{"id":31742,"date":"2020-02-05T23:00:06","date_gmt":"2020-02-05T23:00:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/?post_type=litigiopt&p=31742"},"modified":"2021-05-21T20:32:15","modified_gmt":"2021-05-21T20:32:15","slug":"adi-1625-the-role-of-the-presidency-in-the-repeal-of-treaties","status":"publish","type":"litigiopt","link":"https:\/\/conectas.org\/en\/litigiopt\/adi-1625-the-role-of-the-presidency-in-the-repeal-of-treaties\/","title":{"rendered":"ADI-1625: the role of the Presidency in the repeal of treaties"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

Photo: Valter Campanato\/Ag\u00eancia Brasil<\/p><\/div>\n

For more than 20 years, the Supreme Court has been discussing the power that the Presidency of the Republic has to denounce (or repeal) international treaties signed by Brazil. The case dates back to 1996, when then President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, by decree, denounced Convention 158 of the ILO (International Labour Organization), which had been ratified by the country just months earlier. The treaty, which is legally binding, contains rules to protect workers from arbitrary dismissals.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In 1997, Contag (National Confederation of Agricultural Workers) and CUT, Brazil\u2019s largest trade union, filed Direct Action of Unconstitutionality No. 1625 in the Supreme Court, arguing that the Executive had violated the Federal Constitution by repealing a treaty without the consent of Congress.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Consequently, besides its importance to the debate on labor rights, <\/span>the case could definitively determine what procedure will be adopted in Brazil to denounce (repeal) international treaties<\/b>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

In its memorials and request for admission as amicus curiae, Conectas contended that, in addition to the importance of the content of Convention 158, the ruling on the case will have a direct impact on the internalization of human rights norms<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>\n

The organization defended the argument of the petitioners that the Constitution, by stating that it is the duty of Congress to \u201cresolve definitively\u201d on treaties (article 49), refers to both the adoption and the repeal of international commitments and, therefore, that the Presidency cannot withdraw from ILO Convention 158 without the approval of Congress.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The case has been suspended since 2016 due to an adjournment requested by Justice Dias Toffoli. To date, five court justices have voted either partially or completely in favor of the case, on the understanding that the Presidency cannot unilaterally denounce a treaty. Only one justice voted to dismiss the case.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Other similar cases involving ILO Convention 169 and the withdrawal from Unasur (Union of South American Nations) are also pending in the court.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Technical information<\/b><\/h2>\n