Search results

AbstractThe article attempts to illuminate how the concept of accountability is diversely shaped and signified in the theoretical legal discourse. It engages in a threefold mapping review: (i) it portrays, according to the basic divide between the angles 'within the state' and 'beyond the state', the geographical and functional contexts in which real-world political accountability mechanisms exist and interact; (ii) it interprets an influential legitimating discourse that is being used as a benchmark to appraise institutions and political processes beyond the state – the Global Administrative Law project (GAL); (iii) it highlights how this sort of accountability discourse is tied with demands for legitimacy in global governance that cannot be detached from the old political ideals. Largely oriented towards due process, I argue that the GAL project, in order to maintain a normative appeal, should not ignore larger political ideals, however controversial they might be. Otherwise, it remains a manipulable and hence unreliable cause to be endorsed.

The article probes the origins and content of the Framework of Engagement with Non-State Actors (FENSA) of the World Health Organization (WHO), approved on May 28, 2016, at the 69th World Health Assembly, which established different rules of collaboration to four categories of actors: nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private sector entities, philanthropic foundations, and academic institutions. Applying the findings of International Legal Theory and based on extensive documentary research, we sought to determine whether FENSA is an appropriate accountability mechanism according to four functions of accountability: constitutional, democratic, epistemic, and populist. The article concludes that there is a risk of the prevalence of the populist function at the expense of the accountability potential that could result from the better use of the other three accountability functions.

The purpose of this article is to investigate the abuse of presidential and administrative powers with a view to weakening environmental protection. We argue that the concept of "environmental authoritarianism", designating both a democratic setback and a constitutional pathology, could be applied in order to describe the phenomenon whereby the government exploits certain legal institutions in order to erode constitutional defences against environmental degradation. Our argument is supported by a case study of the last three years of the Bolsonaro government in Brazil (2019-2021), focusing on a two-pronged analysis: a typology of the legal instruments on environmental policy in Brazil (legal competences and sources of law), and a brief report of all significant acts of environmental (un)protection implemented by the Bolsonaro government during this period. By contrasting the legal instruments and the governmental abuses, we suggest some legal patterns which might provide the basis for environmental authoritarianism in Brazil. These patterns, we argue, might even be generalised, by future research in comparative constitutionalism and international environmental law, to other contexts around the world.

Resumo A Lei n. 13.979, de 6 de fevereiro de 2020, regula medidas de saúde pública relacionadas à emergência do novo coronavírus com alto potencial restritivo de direitos fundamentais, inclusive a quarentena e o isolamento. Esta análise crítica aborda a dimensão internacional da emergência, além da tramitação casuística e antidemocrática da lei brasileira. Com base na legislação epidemiológica em vigor, escrutina estas medidas excepcionais e as salvaguardas à sua implementação.

Abstract Among the possible developments of the Covid-19 pandemic at the international and national levels is the advancement of the Global Health Security (GHS) agenda. On the one hand, GHS might be able to give priority to health problems on the political agenda-setting, on the other, however, it might open up space for public security actors in decision-making processes to the detriment of the power of health authorities. This article critically analyzes the concept and the progress of the GHS agenda seeking to demonstrate that there can be no security in matters of public health when sustainability in its multiple dimensions is not taken into account. At the end, sustainability has a twofold responsibility: to maintain the consistency and permanence of emergency response actions, especially with investments in public health systems, with universal access, and to minimize the structural causes of pandemics linked to the environment.

Abstract Among the possible developments of the Covid-19 pandemic at the international and national levels is the advancement of the Global Health Security (GHS) agenda. On the one hand, GHS might be able to give priority to health problems on the political agenda-setting, on the other, however, it might open up space for public security actors in decision-making processes to the detriment of the power of health authorities. This article critically analyzes the concept and the progress of the GHS agenda seeking to demonstrate that there can be no security in matters of public health when sustainability in its multiple dimensions is not taken into account. At the end, sustainability has a twofold responsibility: to maintain the consistency and permanence of emergency response actions, especially with investments in public health systems, with universal access, and to minimize the structural causes of pandemics linked to the environment.

DOI:10.1590/2179-8966/2020/49180ResumoA Lei n. 13.979, de 6 de fevereiro de 2020, regula medidas de saúde pública relacionadas à emergência do novo coronavírus com alto potencial restritivo de direitos fundamentais, inclusive a quarentena e o isolamento. Esta análise crítica aborda a dimensão internacional da emergência, além da tramitação casuística e antidemocrática da lei brasileira. Com base na legislação epidemiológica em vigor, escrutina estas medidas excepcionais e as salvaguardas à sua implementação.Palavras-chave: Quarentena; Coronavírus; Emergência InternacionalAbstract Law no. 13,979, of February 6, 2020, regulates public health measures related to the emergence of the new coronavirus with high potential to restrict fundamental rights, including quarantine and isolation. This critical analysis addresses the international dimension of the emergency, and the casuistic and anti-democratic procedure of the Brazilian law. Based on the epidemiological legislation in force, it scrutinizes restrictive measures and safeguards for its implementation.Keywords: Quarantine; Coronavirus; International Emergency