Suchergebnisse

Este trabalho apresenta um estudo comparativo das principais características dos modelos de regulação adotados em assuntos relacionados à saúde do trabalhador no setor petroleiro no Brasil e na Noruega. As legislações de ambos os países estão inseridas na tradição da lei escrita, mas cada nação tem uma abordagem particular de sua regulação. O Brasil conta com uma típica postura regulatória, enquanto a Noruega apresenta traços do direito consuetudinário, com modelos legais baseados na presunção de que as partes envolvidas são capazes de agregar boas e seguras práticas profissionais. Percebe-se que ambas as abordagens regulatórias relacionam-se com o panorama social de cada nação. Porém, como o tempo e a cultura se modificam, os dois países talvez tenham algo a aprender um com outro. ; The purpose of this article is to compare the regulations on work related health issues in the offshore petroleum sector in Brazil and Norway. The regulation of reporting and handling of work related illness has been used as a case for the study. We aim to show that even though the legislation both in Brazil and Norway relies upon similar legislative traditions, emphasising statute law, with written norms given by national authorities, there are considerable differences in how the regulation is developed and how the this kind of norms are formulated in the two countries. The differences will be interpreted in view of the governance cultures in the petroleum sector in the two countries. What can be learnt from this comparison may be of general interest when working with development of legislation and regulations.

The rhythm in the fall of inequality in Brazil is acceptable? Evidences of the historical and international context. The study uses two approaches to answer the question of whether inequality in Brazil is falling fast enough. The first is to compare the variation of the Gini coefficient in Brazil with what was observed in several countries that today belong to the OCDE (United Kingdom, United States, Netherlands, Sweden, France, Norway, and Spain) while these same countries built their social welfare systems during the last century. The second approach is to calculate for how much Brazil must keep up the fall in the Gini coefficient to attain the same levels of inequality of three OCDE countries that can be used as a reference: Mexico, the United States, and Canada. The data indicate that the Gini coefficient in Brazil is falling 0.7 point per year and that this is superior to the rhythm of all the OCDE countries analyzed while they built their welfare systems but Spain, whose Gini fell 0.9 point per year during the 1950s. The time needed to attain various benchmarks in inequality are: 6 years to Mexico, 12 to the United states and 24 to Canadian inequality levels. The general conclusion is that the speed with which inequality is falling is adequate, but the challenge will be to keep inequality falling at the same rate for another two or three decades. (Rev Econ Polit/GIGA)

After four years of negotiations between the Colombian government and the guerrilla of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP for its acronym in Spanish), from Havana, Cuba, on August 24, 2016, representatives of Cuba and Norway, guarantor countries, together with the negotiating parties, issued a joint communication in which they announced to the Colombian people and to the entire world the end of a conflict that lasted more than six decades, since they have reached a final, integral, and definitive agreement on all points of the agenda of the General Agreement to End the Conflict and to Build a Stable and Lasting Peace in Colombia. This agreement was ratified by the Congress of the Republic and then submitted to a referendum on October 2, 2016, so that the Colombian people decide on the final approval of its implementation (Gobierno Nacional y FARC-EP, 2016). ; Tras cuatro años de negociaciones entre el Gobierno de Colombia y la guerrilla de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP), desde La Habana, el 24 de agosto de 2016, representantes de Cuba y Noruega, países garantes, junto con las partes negociadoras divulgaron un comunicado conjunto en el cual anunciaban a los colombianos y al mundo entero el fin de un conflicto de más de seis décadas y haber llegado a un "Acuerdo final, integral y definitivo, sobre la totalidad de los puntos de la agenda del Acuerdo General para la Terminación del Conflicto y la Construcción de una Paz Estable y Duradera en Colombia"1. Esta Acuerdo fue ratificado en el Congreso de la República y luego llevado a plebiscito el 2 de octubre de 2016 para que los colombianos decidieran la aprobación final de cara a su implementación (Gobierno Nacional y FARC-EP, 2016). ; Após quatro anos de negociações entre o Governo da Colômbia e a guerrilha das Forças Armadas Revolucionárias da Colômbia-Exército do Povo (Farc-EP), no dia 24 de agosto de 2016, em Havana, representantes de Cuba e Noruega, países fiadores, junto com as partes ...

After four years of negotiations between the Colombian government and the guerrilla of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP for its acronym in Spanish), from Havana, Cuba, on August 24, 2016, representatives of Cuba and Norway, guarantor countries, together with the negotiating parties, issued a joint communication in which they announced to the Colombian people and to the entire world the end of a conflict that lasted more than six decades, since they have reached a final, integral, and definitive agreement on all points of the agenda of the General Agreement to End the Conflict and to Build a Stable and Lasting Peace in Colombia. This agreement was ratified by the Congress of the Republic and then submitted to a referendum on October 2, 2016, so that the Colombian people decide on the final approval of its implementation (Gobierno Nacional y FARC-EP, 2016). ; Tras cuatro años de negociaciones entre el Gobierno de Colombia y la guerrilla de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP), desde La Habana, el 24 de agosto de 2016, representantes de Cuba y Noruega, países garantes, junto con las partes negociadoras divulgaron un comunicado conjunto en el cual anunciaban a los colombianos y al mundo entero el fin de un conflicto de más de seis décadas y haber llegado a un "Acuerdo final, integral y definitivo, sobre la totalidad de los puntos de la agenda del Acuerdo General para la Terminación del Conflicto y la Construcción de una Paz Estable y Duradera en Colombia"1. Esta Acuerdo fue ratificado en el Congreso de la República y luego llevado a plebiscito el 2 de octubre de 2016 para que los colombianos decidieran la aprobación final de cara a su implementación (Gobierno Nacional y FARC-EP, 2016). ; Após quatro anos de negociações entre o Governo da Colômbia e a guerrilha das Forças Armadas Revolucionárias da Colômbia-Exército do Povo (Farc-EP), no dia 24 de agosto de 2016, em Havana, representantes de Cuba e Noruega, países fiadores, junto com as partes negociadoras, divulgaram um comunicado conjunto no qual anunciavam aos colombianos e ao mundo inteiro o fim de um conflito demais de seis décadas e um Acordo final, integral e definitivo, sobre a totalidade dos pontos da agenda do Acordo Geral para a Terminação do Conflito e para a Construção de uma Paz Estável e Duradoura na Colômbia. Esse Acordo foi ratificado no Congresso da República e logo levado a plebiscito no dia 2 de outubro de 2016, para que os colombianos decidissem a aprovação final para sua implantação (Gobierno Nacional e Farc-EP, 2016).

Com o advento do século XXI, a região mais boreal do planeta voltou a ser valorizada, graças aos vastos recursos estimados na região e à progressiva navegabilidade das rotas marítimas possibilitada pelo degelo da calota polar, o que levou os Estados Árticos e outros atores do Sistema Internacional a desenvolverem estratégias que salvaguardem os respetivos interesses na região. Foram publicados trabalhos marcantes que abordam o Ártico em diversas óticas, mas faltava abraçar a perspetiva geopolítica, de natureza multidisciplinar, pelo que nos apoiamos, entre outros, em múltiplas fontes e obras, estudos técnicos, tratados, convenções, institutos, centros de estudo e universidades, o que nos permitiu conhecer as enquadrantes, as disputas prevalecentes e as estratégias da Rússia, EUA, Canadá, Noruega, Dinamarca, Islândia, China e UE. Desenvolvemos uma análise inovadora que busca caracterizar o Ártico como espaço geopolítico, na atualidade, indagando as dinâmicas de poder engendradas entre os diversos atores e ponderando quatro fatores geopolíticos: físico, militar, circulação e recursos naturais. A investigação realizada permitiu-nos concluir que os atores com interesses na região irão privilegiar relações de cooperação e acomodação, que o degelo e acesso mais facilitado aos recursos naturais não induzirão relações conflituais, que os investimentos efetuados no instrumento militar lhe pressagiam importância acrescida no espaço Ártico, que o sistema de transporte marítimo será francamente ampliado, os gasodutos apenas serão incrementados na Rússia e os oleodutos no Canadá e, finalmente aferimos que as alterações do fator físico terão impacto nas relações de poder estabelecidas entre os atores com interesses na região ártica. ; With the advent of the 21st century, the boreal region of the planet came to be valued, due to the vast existing resources estimated and the possibility concerning the future navigation of the iced sea routes: this led to the Arctic States and other actors in the International System developing strategies to safeguard their respective interests in the region. Important works have been published, but none take into account a geopolitical perspective, which is multidisciplinary by nature. Considering that, we have based our academic search and findings on multiple sources, technical studies, treaties, conventions, institutes, study centers and universities, which allowed us to know the frameworks, disputes and strategies prevailing in Russia, USA, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, China and European Union. We developed innovative analysis, in our opinion, looking for the characterization of the Arctic as a geopolitical space, nowadays questioning the power dynamics engendered among the various actors and considering four geopolitical factors: physical, military, circulation and natural resources. The research allowed us to conclude that actors with interests in the region will focus on cooperation and accommodation relationships, that the melting ice and easier access to natural resources will not induce/provoke conflicting relationships, that investments made in the military instrument demonstrates its increased importance, that maritime transport system will be significantly expanded, that pipelines will only be incremented in Russia and Canada, and finally we assess the changes regarding the physical factor which impact in power relations between the actors with interests in the Arctic region.