The Coronavirus Crisis has highlighted the complex relationship between Science, Politics and Ethics. Some people think that, if one is to take a plane, one should look forward to the most experienced pilot, and, in the same way, someone experienced in politics should be a better politician than someone inexperienced. Is this really the case, or should we consider that politics involves no special kind of knowledge, but instead a broad, generic kind? In the first case, scientists should have a qualified opinion in decision making about establishing an order of priority to vaccination; otherwise, they are not in better position than any other citizen in discussing such an order. We hold that scientists should have a privileged standing point only insofar the subject concerns facts that could be handled in an empirical way. Their stand is justified not upon ethical and political conceptions, but rather upon empirical evidence that do not consider the evaluation of finalistic choices.
Digitization and the digital revolution are changing the world in the 21st century in terms of communication, resource control, commerce, censorship and, even more clearly, in terms of surveillance of people, organizations and markets. Questions about the size of the state and its interventions in society and about the role of private corporate actors gain relevance in the face of these digital developments. The advance of social transformations due to the digitization and use of tools with the so-called “artificial intelligence” have political and legal implications that are still unclear. The overall aim of the paper is to discuss the practical functioning of the idea of corporate responsibility and how it comes to incorporate political requirements with a particular focus on protecting individual and collective political dissent.
The consolidation of the modern state was due to revolutionary movements that affirmed individual freedom and equality before the law. In addition to the values of the Enlightenment, manifested in the French Revolution, others with a less individualistic reach were affirmed. Democracy came to impose itself as the best form of exercise of the political power. The rule of law came to be conceived as democratic and constitutional, in view of the unavoidable demand for a fundamental law, the Constitution. However, the Constitution is not exhausted in its linguistic expression, but embodied in concrete contents subject to circumstantial changes, which occur despite the inalterability of the text. Hence, it is important to highlight the role of constitutional hermeneutics. With a constitutional democracy horizon, a critical analysis of methodological conceptions is carried out, which are confronted with the reality of the democracies existing in emerging economies.
As part of our ongoing research on the features of Brazilian legal culture, we seek to explain how Brazilian federalism, in its relations with citizenship, has revealed itself in the current COVID-19 pandemic times. In particular, from the analysis of the judgments already made by the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF). We discuss some issues related to health protection and the role and limits of federative entities, in combating the pandemic crisis. This thematic discussion is very relevant t, as it brings in its significant field a whole set of circumstances of federal constitutional clashes, and for that reason, it deals with explicit relations between sovereign power and local autonomies in relation to the protection of people´s rights.