Detalhes bibliográficos
Ano de defesa: |
2016 |
Autor(a) principal: |
Amaral, Raquel Domingues do
![lattes](/bdtd/themes/bdtd/images/lattes.gif?_=1676566308) |
Orientador(a): |
Gama, Tácio Lacerda
![lattes](/bdtd/themes/bdtd/images/lattes.gif?_=1676566308) |
Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
Idioma: |
por |
Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
|
Departamento: |
Faculdade de Direito
|
País: |
BR
|
Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/6997
|
Resumo: |
Based on the epistemological premise of the Logical Semantic Constructivism (CARVALHO, 2010), the present study proposes to reflect about the incidence of the constitutional rule which restrain the demarcation of indigenous lands. It seeks for the meaning of the signs: Indian, Indigenous Community and Indigenous Lands, in the statements of art. 231 caput, §§§ 1, 2 and 3 and art. 20, XI, from the Federal Constitution, considering the connotation of these signs in the social, cultural and historical context of Indians. The study also handles the matter of demarcation of indigenous lands in the current state of the art, being strongly influenced by the theory of John Mendes Jr. (1912) on indigenato, as well as making a counterpoint with Ferraz Jr. s (2007; 2012) discussion, which contemplates indigenato as a title that explains the Indians originating status of the right to permanent possession, although not limited to this. It discusses the relevance of the legal precedent of the Supreme Court, as a pragmatic dimension of linguistic semiosis on the fixed rules of the statements in art. 231 caput, §§§ 1, 2 and 3 and art. 20 XI, in the Federal Constitution, that is, as a text not written in the physical support of prescriptive statements, but that cannot have its meaning ignored as real technical legitimacy. From the perspective of the epistemology proposed by Paulo de Barros Carvalho (2010) on the incidence of general and abstract tax norm, it proposes a hermeneutics of the incidence of the rule, which is constructed through the interpretation of the statements of the art. 231 caput, §§§ 1, 2 and 3 and art. 20 XI, from the Federal Constitution. The demarcation of indigenous lands is denoted in the present research as a procedure and as a sole and specific rule that enables the incidence of general and abstract rule laid down in art. 231 caput, §§§ 1, 2 and 3 and art. 20 XI, from the Federal Constitution. One may conclude that the individual and solid rule that documents the demarcation has a legal effect on subjective and originating rights of the Indians of permanent possession of the lands they traditionally occupy. It has been defined The existence of two legal systems in relation to the land known as traditionally occupied by demarcation: the regulatory legal framework of the legal relationship between "non-Indians", which precedes the advent of sole and specific rule documented in the demarcation, and the legal regime subsequent to the formation of subjective originating rights of "Indians", in the subsequent individual and solid rule. Individual and solid rules that make up the property right of "non-Indians" are repealed before the advent of individual and solid rules documented in the demarcation, therefore, the extinction of these legal relations has ex nunc effects and shall be harmonized with the rules of items XXII, XXIV of art. 5 of the Federal Constitution. After the advent of individual and solid rule of demarcation, the legal framework is set out in § 6 of art. 231 of the Federal Constitution, as a means of protecting the Indians original right to possession |