UNIVERSIDADE DO ESTADO DO RIO DE JANEIRO

PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM DIREITO

1. Revisão: MAEKELT, Tatiana B. Relaciones entre el derecho internacional

privado y el derecho internacional público.

"Desde el período clásico del derecho romano se conoce la distinción entre el derecho
público y el derecho privado" p. 28.

"A lo largo de diversos procesos, las formas romanas de entender y distinguir lo público
y lo privado y de relacionarlo con lo político, social, jurídico y económico, comenzaron
a debilitarse, prevalecindo las formas pivadas que subsistían en el domínio rural a través
del imperium y las maiestas" p. 29.

"Según Soriano (1996) son tres los aspectos cruciales que marcan la época moderna: el
impetuoso despliegue del individuo y del individualismo, frente a un Estado que había
surgido como sujeto de la política. Lo público quedaba definido en el esfera estatal,
mientras lo privado parecía restringirse a la sociedad, objeto de la política. En segundo
lugar la dimensión social que adquiere lo público. Y en tercer lugar, el surgimento desde
el siglo XVIII de la nueva noción de sociedad civil" p. 31.

"Una quinta teoría nos lleva al abandono de los conceptos de derecho público y derecho
privado, como conceptos clasificatorios, reteniéndolos como principio regulativo a cuya
luz se pueden contemplar todas las relaciones jurídicas que oferecen sin excepción,
simultáneamente, un aspecto privado y otro público" p. 34.

"En términos generales, la relación entre el Derecho Internacional Privado y el Derecho

Internacional Público depende de lo que se entiende por este último. En su concepción
clásica, reflejada en parte en la definición de Rodríguez, DIP es la disciplina que regula
relaciones entre Estados y otros sujetos de la comunidad internacional, especialmente,
organismos internacionales, etc (...) Por otra parte, el DIPRI puede considerarse como el
conjunto de normas materiales de derecho público, aplicables a supuestos con elementos
de extraneidad (...) p. 36.
"Ahora bien, aun cuando ambas disciplinas requieren para su existencia del presupuesto
sociológico y del presupuesto jurídico, debemos señalar que tradicionalmente la
distinción entre ambos venía dada por los actores que la conforman, y en este sentido,
los sujetos que dan vida al presupuesto sociológico, en el caso del Derecho
Internacional Público, serían los Estados nacionales y, en el caso del Derecho
Internacional Privado, los particulares" p. 39.

"En conclusión, si bien los Estados son sujetos por excelencia del DIP, vemos cómo el
surgimiento de organismos internacionales, así como el de cierto grupo de individuos
(minorias débiles) y, lo más importante, el individuo mismo, pasan a formar parte como
sujetos de este derecho y hacen que resulte inexacto alegar, como una distinción válida
entre el DIP y el DIPRI, el que el primero regule solamente las relaciones entre Estados,
mientras que el segundo regule las relaciones entre personas privadas" p. 40.

"A pesar de múltiples tratados, en nuestros días no existe un DIPRI valedero para el
mundo entero. Además de fuentes internacionales, cada Estado regula las relaciones que
presentan un elemento de extranjería según su proprio punto de vista personal y
territorial, creando su proprio DIP. Existirán entonces tantos derechos internacionales
privados como Estados soberanos existan, formando parte de un orden jurídico estatal
particular y no de un DIP" p. 44.

"La inclusión del DIPRI en el DIP depende del enfoque que se le da a aquel. Si s
considera como una rama jurídica que limita la soberanía legislativa al aplicar el
derecho extranjero, estará ubicada en el marco del DIP y se vale de normas unilaterales,
es decir, las que determinan, a qué casos debe aplicarse su proprio ordenamiento
jurídico. (...) En el ámbito "personal", personans, familia, sucesiones, etc, es necesario
disponer de normas de colisión bilateral" p. 46.

"Ante un mundo global solo caben respuestas jurídicas globales, con lo cual desaparece
la separación crasa entre ambas disciplinas" p. 57.

"Finalmente, el norte de esta actividad cuestionadora, debe ser en definitiva la justicia

de cada caso, por lo cual tendremos que contar con jueces realmente preparados, a cuyo
arbitrio podamos confiar la solución de controversias, en base a estos nuevos criterios,
muchos de ellos aún en formación, como, por ejemplo, el de aceptar la aplicación del
derecho público extranjero, o quizás, la aplicación de las normas imperativas de un
tercer Estado en ese minucioso casuismo y singularidad del mundo de los contratos que
se mueve desde la perspectiva global, y nos hace olvidar las diferencias entre derecho
público y privado" p. 57

2. Revisão: KARASSIN, Orr; PEREZ, Oren. Shifting between public and

private: The reconfiguration of global environmental regulation.

"Over the past two centuries, public environmental regulation (PER) has been
progressively supplemented by private transnational regulation (PTR), creating a hybrid
environmental governance regime. A five category typology is developed to describe
the ways in which international and national PER interact with private forms of
environmental regulation. We then analyze the policy considerations that are relevant to
the design of such hybrid regimes and various forms of interaction. Next, we describe
two case studies that demonstrate the diversity of interactions between PER and PTR in
a single regime. The case of sustainability reporting illustrates how public law builds on
the expertise developed by private organizations as gradually more reporting obligations
are incorporated into public law. The case of sustainable forest management regulation
is somewhat more mixed, reflecting a tendency for increased state intervention, which
led to partial suppression of PTR" p. 97.

"The field of environmental governance has transformed into a hybrid system that
includes both binding treaty instruments, such as the United Nations Climate Change
Convention (1992) or the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), and private
instruments, such as voluntary corporate codes, environmental management systems,
green labels, and indexes and environmental reporting standards. The result has been
described as regime complexity or ensemble regulation: a proliferation of regulatory
schemes operating in the same policy domain and supported by varied combinations of
public and private actors, including states, international organizations, businesses, and
NGOs" p. 99.

"Incorporation refers to situations where public law adopts requirements that actively
support the use of private standards. Where incorporation involves the adoption of
stricter rules than those previously existing, it may serve as a catalyst for improvement
in public standards of environmental protection, health and safety, and transparency.
Also, if private standards enjoyed high legitimacy before incorporation, then the
incorporation process may further strengthen the legitimacy of public regulation and its
perceived epistemic foundation. Nevertheless, incorporation may also have negative
implications. In particular it may be seen as a form of capture of public regulation by
private interests" p. 101.

"Second, facilitation refers to situations where public law provides enabling conditions
for private regulation to be adopted by private firms but does not require its
implementation. This can occur through mandating in law environmental processes,
outputs, or outcomes without prescribing the exact details of these activities.
Corporations are then left either to devise a system of their own or to adopt existing
private standards. In such cases, the option of adopting private standards may be more
attractive to firms because it would be cost effective and offer other advantages (e.g.,
legitimacy) than the option of self-development" p. 102.

"Abstention occurs when public law is silent about issues covered by private regulation.
One can view such silence as a form of weak facilitation since adoption of private
regulation is neither encouraged nor discouraged. In most cases, abstention enables
growth and innovation of private regulation, creating space for market initiatives where
the state is inactive or international agreements do not apply. In fewer cases, abstention
may weaken PTR, especially when there is a weak market demand for private standards,
which is unsupported by governmental incentive" p. 104.

"Substitution also reffered to as publicization refers to situations where public law takes
over the regulation of issues that were previously governed by private law. This may
occur because of shifts in government policy priorities, which drive new public
intervention. Substitution may also be driven by public concerns over the legitimacy,
credibility, integrity, and effectiveness of private arrangements. In both cases
substitution would cause a gradual withdrawal of private regulation, giving way to
public regulation" p. 104.

"Finally, suppression takes place when public law prohibits certain forms of private
regulation and directly intervenes in the private sphere to stop or curtail them" p. 104.

"In thinking about the design of a hybrid regulatory regime there are some generic
advantages of private instruments, which need to be emphasized. The first advantage
concerns the distribution of information: in some contexts, private parties have better
knowledge of the regulatory field or have better capacity to develop the needed
information than public actors. (...) Second, private regulation is also more flexible and
has better adaptive capacities than public regulation due to its closer association with
business actors, which makes it more attuned to business needs and practices and to
market changes" p. 107.

"Also, unlike public regulation, which enjoys a monopoly status, private schemes must
deal with competition from rival initiatives. This competitive environment is likely to
contribute to the responsiveness of private schemes" p. 108.

"Another advantage of private regulation concerns its capacity to create transnational

regimes" p. 108.

"Finally, private regulatory schemes can reinvigorate democratic practices by

employing sophisticated forms of public consultation, which are not tied to
conventional practices of administrative law" p. 109.

"But shifting regulatory powers (both norm-making and compliance) to private bodies,
whether implicitly, by not acting publicly, or explicitly, through facilitation or
incorporation, also generates various regulatory challenges. The first problem concerns
the risk of regulatory capture. This risk is relevant both to the norm-making phase and
to the implementation and enforcement phases"p. 109-110.

"A second challenge relates to concerns about the organizational and enforcement
capacity of private regulatory bodies. Compliance assurance mechanisms in PTR
regimes suffer from various weaknesses compared with public regulatory regimes
simply because they do not have the power of the state at their disposal" p. 110.

"The final challenge concerns the tension between privatization of regulatory authority
and democratic values" p. 110.

"The literature has identified several potential responses to the limitations of using
private regulation. A central strategy is regulatory "enrollment." Enrollment occurs
when a public regulator chooses to engage with private actors that possess resources
relevant for regulation, such as information, expertise, financial means, or
organizational capacity" p. 111.

"Another response is the use of meta-regulatory techniques, which give the public
regulatory system some control over the private system. In meta-regulation, regulators
induce private entities to develop regulatory regimes by shifting some of the powers to
the private domain" p. 112.

"Another approach is to develop various forms of collaborations between public and

private bodies in the governance and operation of private schemes" p. 113.

"A more typical interaction between public law and PTR is illustrated by the European
Directive regarding the disclosure of non financial and diversity information by certain
large undertakings and groups" p. 117.

"Governments have also facilitated or incorporated private certification through public

procurement policies or laws. This has been yet another step in the incorporation of
private mechanisms into public law. For example, the UK, Netherlands, Danish,
Bolivian, Guatemalan, Latvian, and Polish governments have accepted private
certificates as evidence of legality and sustainability when purchasing timber products"
p. 125.

"The growth of environmental PTR has created a hybrid governance structure in which
public and private instruments interact in a Much more extensive and complex way than
two decades ago. These interactions range from incorporation to suppression (with
various intermediate interactions). In some areas, such as SFM and SR, public law has
entered areas previously governed by private regulation. In other areas, such as
renewable energy and GHG emissions, public national and international regulatory
schemes seem keen to rely on private standards and certifications" p. 128.

"The foregoing analysis suggests that it is a mistake to view private forms of regulation
as mere cheap talk. However, we must be realistic about the capacity of private
regulation (e.g., CSR codes) to trigger radical pro-sustainability changes. Private
regulation remains constrained by the precepts of modern capitalism and by the broad
institutional framework in which both corporations and private bodies (e.g., CSR
institutions) are situated" p. 129.