No abstract available. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / gm2014 / Centre for Human Rights / unrestricted

The purpose of this study is to examine how the European Union's foreign policy demonstrates the theories human rights, feminism and globalization. This will be examined in how the theories are demonstrated in the foreign policy and also how there is a difference between how it is portrayed in the policy and how it is shown in reality. The primarily source of this study is a document that describes the European Union's foreign policy through a global strategy. The global strategy will be analyzed through how it encourages the different theories in their policy. The study will then continue to examine how the difference between the policy and the reality becomes more concrete through the global strategy and different events on both an intern and an extern level. The results show that there is a large difference between the European Union's foreign policy and the reality.

Submitted by Jean Vagner Silva de Oliveira (jean.oliveira@ucsal.br) on 2016-10-06T18:11:02Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Versão de entrega.pdf: 1184011 bytes, checksum: 455163c88b6e3a6d89ecf04c2cfcd061 (MD5) / Rejected by Rosemary Magalhães (rosemary.magalhaes@ucsal.br), reason: Título e assunto on 2016-10-06T18:16:06Z (GMT) / Submitted by Jean Vagner Silva de Oliveira (jean.oliveira@ucsal.br) on 2016-10-06T18:49:21Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Versão de entrega.pdf: 1184011 bytes, checksum: 455163c88b6e3a6d89ecf04c2cfcd061 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Maria Emília Carvalho Ribeiro (maria.ribeiro@ucsal.br) on 2016-11-29T19:31:13Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Versão de entrega.pdf: 1184011 bytes, checksum: 455163c88b6e3a6d89ecf04c2cfcd061 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-11-29T19:31:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Versão de entrega.pdf: 1184011 bytes, checksum: 455163c88b6e3a6d89ecf04c2cfcd061 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-07-06 / A presente pesquisa pretende investigar a constitucionalidade da Desvinculação de Receitas da União (DRU), instituída pelas Emendas Constitucionais n. 27, 42, 59 e 68, que aditaram o art. 76 dos Atos das Disposições Constitucionais Transitória (ADCTs) da Constituição Federal de 1988, realizando a análise sob a ótica das implicações sobre direitos sociais fundamentais disciplinados no texto constitucional. A DRU desvincula 20% das receitas arrecadas com as contribuições sociais, tributo cuja arrecadação se destina ao financiamento da efetivação dos direitos sociais, sendo que a sua receita já se encontra destinada, desde o seu nascimento, ao financiamento das políticas para a efetividade dos direitos em tela. Para tanto, foi realizado um estudo dos direitos sociais, versando sobre a evolução dos direitos humanos como direitos fundamentais constitucionalmente assegurados, bem como analisando-se os direitos em questão que ostentam a qualidade de cláusulas pétreas, núcleo imutável da Constituição Federal de 1988. Ainda foi feita uma análise dos indicadores sociais para verificar se os direitos sociais são ou não respeitados no Brasil contemporâneo. Outrossim, para responder ao objetivo proposto na pesquisa, foi enfrentado o tema do financiamento dos direitos sociais, por meio do recolhimento de recursos pelas contribuições sociais. Caberá, então, a análise sobre a regra tributária de instituição do tributo em tela, dando ênfase ao critério da destinação, a fim de investigar se é ou não constitucional a desvinculação destas. Em outro momento, o trabalho voltou sua atenção para a DRU, realizando um estudo sobre a sua evolução legislativa, as justificativas para a desvinculação de receitas e as consequências da desvinculação para o orçamento da seguridade social, bem como para os direitos sociais. Por fim, atingida a análise mais profunda sobre as premissas que ensejaram a pesquisa, confrontou-se a DRU com os direitos sociais fundamentais, a fim de responder o problema proposto, ou seja, se é ou não constitucional as emendas à Constituição n. 27, 42, 59 e 68, que possibilitaram a desvinculação das receitas arrecadas por meio das contribuições sociais. / This research aims to investigate the constitutionality of Untying of Union Revenues (DRU) established by Constitutional Amendment n. 27, 42, 59 and 68, which amended the art. 76 of the Acts of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions (ADCTs) of the Federal Constitution of 1988, performing the analysis from the perspective of the impact on fundamental social rights in the Constitution disciplined. The DRU relieve 20% of revenues earrings with social contributions, tax whose revenue is intended to finance the realization of social rights, and their income is already destined from birth, the financing policies for the realization of the rights screen. To this end, a study was conducted of social rights, dealing with the evolution of human rights as fundamental rights constitutionally guaranteed, as well as analyzing the rights in question bearing the quality immutable clauses, unchanging core of the Constitution of 1988. Even was an analysis of social indicators to verify that social rights are not respected or in contemporary Brazil. Furthermore, to meet the proposed objective in the research, it was faced the issue of financing of social rights, through the gathering of resources by social contributions. It shall then be the analysis of the tax rule Tribute institution in question, emphasizing the discretion of destination, to investigate whether it is constitutional to untie these. At another point, the work turned his attention to the DRU, conducting a study on its legislative developments, the justification for the decoupling of revenue and untying consequences for the social security budget, as well as social rights. Finally, reaching the deeper analysis of the assumptions that gave rise to the survey, they were confronted with the DRU fundamental social rights in order to meet the proposed issue, namely whether or not the constitutional amendments to the Constitution n. 27, 42, 59 and 68, which enabled the decoupling of revenue earrings through social contributions.

La dimension parlementaire de l’action extérieure de l’Union européenne, entendue comme la place occupée par le Parlement européen et par les parlements nationaux des Etats membres en tant qu’acteurs de l’action extérieure, se déploie à deux niveaux. Elle s’exprime tout d’abord, au sein de l’Union, à travers l’exercice des pouvoirs parlementaires octroyés par les traités (et le cas échéant par les droits constitutionnels nationaux), et ce de façon incontestable. Elle s’exprime ensuite sur la scène internationale au travers de multiples actions de diplomatie parlementaire, en l’absence de cadre juridique érigé par les traités, et ce de façon ambiguë. Dans l’un comme dans l’autre cas, la dimension parlementaire de l’action extérieure apparaît comme un atout, mais sous conditions, pour la poursuite de l’objectif d’affirmation de l’Union sur la scène internationale. Elle est en effet, en principe, un atout pour la légitimité démocratique de l’action de l’Union et pour la cohérence matérielle de l’action extérieure. Néanmoins, dans la pratique, cet atout demande à être confirmé. Afin d’être un atout effectif, la dimension parlementaire de l’action extérieure de l’UE suppose, à cet égard, d’assurer une conciliation harmonieuse de la légitimité démocratique de l’action de l’UE avec l’affirmation de l’Union sur la scène internationale. La quête de cette conciliation conduit à la formulation de réponses – réalisées ou réalisables – qui suivent un mouvement distinct selon l’espace d’expression des parlements. Lorsque le Parlement européen et les parlements nationaux agissent au sein de l’Union, les solutions résident dans la réalisation de multiples adaptations à partir du cadre juridique et institutionnel érigé par les traités. Ces adaptations, qui restent perfectibles, expliquent que la dimension parlementaire de l’action extérieure soit aujourd’hui encore un processus en construction. Lorsque le Parlement européen et les parlements nationaux agissent sur la scène internationale, les solutions résident dans la structuration d’un cadre juridique global, les règles juridiques existantes étant pour l’heure parcellaires et incomplètes. En définitive, l’action extérieure de l’Union s’enrichit d’une dimension parlementaire qui suppose, au sein de l’Union, d’approfondir les multiples adaptations réalisées à partir du cadre juridique existant et, sur la scène internationale, de structurer un cadre juridique global pour l’heure inexistant. / The parliamentary dimension of the European Union’s External Action, to be understood as the involvement of the European Parliament and of the National Parliaments of EU Member States as actors of the External Action, is rolled out on two levels. Firstly, it is undoubtedly articulated within the European Union, through the exercise of parliamentary powers conferred by the treaties (and, where appropriate, by national constitutional Law). Secondly, it is ambiguously articulated on the international scene through various parliamentary diplomatic actions, without any legal framework set up by the treaties. In both cases, the parliamentary dimension of the External Action appears to be an asset, but under conditions, for the assertion of the European Union on the international scene. It is, in principle, an asset for the democratic legitimacy of the EU’s Action and for the coherence of the External Action. However, it needs to be confirmed in practice. In order to be a truly effective asset, the parliamentary dimension of the EU’s External Action requires reconciling the democratic legitimacy of the EU’s Action with the assertion of the European Union on the international scene. The quest for this conciliation leads to different answers – effective or desirable – which follow a particular pattern depending on the parliaments’ “area of expression”. When the European Parliament and the National Parliaments act within the EU, these answers consist of multiple adaptations of the legal and institutional framework established by the treaties. These adaptations, which are still imperfect, can explain why the parliamentary dimension of the External Action is still a process under construction. When the European Parliament and the National Parliaments act on the international scene, the solutions consist of the structuring of a comprehensive legal framework, since the existing legal rules remain piecemeal and incomplete. Eventually, the EU’s External Action is enriched by a parliamentary dimension which implies deepening, inside the EU, the multiple adaptations achieved from the existing legal framework, and which implies structuring, on the international scene, a global legal framework, which is missing for the moment.

Le Système de préférences généralisées (SPG) correspond à des réductions de droits de douane offertes par des sujets de droit international pubic « développés » aux pays en développement (PED). De manière générale, la conditionnalité est, quant à elle, un mécanisme qui permet de lier l’établissement, l’approfondissement, ou le maintien d’une situation juridique à la réalisation de conditions par un ou des bénéficiaire(s). Lorsque ce mécanisme est qualifié de « politique », ses conditions ont trait à la manière de gouverner et/ou à l’orientation des affaires publiques d’un sujet de droit international public. Le SPG de l’Union européenne (UE) contient plusieurs formes de conditionnalités qui agissent dans différents domaines des politiques publiques des PED bénéficiant de cette réduction douanière. L’intérêt de cette étude est d’aborder le SPG conditionné de l’UE dans le cadre de la construction de cette organisation internationale sui generis et comme révélateur d’une conception qui lui est particulière des relations internationales pour le développement. Par un effet miroir propre à chaque acte juridique, dans quelle mesure cet acte autonome reflète-t-il certaines caractéristiques de l’Union, une certaine identité de l’Union ? Le SPG conditionné de l’UE est tout d’abord un vecteur certain d’une identité européenne du développement en raison du caractère unilatéral de sa définition et de la relative uniformité de sa mise en œuvre. Cependant, celui-ci constitue un vecteur limité et ambivalent. Limité, tout d’abord, car le SPG est un acte secondaire au sein de la politique commerciale et car sa conditionnalité politique n’est pas reproduite dans d’autres actes des relations extérieures de l’Union. Ambivalent, ensuite, car cet acte autonome peut paraître illicite dans les relations commerciales internationales, tout en renouvelant le concept de développement par le commerce au sein de l’Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC). / A Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) is a reduction in custom fees on exports from « developing » subjects of public international law to « developed » countries. As a general rule, conditionality is a tool used to establish, deepen or maintain a legal situation conditioned by specific behavior from it’s beneficiary(ies). This tool is qualified as « political » when it conditions governing tools and/or the public policy of a subject of public international law. The European Union’s GSP has several forms of conditionality which deal with the public of policy of the developing countries benefiting from reduced custom fees. This work aims to study the EU’s conditioned GSP in the context of this sui generis international organization’s construction and as evidence of a EU-specific conception of international relations for development. As each legal tool reflects it’s creator, how does this act reveal certain characteristics of the EU or even aspects of the EU’s identity ? The EU’s conditioned GSP is an expression of European identity as it is defined unilaterally and applied with relative uniformity. However, this expression is limited and ambivalent. First of all, limited, because the GSP is a secondary act within EU commercial policy and it’s political conditionality is not found in other elements of the EU’s foreign relations. Secondly, ambivalent, because this GSP can seem illegal in the context of international commercial relations, all the while renewing the concept of development-through-trade within the World Trade Organization (WTO).