE INTERNACIONAL DE JUSTI\u00c7A<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          EIXO: <\/u><\/strong>TRANSHUMANIDADE<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Alega\u00e7\u00f5es de genoc\u00eddio no \u00e2mbito da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o para a Preven\u00e7\u00e3o e Puni\u00e7\u00e3o do Crime de Genoc\u00eddio (Ucr\u00e2nia v. Federa\u00e7\u00e3o Russa: interven\u00e7\u00e3o de 32 Estados)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Texto e tradu\u00e7\u00e3o livre de Roberta Soeiro de Moraes Souza, especialista em Negocia\u00e7\u00f5es Internacionais, pelo Programa San Tiago Dantas, bacharela em Rela\u00e7\u00f5es Internacionais, pelas Faculdades Integradas Rio Branco e em Direito pela Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. Pesquisadora da do Projeto Global Crossings da Universidade Federal de Uberl\u00e2ndia, C\u00e1tedra Jean Monnet \u2013 Uni\u00e3o Europeia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          A Conven\u00e7\u00e3o para a Preven\u00e7\u00e3o e a Puni\u00e7\u00e3o do Crime de Genoc\u00eddio (\u2018Conven\u00e7\u00e3o do Genoc\u00eddio\u2019) fora adotada pela Assembleia das Na\u00e7\u00f5es Unidas, a partir de 1948, ap\u00f3s o Holocausto e a Segunda Grande Guerra. Trata-se de um tratado internacional, respons\u00e1vel por engendrar arcabou\u00e7o legal acerca de genoc\u00eddio, perante a comunidade internacional, atribuindo um compromisso aos Estados a prevenirem e punirem essa pr\u00e1tica do \u201cmais hediondo dos crimes\u201d, segundo secret\u00e1rio-geral da ONU Ant\u00f3nio Guterres.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                      O termo genoc\u00eddio fora incorporado \u00e0 jurisprud\u00eancia Direito Internacional, pelo jurista polon\u00eas Raphael Lemkin, diante dos crimes cometidos pelos nazistas, tornando-se, um dos principais defensores da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o do Genoc\u00eddio, a fim de salvaguardar uma na\u00e7\u00e3o ou grupo \u00e9tnico, perante um plano coordenado, em diversas a\u00e7\u00f5es, direcionadas a elimina\u00e7\u00e3o de fundamentos essenciais da vida de grupos nacionais, tendo-se em vista que membros de uma na\u00e7\u00e3o ou grupo nacional seriam observados, enquanto uma entidade social.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                      Assim, torna-se imperativo o compromisso internacional para a preven\u00e7\u00e3o do genoc\u00eddio, norteados pelos princ\u00edpios da igualdade e da dignidade humana.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                      Al\u00e9m da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o de Genoc\u00eddio, a Corte Internacional de Justi\u00e7a (CIJ) tem jurisdi\u00e7\u00e3o para julgar casos de genoc\u00eddio, principal \u00f3rg\u00e3o judici\u00e1rio das Na\u00e7\u00f5es Unidas, desempenhando um relevante papel de aplica\u00e7\u00e3o do direito internacional relacionado a esse crime.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                      Em uma audi\u00eancia realizada, em 27 de setembro de 2023, em Haia, envolvendo uma segunda rodada de sustenta\u00e7\u00e3o oral, em defesa da Ucr\u00e2nia, cujo representante foi o professor Dr. Harold Hongju Koh, a comunidade internacional v\u00ea-se diante de poss\u00edveis crimes, relacionados ao genoc\u00eddio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                      Em seu discurso, o representante da Ucr\u00e2nia assinala que a a\u00e7\u00e3o militar russa contra a Ucr\u00e2nia se realizou sob a alega\u00e7\u00e3o de p\u00f4r fim a um genoc\u00eddio nas regi\u00f5es de Donetsk e Luhansk, e levar os respons\u00e1veis a julgamento, desse modo, a Ucr\u00e2nia estaria cometendo viola\u00e7\u00f5es \u00e0 Conven\u00e7\u00e3o sobre Genoc\u00eddio de 1948, que a obrigaria a agir, para \u201cprevenir e punir\u201d, de acordo com os artigos I e IV da referida Conven\u00e7\u00e3o.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                      Dr. Koh afere que h\u00e1, portanto, uma disputa, n\u00e3o s\u00f3 jur\u00eddica, mas f\u00e1tica, acerca da interpreta\u00e7\u00e3o, aplica\u00e7\u00e3o e cumprimento da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o sobre Genoc\u00eddio. Alega, tamb\u00e9m, que a R\u00fassia abusou sistematicamente da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o, ao tomar v\u00e1rias a\u00e7\u00f5es unilaterais, incluindo o reconhecimento de rep\u00fablicas separatistas, invas\u00e3o da Ucr\u00e2nia e brutaliza\u00e7\u00e3o de sua popula\u00e7\u00e3o. Ademais, argumenta que, desde o in\u00edcio, houve um desacordo sobre uma quest\u00e3o de direito ou de fato, conferindo jurisdi\u00e7\u00e3o \u00e0 Corte.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          O representante da Ucr\u00e2nia tamb\u00e9m refuta as alega\u00e7\u00f5es da R\u00fassia de que o lit\u00edgio n\u00e3o diz respeito \u00e0 Conven\u00e7\u00e3o, mas sim \u00e0 legalidade do uso da for\u00e7a, com base na Carta das Na\u00e7\u00f5es Unidas e no direito internacional consuetudin\u00e1rio. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Ele argumenta que a R\u00fassia forjou uma dicotomia artificial entre uso da for\u00e7a e a Conven\u00e7\u00e3o sobre o Genoc\u00eddio, destacando que o uso da for\u00e7a pela R\u00fassia est\u00e1 diretamente relacionado \u00e0 alega\u00e7\u00e3o de genoc\u00eddio, colocando-a no \u00e2mbito da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o.           <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Al\u00e9m disso, ele refuta a distin\u00e7\u00e3o feita pela R\u00fassia entre viola\u00e7\u00f5es da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o e o dever de agir de boa-f\u00e9, argumentando que o dever de agir de boa-f\u00e9 est\u00e1 relacionado ao cumprimento das obriga\u00e7\u00f5es da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o e n\u00e3o est\u00e1 fora dela.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          O representante da Ucr\u00e2nia tamb\u00e9m sustenta que o CIJ pode considerar outras fontes de direito internacional para determinar se a R\u00fassia agiu ilegalmente sob a Conven\u00e7\u00e3o do Genoc\u00eddio, incluindo o uso da for\u00e7a como agress\u00e3o, crimes contra a humanidade ou crimes de guerra. Ou seja, a Ucr\u00e2nia nega veementemente essas afirma\u00e7\u00f5es, assim como alega que a R\u00fassia est\u00e1 usando falsos pretextos para justificar suas a\u00e7\u00f5es militares. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Quanto \u00e0s controv\u00e9rsias entre os Estados, acerca da interpreta\u00e7\u00e3o, aplica\u00e7\u00e3o e cumprimento do art. IX da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o de Genoc\u00eddio ser\u00e3o submetidas \u00e0 Corte Internacional de Justi\u00e7a a pedido de uma das partes na controv\u00e9rsia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Portanto, a Corte Internacional de Justi\u00e7a tem jurisdi\u00e7\u00e3o sobre a disputa entre a Ucr\u00e2nia e a R\u00fassia, j\u00e1 que a amplitude desse artigo n\u00e3o cobre apenas viola\u00e7\u00f5es diretas, mas tamb\u00e9m abusos, interpreta\u00e7\u00f5es err\u00f4neas, aplica\u00e7\u00f5es impr\u00f3prias, bem como, o descumprimento da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o referente ao genoc\u00eddio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          A teoria jur\u00eddica da R\u00fassia portanto n\u00e3o teria fundamentos s\u00f3lidos, distorcendo o texto legal e a interpreta\u00e7\u00e3o da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o, ao tentar excluir a jurisdi\u00e7\u00e3o da Corte, com base em falsas dicotomias, relacionadas ao uso da for\u00e7a e \u00e0 pr\u00f3pria Conven\u00e7\u00e3o.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Ademais, o representante da Ucr\u00e2nia defende a exist\u00eancia de um lit\u00edgio leg\u00edtimo, em torno da alega\u00e7\u00e3o de genoc\u00eddio e \u00e0 Conven\u00e7\u00e3o sobre esse tema, em contrapartida, a R\u00fassia tenta negar inclusive a exist\u00eancia dessa disputa, citando o art. 51 da Carta das Na\u00e7\u00f5es Unidas, como justificativa para suas a\u00e7\u00f5es, segundo a qual, nada prejudicar\u00e1 o direito inerente de leg\u00edtima defesa individual ou coletiva, no caso de ataque armado contra um membro da ONU, at\u00e9 que o Conselho de seguran\u00e7a tome medidas necess\u00e1rias para a manuten\u00e7\u00e3o da paz e da seguran\u00e7a internacionais, sendo que ap\u00f3s uma comunica\u00e7\u00e3o imediata ao Conselho, n\u00e3o dever\u00e3o atingir a autoridade e responsabilidade que a Carta atribuiu ao Conselho, para levar a efeito a a\u00e7\u00e3o que julgar necess\u00e1ria \u00e0 manuten\u00e7\u00e3o da paz e seguran\u00e7a internacionais.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          No entanto, a Ucr\u00e2nia sustenta que as a\u00e7\u00f5es da R\u00fassia e suas alega\u00e7\u00f5es de genoc\u00eddio comprovam a exist\u00eancia dessa disputa, al\u00e9m de n\u00e3o apresentar provas concretas, que refutem a conclus\u00e3o inicial do tribunal, justamente de que h\u00e1 lit\u00edgio entre as partes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          E por isso, a Ucr\u00e2nia requer ao tribunal que rejeite as obje\u00e7\u00f5es preliminares da R\u00fassia e agende uma audi\u00eancia sobre o m\u00e9rito do caso. O discurso defende assim que a R\u00fassia n\u00e3o pode negar a exist\u00eancia do lit\u00edgio, mesmo que ambas as partes supostamente concordam em alguns pontos legais e que a refer\u00eancia ao art. 51 da Carta da ONU n\u00e3o anula a disputa relacionada \u00e0 Conven\u00e7\u00e3o do Genoc\u00eddio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Em suma, tal defesa ucraniana faz parte de um processo legal em que o pa\u00eds busca interven\u00e7\u00e3o da Corte Internacional de Justi\u00e7a, para resolver a quest\u00e3o da invas\u00e3o russa, considerada ilegal, \u00e0 luz do Direito Internacional, bem como o seu alegado genoc\u00eddio, cabendo a interpreta\u00e7\u00e3o e decis\u00e3o final caberiam ao tribunal que est\u00e1 analisando o caso em quest\u00e3o. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

          A Corte reconheceu que o questionamento ucraniano \u00e9 leg\u00edtimo e poderia analisar procedimentalmente poss\u00edveis medidas provis\u00f3rias, requisitadas pela Ucr\u00e2nia e reconheceu a iminente possibilidade da exist\u00eancia de viola\u00e7\u00e3o da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o de 1948, por parte da R\u00fassia, referente \u00e0 sua fundamenta\u00e7\u00e3o da invas\u00e3o, atestando a plausibilidade do pedido ucraniano de aus\u00eancia probat\u00f3ria de crime praticado pela Ucr\u00e2nia contra a humanidade, e requerendo o fim imediato das a\u00e7\u00f5es russas, assim como outorgando medidas provis\u00f3rias para a Ucr\u00e2nia,  provendo respaldo legal ao pleito ucraniano a outras poss\u00edveis viola\u00e7\u00f5es.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Apesar desse contexto, a R\u00fassia n\u00e3o compareceu \u00e0s audi\u00eancias, comprometendo ainda mais o cumprimento de qualquer medida que produza san\u00e7\u00e3o, ao descumprimento \u00e0 Corte.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Por fim, assinala-se que tanto a Ucr\u00e2nia, quanto \u00e0 R\u00fassia s\u00e3o signat\u00e1rios da Conven\u00e7\u00e3o de Genoc\u00eddio, e assim como enfatizado no tribunal da ONU, esse tratado n\u00e3o permite uma invas\u00e3o, com o intuito de prevenir um genoc\u00eddio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          REFER\u00caNCIAS <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          CIJ. Ukraine v. Russian Federation \u2013 Public Sitting – in the case concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation: 32 States intervening)<\/em>. Dispon\u00edvel em: https:\/\/www.icj-cij.org\/sites\/default\/files\/case-related\/182\/182-20230927-ora-01-00-bi.pdf<\/a>  . Acesso em: 19 out. 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          CIJ. Ukraine v. Russian Federation. Provisional Measures \u2013 Declaration of Judge Xue<\/em>. 16\/3\/2022, para. 2-4. Dispon\u00edvel em: https:\/\/www.icj-cij.org\/en\/case\/182<\/a>. Acesso em: 19 out. 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          ORTIZ, Rosalvo, I. O genoc\u00eddio na \u00f3tica do jurista polon\u00eas Raphael Lemkin: (re)vis\u00e3o hist\u00f3rica e Contempor\u00e2nea<\/em>. 02\/07\/2020. Dispon\u00edvel em: https:\/\/emporiododireito.com.br\/leitura\/o-genocidio-na-otica-do-jurista-polones-raphael-lemkin-re-visao-historica-e-contemporanea<\/a>. Acesso em: 19 out. 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Vers\u00e3o em Ingl\u00eas<\/u><\/strong><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          SECTION 3: INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          AXIS: TRANSHUMANITY<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \n
          1. Ukraine vs Russian Federation conflict in focus: allegations of genocide within the framework of the Convention on the Prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

            Text and translation by Roberta Soeiro de Moraes Souza, International Negotiations Specialist, San Tiago Dantas (Unesp, Unicamp, PUC-SP), Bachelor in International Relations, Faculdades Integradas Rio Branco and Bachelor of Law, Mackenzie Presbyterian University. Researcher of the Global Crossings Project at the Federal University of Uberl\u00e2ndia, Jean Monnet Chair \u2013 European Union<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            The Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (\u2018Genocide Convention\u2019) was adopted by the United Nations Assembly in 1948, after the Holocaust and the Second World War. It is an international treaty, responsible for creating a legal framework regarding genocide, before the international community, giving a commitment to States to prevent and punish this practice of \u201cthe most heinous of crimes\u201d, according to UN Secretary-General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            The term genocide was incorporated into International Law jurisprudence, by the Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, in the face of the crimes committed by the Nazis, becoming one of the main defenders of the Genocide Convention, in order to safeguard a nation or ethnic group, in the face of a coordinated plan , in several actions, aimed at eliminating essential foundations of the life of national groups, considering that members of a nation or national group would be observed, as a social entity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Therefore, an international commitment to preventing genocide, guided by the principles of equality and human dignity, becomes imperative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            In addition to the Genocide Convention, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has jurisdiction to judge cases of genocide, the main judicial body of the United Nations, playing an important role in applying international law related to this crime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            The term genocide was incorporated into International Law jurisprudence, by the Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, in the face of the crimes committed by the Nazis, becoming one of the main defenders of the Genocide Convention, in order to safeguard a nation or ethnic group, in the face of a coordinated plan , in several actions, aimed at eliminating essential foundations of the life of national groups, considering that members of a nation or national group would be observed, as a social entity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Therefore, an international commitment to preventing genocide, guided by the principles of equality and human dignity, becomes imperative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            In addition to the Genocide Convention, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has jurisdiction to judge cases of genocide, the main judicial body of the United Nations, playing an important role in applying international law related to this crime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            At a hearing held on September 27, 2023, in The Hague, involving a second round of oral arguments in defense of Ukraine, whose representative was Professor Dr. Harold Hongju Koh, the international community saw facing possible crimes related to genocide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            In his speech, the representative of Ukraine points out that the Russian military action against Ukraine was carried out under the allegation of putting an end to a genocide in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, and bringing those responsible to trial, in this way, Ukraine would be committing violations to the 1948 Genocide Convention, which would oblige it to act, to \u201cprevent and punish\u201d, in accordance with articles I and IV of the aforementioned Convention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Dr. Koh states that there is, therefore, a dispute, not only legal, but factual, regarding the interpretation, application and enforcement of the Genocide Convention. He also alleges that Russia systematically abused the Convention by taking several unilateral actions, including recognizing separatist republics, invading Ukraine and brutalizing its population. Furthermore, he argues that, from the beginning, there was a disagreement on a question of law or fact, conferring jurisdiction on the Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Ukraine’s representative also refutes Russia’s claims that the dispute does not concern the Convention, but rather the legality of the use of force, based on the United Nations Charter and customary international law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            He argues that Russia has forged an artificial dichotomy between use of force and the Genocide Convention, highlighting that Russia’s use of force is directly related to the allegation of genocide, placing it within the scope of the Convention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Furthermore, he refutes the distinction made by Russia between violations of the Convention and the duty to act in good faith, arguing that the duty to act in good faith is related to the fulfillment of obligations under the Convention and is not outside it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Ukraine’s representative also maintains that the ICJ can consider other sources of international law to determine whether Russia acted illegally under the Genocide Convention, including the use of force as aggression, crimes against humanity or war crimes. In other words, Ukraine vehemently denies these statements, as well as claiming that Russia is using false pretexts to justify its military actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Regarding controversies between States, regarding the interpretation, application and compliance with art. IX of the Genocide Convention will be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of one of the parties to the controversy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Therefore, the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the dispute between Ukraine and Russia, as the breadth of this article not only covers direct violations, but also abuses, erroneous interpretations, improper applications, as well as non-compliance with the Convention relating to genocide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Russia’s legal theory would therefore not have solid foundations, distorting the legal text and interpretation of the Convention, by trying to exclude the Court’s jurisdiction, based on false dichotomies, related to the use of force and the Convention itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Furthermore, the representative of Ukraine defends the existence of a legitimate dispute, surrounding the allegation of genocide and the Convention on this topic, on the other hand, Russia even tries to deny the existence of this dispute, citing art. 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, as justification for its actions, according to which, nothing shall prejudice the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense, in the case of an armed attack against a member of the UN, until the Security Council takes necessary measures to the maintenance of international peace and security, and after immediate communication to the Council, they should not achieve the authority and responsibility that the Charter attributed to the Council, to carry out the action it deems necessary to maintain international peace and security.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            However, Ukraine maintains that Russia’s actions and its allegations of genocide prove the existence of this dispute, in addition to not presenting concrete evidence that refutes the court’s initial conclusion, precisely that there is a dispute between the parties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Therefore, Ukraine requests the court to reject Russia’s preliminary objections and schedule a hearing on the merits of the case. The speech thus argues that Russia cannot deny the existence of the dispute, even if both parties supposedly agree on some legal points and that the reference to art. 51 of the UN Charter does not nullify the dispute related to the Genocide Convention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            In short, this Ukrainian defense is part of a legal process in which the country seeks intervention from the International Court of Justice, to resolve the issue of the Russian invasion, considered illegal, in the light of International Law, as well as its alleged genocide, and it is up to interpretation and final decision would be up to the court that is analyzing the case in question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            The Court recognized that the Ukrainian questioning is legitimate and could procedurally analyze possible provisional measures, requested by Ukraine and recognized the imminent possibility of the existence of a violation of the 1948 Convention, on the part of Russia, regarding its justification for the invasion, attesting to the plausibility of the Ukrainian request for the absence of proof of a crime committed by Ukraine against humanity, and requesting the immediate end of Russian actions, as well as granting provisional measures to Ukraine, providing legal support to the Ukrainian claim for other possible violations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Despite this context, Russia did not attend the hearings, further compromising compliance with any measure that results in sanctions for non-compliance with the Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Finally, it should be noted that both Ukraine and Russia are signatories to the Genocide Convention, and as emphasized in the UN court, this treaty does not allow an invasion, with the aim of preventing genocide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            CIJ. Ukraine v. Russian Federation \u2013 Public Sitting – in the case concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation: 32 States intervening)<\/em>. Retrieved from: https:\/\/www.icj-cij.org\/sites\/default\/files\/case-related\/182\/182-20230927-ora-01-00-bi.pdf<\/a>. Accessed on: Oct. 19, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            CIJ. Ukraine v. Russian Federation. Provisional Measures \u2013 Declaration of Judge Xue<\/em>. 16\/3\/2022, para. 2-4. Retrieved from: https:\/\/www.icj-cij.org\/en\/case\/182<\/a>. Accessed on: Oct. 19, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            ORTIZ, Rosalvo, I. O genoc\u00eddio na \u00f3tica do jurista polon\u00eas Raphael Lemkin: (re)vis\u00e3o hist\u00f3rica e Contempor\u00e2nea<\/em>. 02\/07\/2020. Retrieved from: https:\/\/emporiododireito.com.br\/leitura\/o-genocidio-na-otica-do-jurista-polones-raphael-lemkin-re-visao-historica-e-contemporanea<\/a>. Accessed on: Oct. 19, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            SE\u00c7\u00c3O 4:<\/strong> CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DIREITOS HUMANOS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            EIXO: <\/u><\/strong>CIDADANIA GLOBAL<\/u><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

              \n
            1. A condi\u00e7\u00e3o jur\u00eddica e os direitos dos migrantes indocumentados<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

              Texto e tradu\u00e7\u00e3o livre de Andressa Gabriela de Lima Pimenta – Discente em Rela\u00e7\u00f5es Internacionais pela Universidade Federal de Uberl\u00e2ndia, volunt\u00e1ria na ONG Taare (Trabalho de Apoio a Migrantes Internacionais) e Pesquisadora do Projeto Global Crossings, da Universidade Federal de Uberl\u00e2ndia, C\u00e1tedra Jean Monnet \u2013 Uni\u00e3o Europeia<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              No ano de 2003, em 17 de setembro, a Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos (Corte IDH) emitiu uma Opini\u00e3o Consultiva (OC), n. 18\/03, a pedido dos Estados Mexicanos. Nesta ocasi\u00e3o, foi discutida a condi\u00e7\u00e3o legal e os direitos dos migrantes indocumentados, levantando ainda quest\u00f5es que foram postas pelo pa\u00eds solicitante, al\u00e9m de explorar os efeitos e aplica\u00e7\u00f5es de princ\u00edpios fundamentais no contexto de migra\u00e7\u00e3o, oferecendo orienta\u00e7\u00f5es sobre como os Estados devem tratar os migrantes indocumentados de acordo com os princ\u00edpios de direitos humanos. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                          Dentre os princ\u00edpios que a Corte IDH \u00e9 incumbida de interpretar, dois se destacam nesta an\u00e1lise consultiva, sendo estes o princ\u00edpio da igualdade<\/em> e o princ\u00edpio da n\u00e3o-discrimina\u00e7\u00e3o<\/em>. Foi a partir destes princ\u00edpios, que a Corte enfatizou que quaisquer formas de tratamento discriminat\u00f3rio em rela\u00e7\u00e3o aos migrantes, mesmo aqueles que se encontram em situa\u00e7\u00e3o irregular, \u00e9 expressamente proibida. Contudo, apesar da discrimina\u00e7\u00e3o n\u00e3o ser permitida, a Corte interpreta a distin\u00e7\u00e3o como aceit\u00e1vel, se o tratamento for justific\u00e1vel, proporcional e fundamentado. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Esta diferen\u00e7a de conceitos, acontece no momento em que a discrimina\u00e7\u00e3o possui caracter\u00edsticas que violam e amea\u00e7am os princ\u00edpios de direitos humanos. Apesar da diferen\u00e7a dos conceitos, \u00e9 importante destacar que a distin\u00e7\u00e3o n\u00e3o pode desviar-se da justi\u00e7a ou da sele\u00e7\u00e3o racional, tampouco buscar objetivos arbitr\u00e1rios ou entrar em conflito com a unidade essencial e a dignidade da natureza humana.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                          Desta forma, ao levar em considera\u00e7\u00e3o o que a Corte IDH entende por migrantes indocumentados, entendemos que o termo se refere \u00e0queles que n\u00e3o possuem as mesmas condi\u00e7\u00f5es daqueles que se encontram de forma regular no pa\u00eds. Dito de outro modo, estes migrantes s\u00e3o postos em uma situa\u00e7\u00e3o de extrema vulnerabilidade, uma vez que por n\u00e3o possu\u00edrem os documentos que regulamentam sua situa\u00e7\u00e3o no pa\u00eds, acabam sofrendo com situa\u00e7\u00f5es prec\u00e1rias, principalmente quando nos referimos \u00e0 quest\u00e3o trabalhista. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                          Contudo, a Corte considera que mesmo em momentos em que os migrantes n\u00e3o possuem sua situa\u00e7\u00e3o regulamentada, seus direitos n\u00e3o podem ser violados, al\u00e9m de ser proibida a possibilidade de discrimina\u00e7\u00e3o e restri\u00e7\u00e3o de direitos, independentemente da situa\u00e7\u00e3o do migrante, seja regular ou n\u00e3o. Assim, tanto na esfera p\u00fablica, quanto privada, o Estado tem como responsabilidade prevenir, evitar e, quando necess\u00e1rio, resolver poss\u00edveis viola\u00e7\u00f5es que possam acontecer envolvendo a situa\u00e7\u00e3o destes migrantes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

                          Como destaca Silva (2023), a OC 18\/03 destaca a necessidade de implementar medidas proativas para prevenir e combater a discrimina\u00e7\u00e3o contra os migrantes indocumentados. Ela enfatiza que o Estado \u00e9 respons\u00e1vel pela comunidade internacional se deixar de cumprir suas obriga\u00e7\u00f5es de proteger e garantir os Direitos Humanos. Os princ\u00edpios de igualdade e n\u00e3o-discrimina\u00e7\u00e3o s\u00e3o fundamentais nesse contexto, delineando a obriga\u00e7\u00e3o subjacente aos respeitos e \u00e0 prote\u00e7\u00e3o dos Direitos Humanos. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Al\u00e9m disso, a opini\u00e3o reitera que todo migrante, inclusive os indocumentados, deve ter assegurado o devido processo legal, sem que seu status<\/em> migrat\u00f3rio seja justificativa para exibi\u00e7\u00e3o de seus Direitos Humanos. O Estado \u00e9 chamado a garantir n\u00e3o apenas os Direitos Humanos, mas tamb\u00e9m os direitos laborais de todos, proibindo explicitamente a discrimina\u00e7\u00e3o e garantindo aos trabalhadores os meios necess\u00e1rios para exercerem os seus direitos laborais, sem condicionar isso \u00e0 implementa\u00e7\u00e3o de pol\u00edticas p\u00fablicas. Estas diretrizes convergem para um chamado ao compromisso inequ\u00edvoco dos Estados em proteger os direitos e a dignidade de todos os migrantes, independentemente de seu status legal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                          No Brasil, a situa\u00e7\u00e3o laboral em rela\u00e7\u00e3o aos migrantes tem ganhado cada vez mais uma preocupa\u00e7\u00e3o maior. De acordo com os dados fornecidos pela Lista Suja (cadastro de empregadores que tenham submetido trabalhadores a condi\u00e7\u00f5es an\u00e1logas \u00e0 de escravo), os casos de trabalho an\u00e1logo \u00e0 escravid\u00e3o envolvendo imigrantes dobrou no \u00faltimo ano. Tais condi\u00e7\u00f5es, envolvem trabalho degradantes que incluem longas jornadas, condi\u00e7\u00f5es de trabalho insuficientes, falta de condi\u00e7\u00f5es de seguran\u00e7a e higiene, restri\u00e7\u00e3o de liberdade, d\u00edvida com os trabalhadores que impossibilitam o rompimento do ciclo de explora\u00e7\u00e3o, al\u00e9m de situa\u00e7\u00f5es de viol\u00eancia f\u00edsica e psicol\u00f3gica.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              REFER\u00caNCIAS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

              DE MORAIS, A. M.; GIESTA CABRAL, R. L.; SILV\u00c9RIO DOS REIS, U. L. Trabalhador migrante indocumentado<\/strong>: condi\u00e7\u00e3o jur\u00eddica no Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos. Conhecer: debate entre o p\u00fablico e o privado, [S. l.], v. 9, n. 22, p. 79\u2013107, 2019. DOI: 10.32335\/2238-0426.2019.9.22.1024. Dispon\u00edvel em: https:\/\/revistas.uece.br\/index.php\/revistaconhecer\/article\/view\/1024. Acesso em: 16 out. 2023. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              SILVA, G. M. A Opini\u00e3o Consultiva n. 18\/03 da Corte Interamericana<\/strong>: os direitos dos migrantes indocumentados. Dispon\u00edvel em: <https:\/\/nidh.com.br\/opiniao-consultiva-n-o-13-93-as-atribuicoes-da-comissao-interamericana-de-direitos-humanos\/> Acesso em: 16 out. 2023. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

              TROPASOLAS, P.. Brasil de Fato<\/strong>. Por que dobrou o n\u00famero de trabalhadores imigrantes resgatados do trabalho escravo no Brasil?. [S.l.]. Instituto Humanitas – Unasinos, 2023. Dispon\u00edvel em: https:\/\/www.ihu.unisinos.br\/categorias\/627371-por-que-dobrou-o-numero-de-trabalhadores-imigrantes-resgatados-do-trabalho-escravo-no-brasil. Acesso em: 17 out. 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Vers\u00e3o em Ingl\u00eas<\/u><\/strong><\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

              AXIS: GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                \n
              1. The legal status and rights of undocumented migrants<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

                Text and free translation by Andressa Gabriela de Lima Pimenta – Student in International Relations at the University of Uberl\u00e2ndia, volunteer at the NGO Taare (Trabalho de Apoio a Migrantes Internacionais) and), Researcher of the Global Crossings Project at the Federal University of Uberl\u00e2ndia, Jean Monnet Chair \u2013 European Union.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                            In 2003, on September 17, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IDH Court) issued an Advisory Opinion (AC), n. 18\/03, at the request of the Mexican States. On this occasion, the legal status and rights of undocumented migrants were discussed, also raising questions that were raised by the requesting country, in addition to exploring the effects and applications of fundamental principles in the context of migration, offering guidance on how States should treat migrants undocumented people in accordance with human rights principles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                            Among the principles that the Inter-American Court is responsible for interpreting, two stand out in this consultative analysis, these being the principle of equality<\/em> and the principle of non-discrimination<\/em>. It was based on these principles that the Court emphasized that any form of discriminatory treatment towards migrants, even those who are in an irregular situation, is expressly prohibited. However, although discrimination is not permitted, the Court interprets the distinction as acceptable if the treatment is justifiable, proportionate and well-founded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                This difference in concepts occurs at a time when discrimination has characteristics that violate and threaten human rights principles. Despite the difference in concepts, it is important to highlight that the distinction cannot deviate from justice or rational selection, nor pursue arbitrary objectives or conflict with the essential unity and dignity of human nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                            Therefore, when taking into consideration what the Inter-American Court understands as undocumented migrants, we understand that the term refers to those who do not have the same conditions as those who are regularly in the country. In other words, these migrants are placed in an extremely vulnerable situation, as they do not have the documents that regulate their situation in the country, suffering from precarious situations, especially when we refer to labor issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                            However, the Court considers that even at times when migrants do not have their status regulated, their rights cannot be violated, in addition to the possibility of discrimination and restriction of rights being prohibited, regardless of the migrant’s status, whether regular or not. Thus, both in the public and private spheres, the State has the responsibility to prevent, avoid and, when necessary, resolve possible violations that may occur involving the situation of these migrants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                            As highlighted by Silva (2023), AC 18\/03 highlights the need to implement proactive measures to prevent and combat discrimination against undocumented migrants. It emphasizes that the State is responsible to the international community if it fails to fulfill its obligations to protect and guarantee Human Rights. The principles of equality and non-discrimination are fundamental in this context, outlining the underlying obligation to respect and protect Human Rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                Furthermore, the opinion reiterates that every migrant, including undocumented ones, must be assured of due legal process, without their status migration is justification for displaying their Human Rights. The State is called upon to guarantee not only Human Rights, but also the labor rights of all, explicitly prohibiting discrimination and guaranteeing workers the necessary means to exercise their labor rights, without making this conditional on the implementation of public policies. These guidelines converge into a call for States’ unequivocal commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of all migrants, regardless of their legal status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                            In Brazil, the labor situation in relation to migrants has increasingly become a greater concern. According to data provided by the \u201cLista Suja\u201d (registry of employers who have subjected workers to conditions analogous to slavery), the number of cases of slavery-like work involving immigrants has doubled in the last year. Such conditions involve degrading work that includes long hours, insufficient working conditions, lack of safety and hygiene conditions, restriction of freedom, debt owed to workers that make it impossible to break the cycle of exploitation, in addition to situations of physical and psychological violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

                DE MORAIS, A. M.; GIESTA CABRAL, R. L.; SILV\u00c9RIO DOS REIS, U. L. Trabalhador migrante indocumentado<\/strong>: condi\u00e7\u00e3o jur\u00eddica no Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos. Conhecer: debate entre o p\u00fablico e o privado, [S. l.], v. 9, no. 22, p. 79\u2013107, 2019. DOI: 10.32335\/2238-0426.2019.9.22.1024. Retrieved from:https:\/\/revistas.uece.br\/index.php\/revistaconhecimento\/article\/view\/1024. Accessed on: Oct. 16, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                SILVA, G. M. A Opini\u00e3o Consultiva n. 18\/03 da Corte Interamericana<\/strong>: os direitos dos migrantes indocumentados. Retrieved from: <https:\/\/nidh.com.br\/opiniao-consultiva-n-o-13-93-as-atribuicoes-da-comissao-interamericana-de-direitos-humanos\/> Accessed on: Oct. 16, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                STROPASOLAS, P.. Brasil de Fato<\/strong>. Por que dobrou o n\u00famero de trabalhadores imigrantes resgatados do trabalho escravo no Brasil?. [S.l.]. Instituto Humanitas – Unasinos, 2023. Available at: https:\/\/www.ihu.unisinos.br\/categorias\/627371-por-que-dobrou-o-numero-de-trabalhodores-imigrantes-resgatados-do-trabalho-escravo- in Brazil. Accessed on: Oct. 17, 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

                EIXO: TRANSHUMANIDADE<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n