Conventionality control and amendment 95/2016: A Brazilian case of unconstitutional constitutional amendment

15Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This article presents reflections on Brazilian Constitutional Amendment 95/2016, which established the New Tax Regime and consequently the ceiling of public spending in Brazil for a period of twenty years, which has serious consequences for Brazilian public services. The hypothesis defended in the study is that Amendment 95/2016 is an unconstitutional constitutional amendment, since it violates the essence of the Social State present in the original text of the 1988 Constitution and has direct influences on the guarantee of fundamental rights, which constitute stone clauses (cláusulas pétreas). Thus, the study starts with the technical analysis of the Amendment. Next, the concept and content of the stone clauses in the Brazilian constitution are analyzed to propose the possibility of conventionality control as an alternative, focusing on the Intermerican Convention on Human Rights, UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is concluded that conventionality control of the Amendment is imperative. The methodology used is the bibliographic analysis on the themes, as well as the projection of data on the economic and social effects of Amendment 95/2016.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Roznai, Y., & Kreuz, L. R. C. (2018). Conventionality control and amendment 95/2016: A Brazilian case of unconstitutional constitutional amendment. Revista de Investigacoes Constitucionais, 5(2), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.5380/rinc.v5i2.57577

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free