Análise das representações sociais a respeito da criminalidade e do papel do Estado durante a Campanha do Referendo do Desarmamento, que ocorreu no Brasil em 2005, quando se votou sobre um artigo da legislação brasileira sobre o uso de armas, o Estatuto do Desarmamento. Essa legislação, aprovada em 2003, tornou crime o uso de armas pela população civil e restringiu seu uso e registro para um pequeno grupo de pessoas, ficando a sua utilização restrita a pessoas da área policial e judicial ou que justificassem a necessidade do uso, além da comprovação do uso responsável da arma. Partindo-se de análises de entrevistas e notícias que circularam na época, busca-se entender como é percebido o papel do Estado frente à criminalidade e segurança pública durante o debate que preparou a votação do Referendo na elite política responsável pelas duas posições antagônicas do voto a ser referendado a respeito do comércio de armas. Avaliando-se a estrutura das duas frentes parlamentares e seu discurso acerca do papel do Estado frente à criminalidade e controle social, reitera-se uma dicotomia em dois discursos, conforme as tendências criminológicas da atualidade, numa demanda de maior rigor penal e um maniqueísmo social que sustentam uma sociedade excludente. No campo político analisado, observam-se duas posições, a da naturalização da liberdade individual como um bem social a ser valorizado e mantido e a que delega ao Estado o papel de controle do delito. / This is an analysis of social representations concerning criminality and the role of the State during the Campaign of the Disarming Referendum carried out in Brazil in 2005, when the Disarming Statute, an article of the Brazilian legislation about the use of fire guns, was voted. That legislation, approved in 2003, turned the use of guns by the population into a crime and limited the use and register of such weapons to a small number of people, so that its utilization would become restricted to people working either in the police or judicial area, or those who could justify the necessity for using guns, besides proving their responsible use. From the analyses of interviews and news from that period, this study attempts to understand how the role of the State was perceived in relation to criminality and public security during the debate that prepared the vote of the referendum in the political elite responsible for two antagonist positions as to the gun trade. By evaluating the structure of both parliamentary fronts and their discourses about the role of the State in relation to criminality and social control, a dichotomy in both discourses has been reiterated, according to the current criminological trends, i.e. a demand for stronger penal rigor and a social Manichaeism which have supported an exclusion society. In the political field analyzed, two positions have been identified: that of naturalization of individual freedom as a social benefit that should be valued and kept, and that one which delegates the State the function of controlling crime.

Análise das representações sociais a respeito da criminalidade e do papel do Estado durante a Campanha do Referendo do Desarmamento, que ocorreu no Brasil em 2005, quando se votou sobre um artigo da legislação brasileira sobre o uso de armas, o Estatuto do Desarmamento. Essa legislação, aprovada em 2003, tornou crime o uso de armas pela população civil e restringiu seu uso e registro para um pequeno grupo de pessoas, ficando a sua utilização restrita a pessoas da área policial e judicial ou que justificassem a necessidade do uso, além da comprovação do uso responsável da arma. Partindo-se de análises de entrevistas e notícias que circularam na época, busca-se entender como é percebido o papel do Estado frente à criminalidade e segurança pública durante o debate que preparou a votação do Referendo na elite política responsável pelas duas posições antagônicas do voto a ser referendado a respeito do comércio de armas. Avaliando-se a estrutura das duas frentes parlamentares e seu discurso acerca do papel do Estado frente à criminalidade e controle social, reitera-se uma dicotomia em dois discursos, conforme as tendências criminológicas da atualidade, numa demanda de maior rigor penal e um maniqueísmo social que sustentam uma sociedade excludente. No campo político analisado, observam-se duas posições, a da naturalização da liberdade individual como um bem social a ser valorizado e mantido e a que delega ao Estado o papel de controle do delito. / This is an analysis of social representations concerning criminality and the role of the State during the Campaign of the Disarming Referendum carried out in Brazil in 2005, when the Disarming Statute, an article of the Brazilian legislation about the use of fire guns, was voted. That legislation, approved in 2003, turned the use of guns by the population into a crime and limited the use and register of such weapons to a small number of people, so that its utilization would become restricted to people working either in the police or judicial area, or those who could justify the necessity for using guns, besides proving their responsible use. From the analyses of interviews and news from that period, this study attempts to understand how the role of the State was perceived in relation to criminality and public security during the debate that prepared the vote of the referendum in the political elite responsible for two antagonist positions as to the gun trade. By evaluating the structure of both parliamentary fronts and their discourses about the role of the State in relation to criminality and social control, a dichotomy in both discourses has been reiterated, according to the current criminological trends, i.e. a demand for stronger penal rigor and a social Manichaeism which have supported an exclusion society. In the political field analyzed, two positions have been identified: that of naturalization of individual freedom as a social benefit that should be valued and kept, and that one which delegates the State the function of controlling crime.

Análise das representações sociais a respeito da criminalidade e do papel do Estado durante a Campanha do Referendo do Desarmamento, que ocorreu no Brasil em 2005, quando se votou sobre um artigo da legislação brasileira sobre o uso de armas, o Estatuto do Desarmamento. Essa legislação, aprovada em 2003, tornou crime o uso de armas pela população civil e restringiu seu uso e registro para um pequeno grupo de pessoas, ficando a sua utilização restrita a pessoas da área policial e judicial ou que justificassem a necessidade do uso, além da comprovação do uso responsável da arma. Partindo-se de análises de entrevistas e notícias que circularam na época, busca-se entender como é percebido o papel do Estado frente à criminalidade e segurança pública durante o debate que preparou a votação do Referendo na elite política responsável pelas duas posições antagônicas do voto a ser referendado a respeito do comércio de armas. Avaliando-se a estrutura das duas frentes parlamentares e seu discurso acerca do papel do Estado frente à criminalidade e controle social, reitera-se uma dicotomia em dois discursos, conforme as tendências criminológicas da atualidade, numa demanda de maior rigor penal e um maniqueísmo social que sustentam uma sociedade excludente. No campo político analisado, observam-se duas posições, a da naturalização da liberdade individual como um bem social a ser valorizado e mantido e a que delega ao Estado o papel de controle do delito. / This is an analysis of social representations concerning criminality and the role of the State during the Campaign of the Disarming Referendum carried out in Brazil in 2005, when the Disarming Statute, an article of the Brazilian legislation about the use of fire guns, was voted. That legislation, approved in 2003, turned the use of guns by the population into a crime and limited the use and register of such weapons to a small number of people, so that its utilization would become restricted to people working either in the police or judicial area, or those who could justify the necessity for using guns, besides proving their responsible use. From the analyses of interviews and news from that period, this study attempts to understand how the role of the State was perceived in relation to criminality and public security during the debate that prepared the vote of the referendum in the political elite responsible for two antagonist positions as to the gun trade. By evaluating the structure of both parliamentary fronts and their discourses about the role of the State in relation to criminality and social control, a dichotomy in both discourses has been reiterated, according to the current criminological trends, i.e. a demand for stronger penal rigor and a social Manichaeism which have supported an exclusion society. In the political field analyzed, two positions have been identified: that of naturalization of individual freedom as a social benefit that should be valued and kept, and that one which delegates the State the function of controlling crime.

No description available.

No / Demilitarization of conflict and society is crucial to building sustainable peace in countries emerging from the scourge of civil war. As longstanding conflicts come to an end, processes which facilitate the potentially volatile transition from formal peace to social peace are critically important. At the heart of the exercise is the necessity of transforming the culture and the instruments of war - demilitarization - including disarming, demobilizing and reintegrating (DDR) former combatants into society. This volume represents the first in-depth and comprehensive discussion of reintegration of former combatants in war to peace transitions. In addition to a systematic reflection and review of existing literature on DDR, the authors devised and applied a field research methodology to studying the reintegration of former combatants in Angola with potentially significant implications on the design and implementation of DDR programmes. The volume is written for academics, students and practitioners focusing on war to peace transitions and post-conflict issues.

Le désarmement est l’un des axes stratégiques primordiaux de la politique internationale. Il se pose, de manière récurrente, la sempiternelle question de son rapport à la paix, à la sécurité internationale et au développement. Car, le désarmement est, indubitablement, un maillon essentiel de la chaîne indispensable pour bâtir un monde débarrassé de menaces et de risques consécutifs à une militarisation à outrance. Son sucés ou son échec est lié à la configuration du monde. C’est une question de volonté politique dont les États sont les acteurs majeurs. La mutation du contexte international relance la problématique du désarmement. Car, le désarmement vise à éliminer les armes dont l’accumulation constitue une source de tension internationale. Il concerne la réduction du format des armées, la contraction des dépenses militaires et le contrôle du transfert de la technologie militaire. Il permet de libérer à des fins pacifiques des ressources nécessaires à d’autres secteurs de l’économie. L’histoire du désarmement révèle des pratiques, parfois, unilatérales et coercitives. La mise en œuvre du désarmement n’est possible que lorsque, se manifeste une volonté dédiée à sa concrétisation. Il existe un lien entre les dépenses consacrées aux armements et le développement économique et social. Cependant, la diminution de l’influence incommensurable des complexes militaro-industriels, la reconversion des industries de défense conditionnent aussi le désarmement. La coopération multilatérale et la mutualisation des moyens restent des possibilités de garanties pour un désarmement efficient et efficace. / Disarm is one of the main strategics axis of the international politics. It happened, in a recurring way, the sempiternal question of his report to peace, international security and the development. Because disarming, is undoubtedly, an essential link of the chains to build a world without threats and consecutive risks with excess of militarization. Its success or its failure is linked to the configuration of the world. It is a question of political good-will which states are the major actors. The change of the international context boost the problems of disarming. Because, disarming aims to eliminate the weapons which accumulation constitutes a source of international tensions. It relates to the reduction of the format of armed, the contraction of the soldiers expenditure and the control of the military technology transfer. It permits to release peaceful purposes necessary resources to other sectors of the economy. The history of disarming raises the practices, sometimes, links and coercive. The implementation of disarming is not possible when, appears a dedicated will in its concretization. There is a bond between the expenditure devoted to the arms, the economic and social development. However, the reduction in the incommensurable influence of the military-industrial complexes, the reconversion of industries of expenditure condition also disarming. The multilateral co-operation and the mutualism of the means remain the possibilities of the guarantees for an efficient and effective disarming.