Ranieri L Resende
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito (PPGD), Post-Doc
Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Comparative Public Law and International Law, Visiting Postdoctoral Research Fellow (2020)
Ranieri Lima Resende is Postdoctoral Researcher at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ, Brazil, 2021-), where he obtained his PhD. in Law, and was Visiting Doctoral Researcher for the academic year 2017-18 at the New York University School of Law (NYU, U.S.), and Excellence Fellow of the Rio de Janeiro Research Foundation (FAPERJ, Brazil, 2018-19). Recently, Ranieri was admitted to the List of Assistants to Counsel of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In 2020, he assumed the position of Visiting Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (MPIL, Germany), where he published his subsequent research work: “Precedent of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: State Compliance and Judicial Performance in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, and Bolivia” (MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2023-02). His doctoral dissertation was focused on the Precedent of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which part was sequentially published by the Northwestern Journal of Human Rights (v. 17, n. 1) and the New York University Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series (No. 19-11) under the title “Deliberation and Decision-Making Process in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”. Based on his innovative work, the author was invited by the Max Planck Institute for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law (Luxembourg) to elaborate an academic entry on the Inter-Am. Court’s Deliberative Process, in order to contribute to the Institute’s Encyclopedia edited by the Oxford University Press (2023). During his MSc. in Law studies at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG, Brazil), Ranieri has dedicated to the International Law field and was admitted as Visiting Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute, Heidelberg. His Master thesis was partially published in the Goettingen Journal of International Law (v. 3, n. 2) under the title “Normative Heterogeneity and International Responsibility: Another View on the World Trade Organization and its System of Countermeasures”, and it was honorably included in the selective Oxford Bibliographies (Countermeasures in International Law, 2005), as well as the respective book (International Law in Portuguese, 2021). Besides these papers, Ranieri has published in many scientific journals, conference proceedings and collective books in Brazil and abroad, especially in the fields of International Protection of Human Rights, International Responsibility, Environmental Law, Democracy, Constitutionalism, Judicial Review, Fundamental Rights, and Transitional Justice. Some of his works were quoted by the Brazilian Supreme Court in recent important precedents (e.g., Asbestos Cases, Provisional Execution of Criminal Sentence Cases), as well as by legal scholars in several countries (e.g., United States, Australia, China, Indonesia, Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom, Luxembourg, Sweden, Portugal). Member of several institutional and academic societies, such as: International Criminal Court Bar Association (ICCBA); International Law Committee at the New York City Bar Association (NYCBA); Research Group on International State Responsibility and Environment at the Latin American Society of International Law (LASIL/SLADI); Law & Courts Section at the American Political Science Association - APSA; International Society of Public Law (ICON-S); International Law Association (ILA).
Supervisors: Carlos Bolonha (UFRJ, Brazil), José Ribas Vieira (UFRJ, Brazil), Lewis Kornhauser (NYU, US), John Ferejohn (NYU, US), Arthur José Almeida Diniz (UFMG, Brazil), Roberto Luiz Silva (UFMG, Brazil), Rüdiger Wolfrum (MPIL, Germany), Armin von Bogdandy (MPIL, Germany), and Jorge Amaury Maia Nunes (UDF, Brazil)
Supervisors: Carlos Bolonha (UFRJ, Brazil), José Ribas Vieira (UFRJ, Brazil), Lewis Kornhauser (NYU, US), John Ferejohn (NYU, US), Arthur José Almeida Diniz (UFMG, Brazil), Roberto Luiz Silva (UFMG, Brazil), Rüdiger Wolfrum (MPIL, Germany), Armin von Bogdandy (MPIL, Germany), and Jorge Amaury Maia Nunes (UDF, Brazil)
less
InterestsView All (24)
Uploads
Papers by Ranieri L Resende
Abstract: The present article aims at investigating the elementary problem of whether the corruption generates a human rights’ violation, considering the main arguments presented by Anne Peters and Kevin Davis in their confronting articles, in order to identify possible fallacies and argumentative inconsistencies based on the International Human Rights Law’s parameters.
Abstract: The article aims at analyzing the Impeachment as an institutional control mechanism of political agents, based on the search for its Common Law's theoretical and historical bases. The confrontation with the problem of defining the nature of impeachment aimed, firstly, to place the issue of responsibility within the theoretical perspective of representative democracy, in view of the flaws that are immanent in relation to the deviation of expectations and the abuse of power. When identifying structural differences between political accountability and legal responsibility, it was appropriate to select the prerequisite of legal violation from some classical Athenian precedents (eisangeliai). The sequential mutations linked to the impeachment passed through the phases of: a) establishing procedural parameters (first cases); b) requirement of the legality criterion (Stuart period); c) attempt for specifying the hypotheses of legal violation (US); d) fixation of most accurate legal types of violation (Brazil). From a historical, comparative point of view, the qualified legal criterion has become highly perceptible in the first constitutional model of the Brazilian presidential impeachment (1891-1892).
the proper normative nature of this branch of legal science, in the measure that the negation of the incidence of the general principle of responsibility, subsequently to an obligation breaking, would culminate in removing of the States the duty to behave in accord with the international commitments regulated by its norms. So that it could apprehend the legal dimension of the international responsibility of the States, it was necessary to determine its constitutive elements, its exceptions (exculpatory of illegality) and its consequences, in order that the analysis provided a global vision of the institute without the pretension, however, to deplete its amplest content.
Conference Presentations by Ranieri L Resende
Abstract: The present article aims at investigating the elementary problem of whether the corruption generates a human rights’ violation, considering the main arguments presented by Anne Peters and Kevin Davis in their confronting articles, in order to identify possible fallacies and argumentative inconsistencies based on the International Human Rights Law’s parameters.
Abstract: The article aims at analyzing the Impeachment as an institutional control mechanism of political agents, based on the search for its Common Law's theoretical and historical bases. The confrontation with the problem of defining the nature of impeachment aimed, firstly, to place the issue of responsibility within the theoretical perspective of representative democracy, in view of the flaws that are immanent in relation to the deviation of expectations and the abuse of power. When identifying structural differences between political accountability and legal responsibility, it was appropriate to select the prerequisite of legal violation from some classical Athenian precedents (eisangeliai). The sequential mutations linked to the impeachment passed through the phases of: a) establishing procedural parameters (first cases); b) requirement of the legality criterion (Stuart period); c) attempt for specifying the hypotheses of legal violation (US); d) fixation of most accurate legal types of violation (Brazil). From a historical, comparative point of view, the qualified legal criterion has become highly perceptible in the first constitutional model of the Brazilian presidential impeachment (1891-1892).
the proper normative nature of this branch of legal science, in the measure that the negation of the incidence of the general principle of responsibility, subsequently to an obligation breaking, would culminate in removing of the States the duty to behave in accord with the international commitments regulated by its norms. So that it could apprehend the legal dimension of the international responsibility of the States, it was necessary to determine its constitutive elements, its exceptions (exculpatory of illegality) and its consequences, in order that the analysis provided a global vision of the institute without the pretension, however, to deplete its amplest content.
(i) uso estratégico do direito infraconstitucional: aprovação acelerada da Lei nº 14.701/2023, cujo projeto legislativo tramitou em regime de urgência, com vistas a iniciar a sua vigência normativa antes mesmo da publicação do acórdão da Suprema Corte (Marco Temporal I);
(ii) associação apenas procedimental ao rule of law: superação formal dos vetos do Poder Executivo, os quais se encontravam fundados no conteúdo material do precedente constitucional do STF (Marco Temporal I);
(iii) tendência substancialmente autocrática: busca pela supressão arbitrária dos direitos de minorias indígenas, com a debilitação infraestrutural das correspondentes oposições políticas.
De forma subsequente, por intermédio da aplicação indistinta do método do controle dialógico de constitucionalidade ao caso Marco Temporal II, o Supremo Tribunal Federal brasileiro não se ateve às restrições básicas decorrentes do envolvimento direto e imediato de direitos humanos de minorias indígenas, com relação aos quais o modelo dialógico-constitucional canadense se evidencia mais protetivo para os povos originários, ao excluir referida categoria de direitos fundamentais da aplicação da Notwithstanding Clause (Seção 33).
Independente de considerá-lo fundado em causas justas ou não, o movimento dos caminhoneiros continua a gerar graves consequências, de modo a impulsionar o questionamento sobre quem são os responsáveis e de que maneira a própria democracia estaria envolvida nesse processo.
Hence, due process rules seem able to provide procedural preconditions for democracy as an ex ante scheme of guaranties for promoting the equitable political participation. In scenarios where the consensus rule and the supermajority rule are separately applicable, for instance, the minority’s veto capability can work as an institutional brake against hostile interests or harmful legislation, which affect vulnerable minorities in an unbalanced political situation.
The research’s theoretical premise is situated in the doctrine of Ryan Goodman and Derek Jinks (Socializing States..., OUP, 2003; Incomplete Internalization and Compliance…, 19 Eur. J. Int’L L., 2008), according to which the International Law is able to encourage social processes of change within the State, in order to promote the human rights’ implementation through operative mechanisms of material induction, persuasion, and acculturation.
Additionally, the empirical qualitative analysis is essential to map the behavior patterns of the selected Latin American States, especially the States Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights, in order to understand the phenomenon under consideration, which consists in the normative cross-fertilization between international and national systems.
Considering the minority dimension of indigenous peoples, the Human Rights Committee (UN) edited the General Comment No. 23/1994, which states that the protection of a particular way of life is connected to the use of land resources in the case of indigenous peoples and, for granting the exercise of their rights, positive measures must be adopted to ensure the effective participation of minority communities’ members in decisions which affect them.
In its General Comment No. 21/2009, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN) asserts that States must recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories and resources. In this sense, any use or exploitation of these common goods is legally conditioned by the respective communities’ free and informed consent.
Moreover, the definitive international conventional norm on the consultation rights was aggregated by the Convention ILO No. 169 (1989) after more than 30 years and several preparatory debates. Among current 24 States that ratified the ILO Convention, there are 15 Latin American States (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela), i.e., more than 60% of all ratifications by December 2022.
Complementarily, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights performs an important institutional role in the definition of international standards of indigenous rights, as several judgments may demonstrate:
a) Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua (2001): recognition of communal ownership of indigenous lands;
b) Yakye Axa Community v. Paraguay (2005): test of legality, necessity, and proportionality to justify State intervention in indigenous affairs;
c) Moiwana Village v. Suriname (2005): extension of the indigenous lands’ special protection to traditional lands of other minorities;
d) Saramaka People v. Suriname (2007): duty of States to consult the indigenous community according to its traditions and customs about any project which could affect it, especially when involved large-scale development projects.
In a comparative view, several Latin American States have been implementing consultation rights in order to protect indigenous peoples, their lands and resources, as some national judicial decisions are able to demonstrate: Argentina (e.g., Fallo Consejo Qompí – Lqataxac Nam Qompí, 2006); Bolívia (e.g., Sentencia Constitucional Plurinacional No. 300, 2012); Chile (e.g., Sentencia Rol No. 2.840, 2009); Colombia (e.g.: Sentencia No. C-418-02, 2002); Guatemala (e.g., Sentencia Expediente No. 2376-2007, 2008); Nicaragua (e.g., Sentencia No. 123, 2000); Peru (e.g., Sentencia STC No. 03343-2007-AA, 2009).
However, the debate on the prior, free consent of indigenous peoples as a democratic mechanism of veto by minorities is not a pacific question among specialized researchers and relevant Latin American States (e.g., Brazil), what reveals the necessity of continuous analyses of the problem under the light of comparative politics.
Resumo: Para além de uma abordagem meramente dicotômica do fenômeno da fragmentação em relação às concepções “constitucionalizantes” do direito internacional, demonstra-se viável vislumbrar o alto grau de permeabilidade de princípios e preceitos estruturantes em meio à miríade de regimes jurídico-políticos que não se comportam em isolamento clínico recíproco. Nesse tocante, a concepção de ordem pública internacional, aplicável ao direito internacional público, possui a capacidade de revelar interessantes perspectivas analíticas, na medida em que envolve hierarquias normativas mais abrangentes do que o bem assimilado conceito de normas ius cogens.
Palavras-chave: Devido processo legal. Legalidade. Organizações internacionais. Organização Mundial do Comércio.
Abstract: In the International Law field, the analyzed question is centered in the applicability of the Due Process Principle as a prerequisite of legality of the international organizations’ acts, especially of the World Trade Organization, in the light of the international practice and precedents.
Key words: Due Process. Legality. International Organizations. World Trade Organization.
been considered (Velásquez Rodríguez, Barrios Altos, Almonacid Arellano and Gelman), in association with its subsequent impact on the practices of the respondent States.
Keywords: Asbestos. State Responsibility. Jus Cogens.
Resumo: O artigo visa, essencialmente, à análise da temática do amianto sob o prisma da responsabilidade internacional do Estado. Após a verificação do grau de nocividade do asbesto para a saúde humana e o meio ambiente, buscou-se identificar a normativa internacional regente sobre a matéria, com vistas a qualificar o tipo de norma de direito internacional envolvida em um contexto de fragmentação. O comportamento legislativo do Estado brasileiro diante do tópico do amianto foi considerado em sua dialética constitucional perante o Supremo Tribunal Federal, especialmente nas sequenciais idas e vindas sobre o tema (permissão x proibição). Por fim, as duas vertentes da responsabilidade internacional do Estado (Responsibility x Liability) foram utilizadas no sentido de avaliar as ações e omissões legislativas nacionais acerca do asbesto.
Palavras-chave: Asbestos. Responsabilidade do Estado. Jus cogens.
Ranieri Lima Resende, doutorando da Faculdade Nacional de Direito (FND) e pesquisador visitante da Universidade de Nova Iorque (NYU), investiga como as decisões da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, instituição autônoma da Organização dos Estados Americanos (OEA), influencia os pareceres jurídicos dos países latino-americanos. “Minha pesquisa nasceu da constatação de que a temática contemporânea dos direitos humanos permeia praticamente todos os debates sobre políticas públicas e auxilia a própria definição de quais são as atuais funções do Estado.”
Hoje, cortes como a Interamericana, e também a Europeia, têm se posicionado de maneira firme ao precisar limites de atuação dos países, definindo parâmetros de efetividade dos direitos fundamentais. Um exemplo, segundo o pesquisador, é a decisão do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) sobre a inexigibilidade do diploma para exercer a carreira de jornalista. “Em seus fundamentos, o Supremo adotou expressamente a opinião consultiva da Corte Interamericana para sustentar a inviabilidade constitucional de aplicar tais exigências ao jornalista”, conta.
Mesmo com dispositivos constitucionais que apontam para a priorização dos direitos humanos, o Brasil já foi condenado pela Corte Interamericana e, até hoje, é inadimplente no cumprimento das decisões judiciais, sendo o primeiro país condenado por escravidão moderna. O caso da Fazenda Brasil Verde ficou conhecido pela escravização de trabalhadores, submetidos a jornadas exaustivas de trabalho, carteira de trabalho retida, alimentação de péssima qualidade, salários irrisórios e falta de acesso à saúde, energia e saneamento básico. A corte exigiu punição dos envolvidos, mas até hoje nenhum responsável foi preso, e os trabalhadores sequer indenizados.
Resende também inclui os direitos ambientais e à saúde no rol das prerrogativas à dignidade humana, abordando casos como o da exploração de amianto no país. A extração do composto causa grande impacto ambiental, e o produto, altamente cancerígeno, tem sua venda e aplicação proibidas em boa parte do mundo.
Em 2017, o Supremo ordenou o banimento do composto no Brasil, seguindo a decisão de mais de 60 países e acompanhando as pesquisas científicas mais modernas. Durante o julgamento, o artigo “Responsabilidade internacional do Estado por ausência de produção legislativa eficaz dirigida à proibição do amianto”, de autoria de Resende, foi utilizado pela corte para embasar a decisão. Recentemente, parte do Senado pediu ao STF que libere a exploração e exportação do produto para países que ainda permitem seu uso. “As recentes notícias acerca da tentativa de uma minoria parlamentar em busca de superar o banimento do amianto configura-se preocupante, especialmente quando vislumbramos a inviabilidade jurídica do retrocesso em matéria de direitos humanos e de proteção ao meio ambiente”, lamenta o pesquisador.
APÊNDICES:
APÊNDICE A – QUANTIFICAÇÃO E CLASSIFICAÇÃO DAS OBRIGAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS ADIMPLIDAS E PENDENTES DE ADIMPLEMENTO PELO ESTADO BRASILEIRO EM SENTENÇAS CONDENATÓRIAS DA CORTE INTERAMERICANA (p. 157);
APÊNDICE B – QUANTIFICAÇÃO E CLASSIFICAÇÃO DAS OBRIGAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS ADIMPLIDAS E PENDENTES DE ADIMPLEMENTO PELO ESTADO COLOMBIANO EM SENTENÇAS CONDENATÓRIAS DA CORTE INTERAMERICANA (p. 161);
APÊNDICE C – QUANTIFICAÇÃO E CLASSIFICAÇÃO DAS OBRIGAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS ADIMPLIDAS E PENDENTES DE ADIMPLEMENTO PELO ESTADO ARGENTINO EM SENTENÇAS CONDENATÓRIAS DA CORTE INTERAMERICANA (p. 171);
APÊNDICE D – QUANTIFICAÇÃO E CLASSIFICAÇÃO DAS OBRIGAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS ADIMPLIDAS E PENDENTES DE ADIMPLEMENTO PELO ESTADO CHILENO EM SENTENÇAS CONDENATÓRIAS DA CORTE INTERAMERICANA (p. 177);
APÊNDICE E – QUANTIFICAÇÃO E CLASSIFICAÇÃO DAS OBRIGAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS ADIMPLIDAS E PENDENTES DE ADIMPLEMENTO PELO ESTADO BOLIVIANO EM SENTENÇAS CONDENATÓRIAS DA CORTE INTERAMERICANA (p. 181);
APÊNDICE F – IDENTIFICAÇÃO E QUANTIFICAÇÃO DO USO DE PRECEDENTES INTERAMERICANOS PELO SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL BRASILEIRO (p. 184);
APÊNDICE G – IDENTIFICAÇÃO E QUANTIFICAÇÃO DO USO DE PRECEDENTES INTERAMERICANOS PELA CORTE CONSTITUCIONAL COLOMBIANA (p. 188);
APÊNDICE H – IDENTIFICAÇÃO E QUANTIFICAÇÃO DO USO DE PRECEDENTES INTERAMERICANOS PELO SUPREMA CORTE DE JUSTICIA DE LA NACIÓN ARGENTINA (p. 227);
APÊNDICE I – IDENTIFICAÇÃO E QUANTIFICAÇÃO DO USO DE PRECEDENTES INTERAMERICANOS PELO TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL CHILENO (p. 230);
APÊNDICE J – IDENTIFICAÇÃO E QUANTIFICAÇÃO DO USO DE PRECEDENTES INTERAMERICANOS PELO TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL PLURINACIONAL BOLIVIANO (p. 236).