Joaquim Basso
Doutorando em Direito, Mestre em Direito Agroambiental, advogado, bacharel em Agronomia.
Address: Avenida Afonso Pena, 5723, Sala 301, Campo Grande, MS, Brasil
Address: Avenida Afonso Pena, 5723, Sala 301, Campo Grande, MS, Brasil
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (11)
Uploads
Books by Joaquim Basso
A obra é coordenada por Albenir Querubini, Pedro Puttini Mendes, Rafaela Aiex Parra e Rogério de Oliveira Anderson, contando com a participação de Marcos Prado de Albuquerque, Vera Lúcia Marques Leite, Wellington Pacheco Barros, Paulo José Leite Farias, Kelly Lissandra Bruch, João Antonio Carrard Sitta, Jonas Correa Nunes Junior, Cristiane Moreira Rossoni, Alexandre Valente Selistre, Joaquim Basso, Luiz Fernando Pereira, João Márcio Freitas Barros, Rogério Reis Devisate, José Fernando Lutz Coelho, Clairton Kubassewski Gama, Ananda Rodrigues Bandeira, Cristiano Roesler Barufaldi, Álvaro Santos, Ana Cristina Leinig de Almeida, Paulo Roberto Kohl, Gursen de Miranda, Valtencir Kubaszwski Gama, Marisa Malfer de Morais, Heloísa Bagatin Cardoso, Sofia da Silveira Bohrz, Ana Carolina Wolff, Elisabete Maniglia, Ricardo Hajel Filho e Frederico Price Grechi.
https://direitoagrario.com/o-direito-agrario-nos-trinta-anos-da-constituicao-de-1988/
Papers by Joaquim Basso
Palavras-Chave: Dignidade da pessoa humana; deveres jurídicos; solidariedade; colisão; eficácia horizontal.
Abstract: The fundamental duties are a legal category that has been left in the background by the doctrine, for various historical reasons. There remains a gap of a systematization of the legal regime of fundamental duties, as they have been treated perfunctory or sparsely by legal science. The study seeks to bring the embryo of this systematization. It is concluded that these duties must be referred in the Constitution, either implicitly or explicitly; can be self-applicable, but in general, have a bipha-sic structure; are unchangeable constitutional rule, while considered fundamental; subject to limits before other fundamental duties, before fundamental rights and constitutional principles, and on the other hand, also impose limitations to those rights and principles. Some fundamental duties were addressed specifically, as example.
restrictions were required, most recently, from the owners, mainly agrarian ones, leading to questions about whether the social function is sufficient to consider lawful the exercise of property rights. The objective of this study is to determine if that is correct, particularly with regard to land ownership. For that purpose, it was studied the legal content of this notion in the Brazilian legal system and
then it was confronted with the rest of the land ownership regime, under the 1988 Constitution, in order to verify, in the end, if the former (legal content) is
sufficient to meet the latter (rest of the regime). It is concluded that the social
function of rural property is not enough to consider legally acceptable the exercise
of property rights, which require compliance with many other conditions,
especially the right to food, intergenerational equity, the indigenous and
“quilombola” property, among others.if that content is enough to meet this regime. We conclude that the social function of rural property is insufficient to consider legally acceptable the exercise of the right of property, which requires compliance with many other conditions, especially the right to food, intergenerational equity, indigenous and “quilombola” properties, among others.
A obra é coordenada por Albenir Querubini, Pedro Puttini Mendes, Rafaela Aiex Parra e Rogério de Oliveira Anderson, contando com a participação de Marcos Prado de Albuquerque, Vera Lúcia Marques Leite, Wellington Pacheco Barros, Paulo José Leite Farias, Kelly Lissandra Bruch, João Antonio Carrard Sitta, Jonas Correa Nunes Junior, Cristiane Moreira Rossoni, Alexandre Valente Selistre, Joaquim Basso, Luiz Fernando Pereira, João Márcio Freitas Barros, Rogério Reis Devisate, José Fernando Lutz Coelho, Clairton Kubassewski Gama, Ananda Rodrigues Bandeira, Cristiano Roesler Barufaldi, Álvaro Santos, Ana Cristina Leinig de Almeida, Paulo Roberto Kohl, Gursen de Miranda, Valtencir Kubaszwski Gama, Marisa Malfer de Morais, Heloísa Bagatin Cardoso, Sofia da Silveira Bohrz, Ana Carolina Wolff, Elisabete Maniglia, Ricardo Hajel Filho e Frederico Price Grechi.
https://direitoagrario.com/o-direito-agrario-nos-trinta-anos-da-constituicao-de-1988/
Palavras-Chave: Dignidade da pessoa humana; deveres jurídicos; solidariedade; colisão; eficácia horizontal.
Abstract: The fundamental duties are a legal category that has been left in the background by the doctrine, for various historical reasons. There remains a gap of a systematization of the legal regime of fundamental duties, as they have been treated perfunctory or sparsely by legal science. The study seeks to bring the embryo of this systematization. It is concluded that these duties must be referred in the Constitution, either implicitly or explicitly; can be self-applicable, but in general, have a bipha-sic structure; are unchangeable constitutional rule, while considered fundamental; subject to limits before other fundamental duties, before fundamental rights and constitutional principles, and on the other hand, also impose limitations to those rights and principles. Some fundamental duties were addressed specifically, as example.
restrictions were required, most recently, from the owners, mainly agrarian ones, leading to questions about whether the social function is sufficient to consider lawful the exercise of property rights. The objective of this study is to determine if that is correct, particularly with regard to land ownership. For that purpose, it was studied the legal content of this notion in the Brazilian legal system and
then it was confronted with the rest of the land ownership regime, under the 1988 Constitution, in order to verify, in the end, if the former (legal content) is
sufficient to meet the latter (rest of the regime). It is concluded that the social
function of rural property is not enough to consider legally acceptable the exercise
of property rights, which require compliance with many other conditions,
especially the right to food, intergenerational equity, the indigenous and
“quilombola” property, among others.if that content is enough to meet this regime. We conclude that the social function of rural property is insufficient to consider legally acceptable the exercise of the right of property, which requires compliance with many other conditions, especially the right to food, intergenerational equity, indigenous and “quilombola” properties, among others.