A ARTE DA GUERRA: A CLÁUSULA ‘COMMANDER IN CHIEF’ E O PRINCÍPIO DA SEPARAÇÃO DOS PODERES NO SISTEMA NORTE-AMERICANO
Resumo
Um dos pilares fundamentais dos sistemas democráticos é o princípio constitucional dos freios e contrapesos, o qual vem sendo constantemente desafiado no ordenamento político-jurídico norteamericano, em razão do crescimento do poder de seu Presidente, especialmente em tempos de guerra. Nesse contexto, o presente artigo pretende analisar o argumento de ampliação da autoridade presidencial como ‘commander in chief ’ em detrimento das competências do Congresso norte-americano, revisando a atuação dos três poderes. Desse modo, nas três partes do artigo serão estudados: o texto constitucional e suas principais interpretações doutrinárias (legislativo); os julgamentos da Suprema Corte que estabeleceram a divisão de atribuições do Congresso e do Presidente em tempos de guerra (judiciário); e por fim, as ações presidenciais que demonstram a crescente ampliação da sua autoridade (executivo), em especial, a teoria dos poderes de guerra de Bush e o recente discurso do Presidente Barack Obama, reafirmando a exclusividade de seu poder como ‘commander in chief ’.
Referências
ADLER, David Gray. The Presidency and the Constitution. In: HAN, Lori Cox
(Org). New Directions in the American Presidency. New York: Taylor &
Francis, 2011.
BARRON, David J.; LENDERMAN, Martin S. The Commander in Chief at
the Lowest EBB: Framing the Problem, Doctrine, and Original Understanding.
Harvard Law Review, v. 121, n. 3, p. 689-804, janeiro, 2008.
DRATEL, Joshua L. Repeating History: Rights and Security in the War
on Terror. In: GREENBERG, Karen J.; DRATEL, Joshua L, (Orgs). Enemy
Combatant Papers: American Justice, the Courts, and the War on Terror.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
ELSEA, Jennifer K.; GARCIA, Michael John. Enemy Combatant Detainees:
Habeas Corpus Challenges in Federal Court. Congressional Research Service,
Disponível em: <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33180.pdf>.
Acesso em: 05 agos. 2010.
GREENBERG, Karen J. Caught in the War on Terror: Redefining
Prisoners in the Post–9/11 Era. In: GREENBERG, Karen J.; DRATEL,
Joshua L, (Orgs). Enemy Combatant Papers: American Justice, the Courts, and
the War on Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. p. ix-xii.
HAN, Lori Cox. Introducing: Studying the Presidency. In: HAN, Lori
Cox (Org). New Directions in the American Presidency. New York: Taylor &
Francis, 2011. p. 1-11.
JINKS, Derek e SLOSS, David. Is the President Bound by the Geneva
Conventions? Cornell L. Rev. v. 97, n. 395, p. 171–72, 2004.
KAMENS, Geremy C. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. In: GREENBERG, Karen J.;
DRATEL, Joshua L, (Orgs). Enemy Combatant Papers: American Justice, the
Courts, and the War on Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
KU, Julian G. Is There an Exclusive Commander-in-Chief Power? The Yale Law
Journal Pocket Part, v.115, n. 84, p. 84-87, 2006.
LOBEL, Jules. Conflicts Between the Commander in Chief and Congress:
Concurrent Power over the Conduct of War. Ohio State Law Journal, v. 69, p.
p. 391-467, 2008.
LONDRAS, Fiona de. Na Sombra do Caso Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: O Direito
dos Prisioneiros da Baía de Guantánamo ao Habeas Corpus. Panóptica, v. 2,
n. 13, p. 241-258, 2009.
MARGULIES, Joseph. Rasul v. Bush. In: GREENBERG, Karen J.; DRATEL,
Joshua L, (Orgs). Enemy Combatant Papers: American Justice, the Courts, and
the War on Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. p. 3-7.
MARGULIES, Joseph. Speak, Obama. The New Republic, 05/05/2011
McMILLAN, Joseph M. Handam v. Rumsfeld. In: GREENBERG, Karen
J.; DRATEL, Joshua L, (Orgs). Enemy Combatant Papers: American Justice,
the Courts, and the War on Terror. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2008. p. 393-397.
OBAMA, Barack. Statement by the President on H.R. 1540, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Washington, White House, 31 de
dezembro de 2011. Disponível em < http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/
/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540>.
ROSSITER, Clinton Lawrence. The Supreme Court and the Commander in
Chief. Reino Unido: Cornell University Press, 1976.
SIDAK, J. Gregory, The Quasi War Cases—And Their Relevance to Whether
Letters of Marque and Reprisal Constrain Presidential War Powers. Harvard
Journal of Law & Public Policy, v. 28, n. 2, p. 465-500, 2005.
SCHEPPELE, Kim Lane. Law in a Time of Emergency: States of Exception and
the Temptation of 9/11. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitucional
Law, v. 6, n. 5, p. 1-75, 2004.
VLADECK, Stephen I. Congress, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Separation
of Powers After Hamdan. American University, WCL Research Paper No.
-03, 2007.
WINDLE, Bub. Resolving Legal Issues in the War on Terror: Habeas Corpus, the
Supreme Court, and Combatant Status Review Tribunals. University of Nebraska
Lincoln, 2008.
WUERTH, Ingrid Brunk. International Law and Constitutional Interpretation:
The Commander in Chief Clause Reconsidered. Michigan Law Review, v. 106, n.
, p. 61-100, outubro, 2007.
YOO, John. War and the Constitutional Text. The University of Chicago Law
Review, v. 69, n. 4, p. 1639-1684, 2002.
Decisões Judiciais
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Supreme Court. Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804).
Disponível em <http://supreme.justia.com/us/71/2/case.html>. Acesso em:
jul. 2010.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Supreme Court. Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2
(1866). Disponível em <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.
pl?court=US&vol=6&invol=170>. Acesso em: 10 mar. 2012.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Supreme Court. Brown v. United States, 113 U.S.
(1885). Disponível em <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.
pl?court=us&vol=256&invol=335>. Acesso em: 25 mar.. 2012.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Supreme Court. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v.
Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Disponível em <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=256&invol=335>. Acesso em: 05 abr. 2012.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Supreme Court. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507
(2004). In: GREENBERG, Karen J.; DRATEL, Joshua L, (Orgs). Enemy
Combatant Papers: American Justice, the Courts, and the War on Terror.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 178/389.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Supreme Court. Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004).
In: GREENBERG, Karen J.; DRATEL, Joshua L, (Orgs). Enemy Combatant
Papers: American Justice, the Courts, and the War on Terror. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 7/174.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Supreme Court. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557
(2006). In: GREENBERG, Karen J.; DRATEL, Joshua L, (Orgs). Enemy Combatant Papers: American Justice, the Courts, and the War on Terror.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 397/658.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Supreme Court. Boumediene v. Bush, 553
U.S. 723 (2008). Peças de defesa e do governo norte-americano.
Disponível em <http://www.mayerbrown.com/probono/news/article.
asp?id=3706&nid=291>. Acórdão disponível em <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.
com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=06-1195>; acesso em 10
set. 2010.
Legislação
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Public Law 107-40 (Authorization for Use of Military
Force), de 18 de setembro de 2001. Joint resolution to authorize the use of
United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks
launched against the United States.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Public Law 109-366 (Military Commisions Act), de 17
de outubro de 2006. Authorize trial by military commission for violations of
the law of war, and for other purposes.
ESTADOS UNIDOS. Public Law 112-81 (National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012), de 31 de dezembro de 2011. Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department
of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such
fiscal year, and for other purposes.
Publicado
Versões
- 2012-03-30 (1)
- 2012-03-30 (1)
