When the future becomes the present of the environmental crisis. The jurisprudence of the brazilian Supreme Court and the future dimension of the right to the environment / Quando o futuro se torna o presente da crise ambiental. A jurisprudência...
| Autor | Clarissa Marques |
| Cargo | PostDoctoral Researcher at New School for Social Research ? NY (Scholarchip funded by CAPES-Brazil), PhD in Law (UFPE-Brazil), Law Professor at Faculdade Damas (Pernambuco-Brazil) and FACIPE (Pernambuco-Brazil), environmental lawyer. This work was supported by CAPES-Brazil. E-mail: marquesc@newschool.edu |
| Páginas | 704-728 |
Revista de Direito da Cidade vol. 08, nº 2. ISSN 2317-7721
DOI: 10.12957/rdc.2016.22367
__________________________________________________________________
Revista de Direito da Cidade, vol. 08, nº 2. ISSN 2317-7721 pp.704-728 704
1
The environmental crisis stems from a human development process. The risk that is assumed is the
commitment of the future generations. However, the guarantee of the quality of the future
generations is shown as a time-present problem. Another aspect of this coexistence between
present and future is the formation of the subject of the right to the environment and its analysis
by the jurisprudence of the Brazilian Supreme Court. Since solidarity acts in the law as an
intergenerational bond is important to note how this jurisprudence has interpreted this “new
subject” and how the future dimension of the right to the environment has been interpreted. The
objective of this paper is to emphasize the need to “resituate” the relationship between man and
the natural order in the face of environmental crisis and how necessary it is to take responsibility
for the future time, even with regard to unborn subjects. It is hoped that it will contribute to the
analysis of the jurisprudence on the need to take on responsibility for the transgenerational subjec t
and its right to the environment, being that the future tense becomes the present of this new
epoch.
environment; sustainability; risks; subject; environmental crisis.
A crise ambiental decorre de um processo humano de desenvolvimento. O risco que se assume é o
comprometimento das gerações futuras. No entanto, a garantia da qualidade futura das gerações
mostra-se como problema do tempo-presente. Outro aspecto dessa coexistência entre presente e
futuro é a formação do sujeito do direito ao meio ambiente e sua análise pela jurisprudência do
Supremo Tribunal Federal. Uma vez que a solidariedade age no Direito como um vínculo
intergeracional é importante observar como essa jurisprudência tem interpretado este “novo
sujeito” e de que forma a dimensão futura do direito ao meio ambiente tem sido interpretada. O
objetivo do presente trabalho é enfatizar a nec essidade de “ressituar” a relação entre o homem e a
ordem natural diante da crise ambiental, bem como o quanto é preciso assumir a responsabilidade
por um tempo por vir, inclusive, no que se refere aos sujeitos não-nascidos. Espera-se com isso
contribuir para a análise da jurisprudência quanto à necessidade de assumir o sujeito
transgeracional do direito ao ambiente, uma vez que o tempo futuro torna-se o presente desta
nova era.
- meio ambiente; sustentabilidade; riscos; suj eito; crise ambiental.
1 PostDoctoral Researcher at New School for Social Research – NY (Scholarchip funded by CAPES-Brazil), PhD
in Law (UFPE-Brazil), Law Professor at Faculdade Damas (Pernambuco-Brazil) and FACIPE (Pernambuco-
Brazil), environmental lawyer. This work was supported by CAPES-Brazil. E-mail: marquesc@newschool.edu
Revista de Direito da Cidade vol. 08, nº 2. ISSN 2317-7721
DOI: 10.12957/rdc.2016.22367
__________________________________________________________________
Revista de Direito da Cidade, vol. 08, nº 2. ISSN 2317-7721 pp.704-728 705
I
The realization that the future of the environmental crisis is already part of the present, or,
in environmental terms, present and future lack a well-defined temporal border, resulting in some
implications pertaining to the right to the environment. This “state of crisis” is marked, among
other things, by the need for an analysis of the future effects of environmental risks. Additionally,
an analysis of existing obligations, not as a duty that is yet to come, implies another need that is no
less urgent: the transgenerational analysis of the right to the environment and the consequent
formation of a “new subject”. After the law had guaranteed the right to the environment, the legal
doctrine had to confront a new type of subject of law, who partly exists and is also partly unborn.
The identification of the community and government as subjects of constitutional duty to
environmental preservation, as well as the present and future generations as beneficiaries of that
duty, gives rise to the question of the existence of an intergenerational bond in the right to the
environment. The figure of a “total subject”, not limited temporally, who is partly “unborn”,
presents intergenerational equity. That is, the sustainable use of resources to allow future access
by the generations, which are yet to come.
As a reaction to what has been called the “risk scenario”, the international community
turned to the concept of sustainable development in the realization that humanity could no longer
follow the growth model once adopted by the industrialization process. In this sense, this article
considers the concept of sustainability, based on solidarity as an intergenerational bond, whose
dimension of ethical responsibility requires new considerations, especially about future time.
Furthermore, it aims to underline the right to the environment as transgenerational and the need
of a jurisprudence that includes the future terms of this right in its decision-making. This project
exceeds the proximity of subjects and approaches future generations. Lastly, it emphasizes the
bond between the present and future, and points to a “new subject” in the environmental crisis
scenario, which can be considered a “state of crisis” or even as an “evil”.
“Evil”2, as conceptualized by Hans Jonas, is identified as the environmental crisis, which
coexists with the ideology of development and brings the future crisis into the present. Identifying
the malum is a much simpler process than identifying the bonum, since imposing its presence with
all its effects provokes fear, while what is commonly considered “good” many times remains
2 The idea of evil used here is based on the theoretical construction of Hans Jonas about what the author
called “Heuristics of Fear”. . Ensaio de uma ética para a civilização tecnológica.
Rio de Janeiro: Contraponto, 2011, p. 71.
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO