Os Reflexos das Leis Antiterrorismo sobre os Direitos Fundamentais: um estudo de Direito Comparado
Carregando...
Data
2020-11-23
Autores
Bretas, Heloisa Tenello
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
A ocorrência de atentados terroristas demanda resposta dos Estados e da comunidade internacional, que pode ser inclusive através do estabelecimento de normas. Nesse contexto, a legislação nacional e internacional de combate ao terrorismo tem despertado pesquisas e críticas não apenas no Brasil, mas em todo o mundo. Questiona-se se essa legislação estaria mantendo os padrões de direitos humanos previamente acordados tanto internacional como nacionalmente. As mídias e as organizações de proteção dos direitos humanos argumentam que a legislação antiterrorismo, além de não respeitar os parâmetros de direitos fundamentais, também pode ser utilizada para reprimir movimentos e indivíduos opositores políticos. Por outro lado, os órgãos estatais de combate ao terrorismo aduzem que as normas estabelecidas são rígidas e limitam a atuação mais efetiva dos mecanismos de segurança estatais. Diante desse panorama de necessidade de conciliação entre os direitos fundamentais e a segurança, a presente pesquisa se propôs a analisar as legislações antiterrorismo internacional, estadunidense e brasileira. Através da metodologia de direito comparado e do método hipotético-dedutivo foram analisadas as referidas legislações objetivando responder à questão principal quanto à legislação brasileira de combate ao terrorismo, se essa oferece risco à proteção e ao exercício dos direitos fundamentais, especialmente os direitos à liberdade de expressão e associação. Dessa forma, chegou-se à conclusão de que as normas internacionais de enfrentamento do terrorismo são, em geral, reativas, preocupando-se pouco em estabelecer definições e parâmetros adequados de manutenção dos direitos humanos. A experiência legislativa e executiva estadunidense também demonstra baixa preocupação com os padrões de direitos fundamentais, enquanto as Cortes têm demonstrado certo enfrentamento dos demais poderes, sustentando os direitos fundamentais em suas decisões, especialmente o direito ao devido processo legal, ao mesmo tempo que manifesta certa deferência aos demais poderes quando as decisões envolvem a listagem e o financiamento de organizações estrangeiras consideradas terroristas. Por fim, o Brasil demonstra certa preocupação com os direitos fundamentais, tanto legislativa quanto jurisprudencialmente, entretanto, sua experiência ainda é incipiente para tirar maiores conclusões.
The occurrence of terrorist attacks demands a response from States and the international community, which can even be through the establishment of norms. In this context, the national and international legislation to combat emerging terrorism has provoked research and criticism not only in Brazil, but worldwide. It is questioned whether this legislation maintains the human rights standards previously agreed both internationally and nationally. The media and human rights protection organizations argue that anti-terrorism legislation, in addition to not respecting the parameters of fundamental rights, can also be used to repress movements and individual political opponents. On the other hand, the state agencies for combating terrorism argue that the established rules are rigid and limit the more effective performance of state security mechanisms. In view of this panorama of the need to reconcile fundamental rights and security, the present research proposed to analyze the international, American, and Brazilian anti-terrorism legislation. Through the comparative law methodology and the hypothetical-deductive method, the aforementioned legislation was analyzed in order to answer the main question regarding the Brazilian legislation to combat terrorism, whether it poses a risk to the protection and the exercise of fundamental rights, especially the rights to freedom of expression and association. Thus, this research concluded that the international norms for combating terrorism are, in general, reactive, with little concern for establishing adequate definitions and parameters for maintaining human rights. The American legislative and executive experience also shows low concern for the standards of fundamental rights, while the Courts have shown a certain confrontation with the other powers, upholding fundamental rights in their decisions, especially the right to due process, while expressing certain deference to other powers when decisions involved listing and financing foreign organizations considered terrorists. Finally, Brazil shows a certain concern with fundamental rights, both legislative and jurisprudential, however, its experience is still incipient to draw further conclusions.
The occurrence of terrorist attacks demands a response from States and the international community, which can even be through the establishment of norms. In this context, the national and international legislation to combat emerging terrorism has provoked research and criticism not only in Brazil, but worldwide. It is questioned whether this legislation maintains the human rights standards previously agreed both internationally and nationally. The media and human rights protection organizations argue that anti-terrorism legislation, in addition to not respecting the parameters of fundamental rights, can also be used to repress movements and individual political opponents. On the other hand, the state agencies for combating terrorism argue that the established rules are rigid and limit the more effective performance of state security mechanisms. In view of this panorama of the need to reconcile fundamental rights and security, the present research proposed to analyze the international, American, and Brazilian anti-terrorism legislation. Through the comparative law methodology and the hypothetical-deductive method, the aforementioned legislation was analyzed in order to answer the main question regarding the Brazilian legislation to combat terrorism, whether it poses a risk to the protection and the exercise of fundamental rights, especially the rights to freedom of expression and association. Thus, this research concluded that the international norms for combating terrorism are, in general, reactive, with little concern for establishing adequate definitions and parameters for maintaining human rights. The American legislative and executive experience also shows low concern for the standards of fundamental rights, while the Courts have shown a certain confrontation with the other powers, upholding fundamental rights in their decisions, especially the right to due process, while expressing certain deference to other powers when decisions involved listing and financing foreign organizations considered terrorists. Finally, Brazil shows a certain concern with fundamental rights, both legislative and jurisprudential, however, its experience is still incipient to draw further conclusions.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Direito Internacional Público, Legislação Antiterrorismo, Direitos Fundamentais, Direito comparado, Public International Law, Antiterrorism legislation, Fundamental rights, Comparative law