A integridade no direito internacional : uma análise crítica das concepções jurídico-filosóficas presentes no caso Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening) da Corte Internacional de Justiça

Abstract

Human rights have been, admittedly, selectively applied in the constitutional process in Western history. They have been introduced in many legal documents made for responsible global governance, identified as critical to the conduct between international organizations or sovereign states and the persons governed. It is well known that the best ethical-evaluative interpretation of human rights allows us to understand that life and human dignity’s protection are priorities in a legal system guided to be more just. However, human rights do not necessarily receive the attention they deserve, as can be seen in the paradigmatic case of Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), decided by the International Court of Justice, on February 2, 2012. The International Court of Justice’s decision supported the jurisdictional immunity of the state in the face of the victim’s right to access to due process for a serious violation of human rights, a decision against the aspiration of those who defend the individual as the main object of protection of the international legal order. The analysis of the phenomenon of the judicial realization of human rights at the national, international and supranational sphere guides the development of this dissertation, which aims to analyze the protection of human rights at a time of constitutional dialogues and its reflection in jurisprudence. Through the study of the indicated case, this dissertation will discuss the main points of the realist, positivist and natural law theses about the judicial decision. Based on the “law as integrity” model of Ronald Dworkin, we can conclude that the legitimacy of the argument allows us to think of the coherence and commitment of the global community’s acts and how these standards might be globally shared.