BRAZIL AND THE DOCTRINAL AND JURISPRUDENTIAL CURRENTS ON THE INTEGRATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES INTO DOMESTIC LEGAL ORDER

Abstract

The debate on the incorporation of international human rights treaties into  the  domestic  legal  system  is  marked  by complexity  and  doctrinal and jurisprudential divergences. The doctrine highlights the difficulty of integrating these treaties into the Brazilian legal system, as provided for in the 1988 Constitution, in Articles 5, §§ 2 and 3. The discussion intensifies due to the lack of consensus among scholars, with different interpretations regarding the hierarchy of treaties in relation to domestic norms. Two main theories are highlighted: the dualist theory, which separates international law from domestic law, and the monist theory, which advocates for the systemic unity. These debates reflect the need to understand how human rights treaties are incorporated and their implications in Brazil. Furthermore, there are disagreements regarding the hierarchy of these norms whether they are superior to the Constitution, if still infra-constitutional, or on an equal constitutional footing. The topic reveals the challenge of balancing state sovereignty with the international commitment to protect human rights. Although some jurists advocate for the supremacy of international treaties, others see them merely as supralegal norms, subordinated to the internal constitutional order. Investigates the protection international law offers to human beings and the extent to which the domestic legal system should be subordinated to the global normative system. This issue remains relevant, challenging jurists, legislators, and courts in Brazil and worldwide. The approach is exploratory, reflective, and descriptive, using the deductive method to analyze monist and dualist theories, along with schools of thought identified in Extraordinary Appeal 466.343/SP.