At the same time as it gained prominence outside Brazil for its role in the reaction to the January 8 attacks and the confrontation with the Big Techs, the (Supreme Federal Court) accumulated episodes of clashes and criticism on the international scenario that intensified the court’s exposure and its ministers.
Although this protagonism abroad is read by experts as an element of the political dispute linked to pockets and a repeated far right action in other countries, there is criticism of court conduct that may have enhanced this wear and tear.
In April, the Supreme was the target of, who spoke in excessive power of the ministers, and saw the request for extradition of the scholarship influencer Oswaldo Eustáquio, the target of arrest warrants by the court, to be denied by the Spanish justice. The Spanish court stated that.
In both episodes, the STF reacted. In, the minister suspended extradition to Spain of a Bulgarian accused of drug trafficking, alleging lack of reciprocity.
In relation to the British magazine, in a movement that is not commonplace, the. It says that the focus of the text corresponded “more to the narrative of those who tried the coup d’état than to the real fact that Brazil lives a full democracy.”
A Sheet He questioned the Supreme’s advisory about the decision to react to the publication, but there was no response.
The article quoted the judgment of the former president (), at a time when pockets presses for an amnesty project involved on January 8. As an alternative, the summit of Congress in the Law.
Before being cited in a critical tone at The Economist, Moraes was also profiled in a long report by The New Yorker magazine. And last year, he asked, “Is the supreme saving or threatening democracy?”
On the other hand, the court was defended by him to combat misinformation were “a worldwide example.”
Over the past few years, Barroso has participated in various events abroad, such as lectures at universities and events promoted by business groups. Last week, for example, in a meeting promoted by the Lide Group in New York, to avoid a blow in Brazil in 2022.
Other topics often addressed by the minister abroad are digital and the protection of institutions.
Despite highlighting the importance of the Supreme’s role in coping with what he describes as existential threats to Brazilian democracy and in the pressure against the platforms, FGV Professor Law and columnist and columnist Sheet Oscar Vilhena evaluates that there are criticisms you see as correct in the article.
He cites as an example what he sees as excess of monocratic decisions and instability in jurisprudence.
“The best response of the Supreme to this type of criticism would be to promote a set of internal reforms, including the adoption of a code of conduct,” he says.
Vilhena also considers that the negative to the extradition request is a sign of alert to the court. “In a way, there is a reputational damage that he [o tribunal] Eventually is judging a case politically. “
CASE ALLAN DOS SANTOS
The controversy with Spain occurs just over a year after similar episode with the United States.
Earlier last year, still under the management of Joe Biden, the US government communicated to Brazil that it could not extradite the scholarship influencer Allan dos Santos for crimes that the country says see as an opinion crimes.
Gabriela Armani, a doctoral student in Political Science at Harvard University in the United States, evaluates that, compared to the moment shortly after January 8, more voices and narratives have been heard internationally about the Supreme’s performance.
She cites what she sees as a two -lobbies alliance: from the group linked to pockets and the big techs aimed at counteracting attempts at regulation.
And in the United States, Moraes had his image projected abroad due to his clash with the businessman, owner of X (former) and ally of President Donald Trump. The episode.
The minister is mobilized by the deputy (PL-SP), who graduated from the House and went to live in the US claiming to suffer persecution of the judiciary.
Professor at USP (University of São Paulo) and coordinator of the Judicial Research and Democracy Group, Rogério Arantes says he does not see the supreme or less pressured by the international context. For him, what weighs as a decisive factor, in fact, would be a political majority in the congress willing to “leave on the court.”
“This internationalization is neither work nor initiative of the court. It is a reaction of the court to an extremely internationalized right,” he says, parallel with the strategy of internationalization of communist parties in the last century.
Research leader in technology, power and innovation at Weizenbaum Institute, Germany, Clara Iglesias Keller says that, on the international scenario, there are two perspectives on the STF’s performance.
On the one hand, he says, critics with more extreme perspectives of freedom of expression point out excesses on the part of the court. On the other hand, there are those who see the court “as an example of how courts can or should even act in the face of a scenario of democratic erosion.”
According to her, from the CEO of the Goal CEO, earlier this year, with a clash speech against regulation of social networks and alignment to the Trump administration, the court’s performance in combating misinformation gains more relevance.
