常规控制和修正案95/2016 -巴西违宪宪法修正案案例

Yaniv Roznai, Leticia Regina Camargo Kreuz
{"title":"常规控制和修正案95/2016 -巴西违宪宪法修正案案例","authors":"Yaniv Roznai, Leticia Regina Camargo Kreuz","doi":"10.5380/RINC.V5I2.57577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article presents reflections on Brazilian Constitutional Amendment 95/2016, which established the New Tax Regime and consequently the ceiling of public spending in Brazil for a period of twenty years, which has serious consequences for Brazilian public services. The hypothesis defended in the study is that Amendment 95/2016 is an unconstitutional constitutional amendment, since it violates the essence of the Social State present in the original text of the 1988 Constitution and has direct influences on the guarantee of fundamental rights, which constitute stone clauses (clausulas petreas). Thus, the study starts with the technical analysis of the Amendment. Next, the concept and content of the stone clauses in the Brazilian constitution are analyzed to propose the possibility of conventionality control as an alternative, focusing on the Intermerican Convention on Human Rights, UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is concluded that conventionality control of the Amendment is imperative. The methodology used is the bibliographic analysis on the themes, as well as the projection of data on the economic and social effects of Amendment 95/2016.","PeriodicalId":183243,"journal":{"name":"Elder Law Studies eJournal","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conventionality Control and Amendment 95/2016 - A Brazilian Case of Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment\",\"authors\":\"Yaniv Roznai, Leticia Regina Camargo Kreuz\",\"doi\":\"10.5380/RINC.V5I2.57577\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article presents reflections on Brazilian Constitutional Amendment 95/2016, which established the New Tax Regime and consequently the ceiling of public spending in Brazil for a period of twenty years, which has serious consequences for Brazilian public services. The hypothesis defended in the study is that Amendment 95/2016 is an unconstitutional constitutional amendment, since it violates the essence of the Social State present in the original text of the 1988 Constitution and has direct influences on the guarantee of fundamental rights, which constitute stone clauses (clausulas petreas). Thus, the study starts with the technical analysis of the Amendment. Next, the concept and content of the stone clauses in the Brazilian constitution are analyzed to propose the possibility of conventionality control as an alternative, focusing on the Intermerican Convention on Human Rights, UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is concluded that conventionality control of the Amendment is imperative. The methodology used is the bibliographic analysis on the themes, as well as the projection of data on the economic and social effects of Amendment 95/2016.\",\"PeriodicalId\":183243,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Elder Law Studies eJournal\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Elder Law Studies eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5380/RINC.V5I2.57577\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Elder Law Studies eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5380/RINC.V5I2.57577","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

本文提出了对巴西宪法修正案95/2016的反思,该修正案建立了新的税收制度,从而在巴西建立了长达20年的公共支出上限,这对巴西的公共服务产生了严重影响。本研究的假设是95/2016修正案是一项违宪的宪法修正案,因为它违背了1988年宪法原文中存在的社会国家的本质,并直接影响了构成石头条款(clausulas petreas)的基本权利的保障。因此,本研究从修正案的技术分析开始。其次,分析巴西宪法中石质条款的概念和内容,以《美洲人权公约》、《联合国残疾人权利公约》和《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》为重点,提出常规管制作为一种替代方案的可能性。结论是,对修正案的常规控制是必要的。所使用的方法是对主题进行书目分析,以及对95/2016修正案的经济和社会影响进行数据预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conventionality Control and Amendment 95/2016 - A Brazilian Case of Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment
This article presents reflections on Brazilian Constitutional Amendment 95/2016, which established the New Tax Regime and consequently the ceiling of public spending in Brazil for a period of twenty years, which has serious consequences for Brazilian public services. The hypothesis defended in the study is that Amendment 95/2016 is an unconstitutional constitutional amendment, since it violates the essence of the Social State present in the original text of the 1988 Constitution and has direct influences on the guarantee of fundamental rights, which constitute stone clauses (clausulas petreas). Thus, the study starts with the technical analysis of the Amendment. Next, the concept and content of the stone clauses in the Brazilian constitution are analyzed to propose the possibility of conventionality control as an alternative, focusing on the Intermerican Convention on Human Rights, UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is concluded that conventionality control of the Amendment is imperative. The methodology used is the bibliographic analysis on the themes, as well as the projection of data on the economic and social effects of Amendment 95/2016.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信