La reconstruction post-conflit de l’Etat est un enjeu majeur et actuel des relations internationales. L’Union européenne, sous les auspices des Nations Unies contribue à restaurer ou instaurer un ordre étatique qui doit donner sa chance à une paix durable fondée sur des valeurs respectueuses des droits de l’homme. Toutefois, l’Union européenne reste maitre de ses interventions. Il n’existe pas véritablement pour les Etats post-conflits un droit à la reconstruction. Un complexe d’acteurs institutionnels européens décide et organise la réponse européenne à la déliquescence des Etats au sortir des conflits. Cette réponse n’est pas isolée, elle s’inscrit dans un ensemble de partenariats.L’organisation régionale déploie un ensemble de mécanismes juridiques ou opérationnels, militaires ou civils de gestion du relèvement des Etats en sortie de conflit. L’engagement européen peut prendre des formes très intrusives, et s’apparente parfois à une tutelle européenne sur des Etats victimes de conflits. Au final, l’Union européenne participe à la définition et à la réalisation d’un droit international de la reconstruction de l’Etat. Elle consacre des normes et des standards internationaux. Elle inaugure des normes et des standards européens adaptées au relèvement des Etats. De ce point de vue, l’offre européenne en matière de reconstruction post conflit de l’Etat est globale. C'est-à-dire que l’Europe propose de reconstruire l’Etat sous ses trois composantes traditionnelles : la population, le territoire et l’appareil d’Etat. / In the framework of International Relations, Post Conflict Reconstruction of the State is a major and actual stake. European Union under the auspices of United Nations, supports all initiatives to restore or build a state order which give a chance for a stable peace based on human values. Nevertheless, European Union defines his interventions in function of his own interests. Post-conflicts States don’t have a right to reconstruction. A mix of european institutional actors decide and design the european response dedicated to failed Post-conflict States. This response is not isolated, she is included in a network of parternship.After a conflict, the regional organization set up a mix of legal or operational mechanisms, and military or civilian capacities. The european activism in this domain can be very strong. Sometimes, it seems as a trusteeship of EU on Post conflicts States. Consequently, European Union contributes to design and implement the international law of the State reconstruction. EU promotes norms and international standards. It initiates european norms and standards dedicated to the recovery of states. Consequently, European Union possess global capacities in the matter of post-conflict reconstruction. That is to say that Europe is proposing to rebuild the state in its three traditional components: population, territory and state apparatus.

<p>Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka de normativa utrymmen som det finns i dagens internationella samhälle för förebyggande interventioner. Interventioner definieras som ett medel i en större politisk strategi som sker inom en suverän stats gränser mot dess officiella vilja. Vidare skiljer sig förebyggande interventioner från icke-förebyggande genom dess preventiva karaktär. Utifrån en begreppsanalys studeras olika interventionsformer och argument för interventionspolitikens legitimerande. I den följande normativa analysen diskuteras och ställs olika argument om interventioners legitimerande emot varandra, och det normativa utrymmet för interventioner undersöks. Interventioner, förebyggande interventioner och legitimerandet av desamma är kopplat till begrepp som suveränitet och auktoritet men också till internationella lagar och universella normer samt motiven bakom interventionerna.</p><p>Ett av de stora dilemman som uppstår kring förebyggande interventioner är valet mellan att bryta mot de internationella politiska normerna och skadan av ett passivt förhållningssätt mot mänskligt lidande. I dagens internationella samhälle skulle det kunna finnas ett normativt utrymme för förebyggande interventioner under förutsättning att motiven bakom interventionen värderas högre än argumenten mot den förebyggande interventionen. Avsaknaden av en tydlig suverän auktoritet, allmänt giltiga och accepterade motiv och ett legalt utrymme gör att det är svårt att finna en normativ yta för förebyggande interventioner i det internationella samhället. Trots en ökad positiv retorik från FN rörande förebyggande interventioner, samt att interventioner blivit alltmer accepterade, vilket inte var fallet bara femtio år tillbaka, saknar förebyggande interventioner fortfarande en allmängiltig legitimitet och acceptans.</p> / <p>The objective of this thesis is to study the normative space and scope for pre-emptive interventions in the international society of today. Interventions are defined as part of a broader political strategy aimed at changing the actual course of actions within a specific sovereign country against that country’s official will. Further, are pre-emptive interventions distinguished from non-pre-emptive interventions by the latter’s reactive character. Through a concept analysis are different types of intervention and the arguments for the legitimacy of different intervention policies studied. In the following normative analysis different arguments for the legitimacy of interventions are positioned against each other, and thereby the space and scope for pre-emptive interventions is examined. Interventions, pre-emptive interventions and the legitimacy thereof, are connected to concepts of sovereignty and authority, as well as international law, universal norms and the motives behind the interventions.</p><p>One of the main dilemmas considering pre-emptive interventions is the choice between breaking international political norms, and the damage of doing nothing and passively watching ongoing human suffering. Today’s international society would have a space and scope for pre-emptive interventions provided that the motives behind the intervention are considered more valid than the arguments against the same policy. The lack of an obvious international authority, general valid and acceptable motives, and a legal space for pre-emptive interventions, make it difficult to find legitimate grounds and a normative space and scope for them. In spite of an increasingly positive rhetoric by the UN on pre-emptive interventions, among other examples, pre-emptive interventions remain a general notion of legitimacy and acceptance.</p>

O fenômeno da globalização teve o condão de aproximar os diversos povos, cada um com seus interesses e culturas próprios. A existência de um consenso internacional na definição de princípios a serem seguidos quando das relações externas não consegue impedir, contudo, o surgimento de possíveis conflitos e divergências, tendo em vista a pluralidade cultural das diversas nações mundiais, fato que induziu a sociedade internacional a desenvolver meios que pudessem dirimir pacificamente as controvérsias, porventura, surgidas entre elas. A adoção dos meios para solução pacífica dos conflitos internacionais encontra-se incentivada pela Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (art. 4., incisos VI e VII) e sua utilização não importa qualquer renúncia ao exercício da soberania, nem tampouco à imunidade de jurisdição. Para que se tenha uma eficácia maior da submissão dos conflitos surgidos no âmbito externo aos meios admitidos para resolvê-los, é importante que os países envolvidos no litígio possuam orientação interna no sentido de privilegiar o Direito Internacional frente à sua legislação infraconstitucional doméstica. A eventual primazia do direito interno pode resultar na inocuidade da adoção dos meios pacíficos de solução de controvérsias internacionais, uma vez que as autoridades dos países litigantes poderão se esquivar do cumprimento do acordo ou decisão alegando uma possível contrariedade com os ditames legais domésticos. Nesse contexto, a seara tributária tem despertado constantes divergências internacionais. As diferentes interpretações conferidas pelas diversas nações, dentre elas o Brasil, quando da aplicação dos tratados por elas firmados e que tenham vertente fiscal, em especial aqueles que visam evitar a dupla imposição fiscal da renda, ou garantir o livre trânsito de bens, pessoas e serviços, acaba trazendo grande insegurança àqueles investidores que possuem operações conectadas a dois ou mais sistemas tributários diferentes. Assim, ganham cada vez mais corpo, os debates em torno da extensão dos mecanismos pacíficos para resolução de divergências, também ao âmbito de aplicação de todo e qualquer tratado que verse sobre a matéria tributária. Tal fato propicia a busca de uma possível uniformização dos métodos hermenêuticos aplicáveis àqueles fatos geradores tributáveis que se encontrem vinculados a dois ou mais entes soberanos. É nesse contexto que se apresenta o presente estudo, o qual aborda a possibilidade de a República Federativa do Brasil submeter ao procedimento arbitral aquelas controvérsias de cunho tributário que eventualmente decorram da interpretação divergente das convenções internacionais das quais seja parte e que tratem de matéria fiscal. / The phenomenon of globalization had the power to bring together different peoples, each with their own interests and cultures. However, in view of the cultural diversity of different peoples around the world, the existence of an international consensus in establishing the principles to be followed when external relations are formed cannot prevent the emergence of external conflicts and disagreements. This led the international society to develop mechanisms that could peacefully settle the controversies that may eventually arise. The adoption of such mechanisms is encouraged by the Brazilian Constitution, whose article 4, sections VI and VII, advocates the pursuit of peace and peaceful settlement of disputes. Its use does not lead to the renunciation of the exercise of sovereignty nor to the immunity of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, in order to achieve greater efficacy in the submission of disputes arising outside of the means allowed to solve them, it is important that countries involved in the disputes have consolidated internal orientation towards favouring international law over their domestic infra-constitutional legislation. The primacy of the domestic law may result in the ineffectiveness of adopting peaceful means for solving international controversies since authorities of the countries engaged in the dispute may avoid compliance with the agreement or decision on the grounds of some contradiction with the domestic law procedures. In this context, the taxation arena has been constantly attracting international disagreement. The different interpretations conferred by various nations, including Brazil, in applying taxation-related treaties signed by themselves, particularly those attempting to avoid double income taxation or to guarantee the free flow of goods, people and services, bring a high level of insecurity to investors possessing operations connected to two or more distinct tax systems. As a result, the debates regarding the extension of the peaceful mechanisms to the solution of divergences take shape, including those related to the application of any treaty which speaks to the subject of taxation. This favors the search for the standardization of the hermeneutical methods applicable to those tax events which are linked to two or more sovereign entities. This is the context surrounding the current study, which addresses the possibility of the Federative Republic of Brazil to refer tax-related disputes, caused by divergent interpretation of the international conventions of which it is a member, to the arbitral proceedings.

O fenômeno da globalização teve o condão de aproximar os diversos povos, cada um com seus interesses e culturas próprios. A existência de um consenso internacional na definição de princípios a serem seguidos quando das relações externas não consegue impedir, contudo, o surgimento de possíveis conflitos e divergências, tendo em vista a pluralidade cultural das diversas nações mundiais, fato que induziu a sociedade internacional a desenvolver meios que pudessem dirimir pacificamente as controvérsias, porventura, surgidas entre elas. A adoção dos meios para solução pacífica dos conflitos internacionais encontra-se incentivada pela Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil (art. 4., incisos VI e VII) e sua utilização não importa qualquer renúncia ao exercício da soberania, nem tampouco à imunidade de jurisdição. Para que se tenha uma eficácia maior da submissão dos conflitos surgidos no âmbito externo aos meios admitidos para resolvê-los, é importante que os países envolvidos no litígio possuam orientação interna no sentido de privilegiar o Direito Internacional frente à sua legislação infraconstitucional doméstica. A eventual primazia do direito interno pode resultar na inocuidade da adoção dos meios pacíficos de solução de controvérsias internacionais, uma vez que as autoridades dos países litigantes poderão se esquivar do cumprimento do acordo ou decisão alegando uma possível contrariedade com os ditames legais domésticos. Nesse contexto, a seara tributária tem despertado constantes divergências internacionais. As diferentes interpretações conferidas pelas diversas nações, dentre elas o Brasil, quando da aplicação dos tratados por elas firmados e que tenham vertente fiscal, em especial aqueles que visam evitar a dupla imposição fiscal da renda, ou garantir o livre trânsito de bens, pessoas e serviços, acaba trazendo grande insegurança àqueles investidores que possuem operações conectadas a dois ou mais sistemas tributários diferentes. Assim, ganham cada vez mais corpo, os debates em torno da extensão dos mecanismos pacíficos para resolução de divergências, também ao âmbito de aplicação de todo e qualquer tratado que verse sobre a matéria tributária. Tal fato propicia a busca de uma possível uniformização dos métodos hermenêuticos aplicáveis àqueles fatos geradores tributáveis que se encontrem vinculados a dois ou mais entes soberanos. É nesse contexto que se apresenta o presente estudo, o qual aborda a possibilidade de a República Federativa do Brasil submeter ao procedimento arbitral aquelas controvérsias de cunho tributário que eventualmente decorram da interpretação divergente das convenções internacionais das quais seja parte e que tratem de matéria fiscal. / The phenomenon of globalization had the power to bring together different peoples, each with their own interests and cultures. However, in view of the cultural diversity of different peoples around the world, the existence of an international consensus in establishing the principles to be followed when external relations are formed cannot prevent the emergence of external conflicts and disagreements. This led the international society to develop mechanisms that could peacefully settle the controversies that may eventually arise. The adoption of such mechanisms is encouraged by the Brazilian Constitution, whose article 4, sections VI and VII, advocates the pursuit of peace and peaceful settlement of disputes. Its use does not lead to the renunciation of the exercise of sovereignty nor to the immunity of jurisdiction. Meanwhile, in order to achieve greater efficacy in the submission of disputes arising outside of the means allowed to solve them, it is important that countries involved in the disputes have consolidated internal orientation towards favouring international law over their domestic infra-constitutional legislation. The primacy of the domestic law may result in the ineffectiveness of adopting peaceful means for solving international controversies since authorities of the countries engaged in the dispute may avoid compliance with the agreement or decision on the grounds of some contradiction with the domestic law procedures. In this context, the taxation arena has been constantly attracting international disagreement. The different interpretations conferred by various nations, including Brazil, in applying taxation-related treaties signed by themselves, particularly those attempting to avoid double income taxation or to guarantee the free flow of goods, people and services, bring a high level of insecurity to investors possessing operations connected to two or more distinct tax systems. As a result, the debates regarding the extension of the peaceful mechanisms to the solution of divergences take shape, including those related to the application of any treaty which speaks to the subject of taxation. This favors the search for the standardization of the hermeneutical methods applicable to those tax events which are linked to two or more sovereign entities. This is the context surrounding the current study, which addresses the possibility of the Federative Republic of Brazil to refer tax-related disputes, caused by divergent interpretation of the international conventions of which it is a member, to the arbitral proceedings.

Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka de normativa utrymmen som det finns i dagens internationella samhälle för förebyggande interventioner. Interventioner definieras som ett medel i en större politisk strategi som sker inom en suverän stats gränser mot dess officiella vilja. Vidare skiljer sig förebyggande interventioner från icke-förebyggande genom dess preventiva karaktär. Utifrån en begreppsanalys studeras olika interventionsformer och argument för interventionspolitikens legitimerande. I den följande normativa analysen diskuteras och ställs olika argument om interventioners legitimerande emot varandra, och det normativa utrymmet för interventioner undersöks. Interventioner, förebyggande interventioner och legitimerandet av desamma är kopplat till begrepp som suveränitet och auktoritet men också till internationella lagar och universella normer samt motiven bakom interventionerna. Ett av de stora dilemman som uppstår kring förebyggande interventioner är valet mellan att bryta mot de internationella politiska normerna och skadan av ett passivt förhållningssätt mot mänskligt lidande. I dagens internationella samhälle skulle det kunna finnas ett normativt utrymme för förebyggande interventioner under förutsättning att motiven bakom interventionen värderas högre än argumenten mot den förebyggande interventionen. Avsaknaden av en tydlig suverän auktoritet, allmänt giltiga och accepterade motiv och ett legalt utrymme gör att det är svårt att finna en normativ yta för förebyggande interventioner i det internationella samhället. Trots en ökad positiv retorik från FN rörande förebyggande interventioner, samt att interventioner blivit alltmer accepterade, vilket inte var fallet bara femtio år tillbaka, saknar förebyggande interventioner fortfarande en allmängiltig legitimitet och acceptans. / The objective of this thesis is to study the normative space and scope for pre-emptive interventions in the international society of today. Interventions are defined as part of a broader political strategy aimed at changing the actual course of actions within a specific sovereign country against that country’s official will. Further, are pre-emptive interventions distinguished from non-pre-emptive interventions by the latter’s reactive character. Through a concept analysis are different types of intervention and the arguments for the legitimacy of different intervention policies studied. In the following normative analysis different arguments for the legitimacy of interventions are positioned against each other, and thereby the space and scope for pre-emptive interventions is examined. Interventions, pre-emptive interventions and the legitimacy thereof, are connected to concepts of sovereignty and authority, as well as international law, universal norms and the motives behind the interventions. One of the main dilemmas considering pre-emptive interventions is the choice between breaking international political norms, and the damage of doing nothing and passively watching ongoing human suffering. Today’s international society would have a space and scope for pre-emptive interventions provided that the motives behind the intervention are considered more valid than the arguments against the same policy. The lack of an obvious international authority, general valid and acceptable motives, and a legal space for pre-emptive interventions, make it difficult to find legitimate grounds and a normative space and scope for them. In spite of an increasingly positive rhetoric by the UN on pre-emptive interventions, among other examples, pre-emptive interventions remain a general notion of legitimacy and acceptance.