The Transnational Construction of a Possible Concept of Human Dignity in the United States Supreme Court and the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court through Legal Interactions — Oak Academic Publishing
Research ArticleOpen AccessGoogle Scholar indexed
The Transnational Construction of a Possible Concept of Human Dignity in the United States Supreme Court and the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court through Legal Interactions
Doctorate in Legal Science, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí (UNIVALI), Itajaí, Brazil
,
Doctorate in Legal Science, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí (UNIVALI), Itajaí, Brazil
1 Doctorate in Legal Science, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí (UNIVALI), Itajaí, Brazil
2 Doctorate in Legal Science, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí (UNIVALI), Itajaí, Brazil
Given the cognizance of collaborative transnational constitutionalism, it is imperative to scrutinize how nations with disparate legal frameworks incorporate human dignity into their constitutional jurisprudence. To apprehend the import of dialogue and judicatory interactions in forging a coherent comprehension of the constituents encompassing the construct of human dignity, this treatise undertakes a jurisprudential examination of the Supreme Courts of Brazil and the United States. Through a scanning of the decisions, it is conceivable to evince that legal interplays and conceptual exchanges pertaining to human dignity amidst constitutional systems unveil a trajectory characterized by influences, interactions, and discourses. The inquiry manifests that, notwithstanding the variances and idiosyncrasies of the analyzed constitutional frameworks, human dignity can be perceived as a conduit for convergence between them. The analysis of the United States Supreme Court’s jurisprudence elucidates an evolutionary trajectory of the concept of human dignity, influenced by extrinsic factors, and discerns the potential impact of the German Lüth case in North American jurisprudence. Similarly, the survey of decisions rendered by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court reveals an imminent influence stemming from United States jurisprudence. This article is warranted by the necessity to analyze how legal interplays and conceptual exchanges amidst divergent legal systems can shape a collective apprehension of momentous global concepts, such is the human dignity case.
KeywordsTransnational ConstitutionalismHuman DignityUnited States Supreme Court’sBrazilian Federal Supreme CourtJurisprudential Examination
Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161 (1908).
Adams, J. (1851). The Works of John Adams (Vol. 4). Little, Brown, and Company.
AI 14,683, Brazilian Supreme Court [Supremo Tribunal Federal]. Adjudicating Body: Second Panel. Reporter: Justice Afranio Costa. Judgment: May 22, 1951. Publication: August 23, 1951. https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=AC&docID=2236
Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204, 226 (1821).
Anghie, A. (1996). Francisco de Vitoria and the Colonial Origins of International Law. Social & Legal Studies, 5, 321-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/096466399600500303
Ansell-Pearson, K., & Diethe, C. (1994). Nietzsche: On the Genealogy of Morality, “The Greek State” (pp. 176-185).
Barak, A. (2015). Human Dignity: The Constitutional Value and the Constitutional Right. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316106327
Barroso, L. R. (2012). Here, There, and Everywhere: Human Dignity in Contemporary Law and in the Transnational Discourse. Boston College International & Comparative Law Review, 35, 331-393.
Brandalise, G. M. (2021). Como decidem as Supremas Cortes brasileira e norte-americana com base no conceito de dignidade humana. Dissertação de mestrado, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí—UNIVALI, Vice-Reitoria de Pesquisa, Pós-Graduação e Inovação, Programa de Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Ciência Jurídica—PPCJ, Curso de Mestrado em Ciência Jurídica—CMCJ, Área de Concentração: Fundamentos do Direito Positivo, Itajaí-SC.
Brandalise, G. M., & Dal Ri, L. (2022). A construção axiológica do termo ‘dignidade humana’ na ordem constitucional brasileira. In XXIX Congresso Nacional do Conpedi Balneário Camboriú—SC, Constituição, teoria constitucional e democracia I (pp. 43-61). Conpedi.
Brazil Constitution (1988, October 5). Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm
Brazil. Constitution (1934, July 16). Constitution of the United States of Brazil. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao34.htm
Brazil. Constitution (1946, September 18). Constitution of the United States of Brazil. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao46.htm
Brazil. Penal Code. Decree-Law No. 2,848, December 7, 1940. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/del2848compilado.htm
Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchanan_v._Warley
Dal Ri, L. (2014). Dignitas: Continuidades e descontinuidades entre o antigo e o medieval. Revista Pistis Praxis, 6, 753-772. https://doi.org/10.7213/revistapistispraxis.06.003.ds01
Dal Ri, L. (2016). Dignidade e direitos humanos: Uma busca na história pela (des)construção de conceitos. In M. Oliviero, P. M. Abreu, R. P. dos Santos, & L. Dal Ri (Eds.), Pressupostos históricos e teóricos para o estudo da democracia e os novos desafios na era da globalização 1 (pp. 768-784). Unipg.
Daly, E. (2013). Dignity Rights: Courts, Constitutions, and the Worth of the Human Person. University of Pennsylvania Press. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812207279
España. Fuero de los españoles [Charter of the Spaniards], 1945. http://www.e-torredebabel.com/leyes/constituciones/fuero-espanoles-1945.htm
Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339, 340 (1880).
Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 639 (1995) (Kennedy J. Dissenting).
France. Décret du 27 avril 1848 relatif à l’abolition de l’esclavage dans les colonies et possessions françaises [Decree of April 27, 1848, Regarding the Abolition of Slavery in French Colonies and Possessions]. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000295898/
France. Projet de constitution du 30 janvier 1944 (Constitution de Vichy) [Draft Constitution of January 30, 1944 (Vichy Constitution)]. http://mjp.univ-perp.fr/france/co1944p.htm
Frankenberg, G. (2010). Constitutional Transfer: The IKEA Theory Revisited. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 8, 563-579. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moq023
Germany. The Reich Constitution, 1919. http://www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942).
Goodman, M. D. (2006). Human Dignity in Supreme Court Constitutional Jurisprudence. Nebraska Law Review, 83, 740-794.
HC 43,196, Brazilian Supreme Court [Supremo Tribunal Federal]. Reporter: Justice Evandro Lins. Judgment: September 26, 1966. Publication: March 16, 1967. https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=AC&docID=58906
HC 59,449, Brazilian Supreme Court [Supremo Tribunal Federal]. Adjudicating Body: Second Panel. Reporter: Justice Firmino Paz. Judgment: March 23, 1982. Publication: August 12, 1983. https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=AC&docID=66947
HC 69,303, Brazilian Supreme Court [Supremo Tribunal Federal]. Adjudicating Body: Second Panel. Reporter: Justice Néri Da Silveira. Opinion Writer: Justice Marco Aurélio. Judgment: June 30, 1992. Publication: November 20, 1992. https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=AC&docID=71623
HC 70,389, Brazilian Supreme Court [Supremo Tribunal Federal]. Adjudicating Body: Full Court. Reporter: Justice Sydney Sanches. Opinion Writer: Justice Celso De Mello. Judgment: June 23, 1994. Publication: August 10, 2001. https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=AC&docID=72400
Hegel, G. W. F. (2003). Linhas fundamentais da filosofia do direito ou direito natural e ciência do estado em compêndio [Fundamental Lines of the Philosophy of Law or Natural Law and the Science of the State in Compendium]. In M. L. Müller (Ed.), Translation, Introduction, and Notes (p. 36). Unicamp.
Kant, I. (1980). Fundamentação da Metafísica dos Costumes [Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals]. In O. Pensadores-Kant (II) (Ed.), Translation: Paulo Quintela (pp. 67-68, 77). Abril Cultural.
Kentucky v. Dennison: 65 U.S. 66 (1861). https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2019/07/25/kentucky-v-dennison-1861/
Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 184-185 (1881).
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 240 (1944) (Murphy J. Dissenting).
Marchie Tiger v. Western Investment Co.: 221 U.S. 286 (1911). https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/marchie-tiger-v-western-893083954
Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U.S. 521 (1917).
Marx, K. (1847). Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality, a Contribution to German Cultural History Contra Karl Heinzen. Deutsche-Brüsseler-Zeitung Nos. 86, 87, 90, 92, and 94, October 28 and 31, November 11, 18, and 25, 1847.
McCrudden, C. (2008). Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights. European Journal of International Law, 19, 655-724. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chn043
Mexico (1917). Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos [Political Constitution of the United Mexican States]. https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/CPEUM.pdf
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Neves, M. (2009). Transconstitucionalismo. WMF Martins.
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/435/589/
Parente, A. F. G., & Rebouças, M. V. P. (2015). A Construção Histórica do Conceito de Dignidade Da Pessoa Humana. Publica Direito. http://www.publicadireito.com.br/artigos/?cod=b27c40f1f7fb35fc
Pico della Mirandola, G. (1463-1494). Discurso sobre a dignidade do homem [Oration on the Dignity of Man]. Ed. Translation: Maria de Lurdes Sirgado Ganho, Edições 70, 2011.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896, U.S. Supreme Court. https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/plessy-v-ferguson
RE 16,553, Brazilian Supreme Court [Supremo Tribunal Federal]. Adjudicating Body: Second Panel. Reporter: Justice Hahnemann Guimaraes. Judgment: August 29, 1950. Publication: November 4, 1950. https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=AC&docID=118324
RE 24391, Brazilian Supreme Court [Supremo Tribunal Federal]. Adjudicating Body: Second Panel. Reporter: Justice Hahnemann Guimaraes. Judgment: January 22, 1954. Publication: August 19, 1954. https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=AC&docID=125582
RE 52,700, Brazilian Supreme Court [Supremo Tribunal Federal]. Adjudicating Body: Second Panel. Reporter: Justice Antonio Martins Vilas Boas. Judgment: May 14, 1963. Publication: June 20, 1963. https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=AC&docID=151535
Re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946).
RHC 58,953, Brazilian Supreme Court [Supremo Tribunal Federal]. Adjudicating Body: Second Panel. Reporter: Justice Djaci Falcao. Judgment: June 5, 1981. Publication: July 3, 1981. https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=AC&docID=98168
Sarlet, I. W. (2015). Dignidade (da pessoa) Humana e os Direitos Fundamentais na Constituição Federal de 1988 (10th ed.). Livraria do Advogado.
Schopenhauer, A. (2005). The Basis of Morality. Part II, Critique of Kant’s Basis of Ethics. Translated and Introduced by A.B. Bullock, Routledge.
Skinner v. State of Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 546 (1942).
Slaughter, A.-M. (2000). Judicial Globalization. Virginia Journal of International Law, 40, 1103-1124.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-texas-v-johnson
Tushnet, M. V. (2008). The Inevitable Globalization of Constitutional Law. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1317766
UDHR. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (UDHR Res 217 A(III)). https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_217(III).pdf
UN 1945. Carta das Nacções Unidas. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/1930-1949/D19841.htm
United States v. Hosmer, 76 U.S. 9 Wall. 432 432 (1869). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/76/432/
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court, 471 U.S. 626 (1985).