Revista de Direito Internacional - Brazilian Journal of International Law - v. 12, n. 2 (2015): Teoria do direito internacional

Caros leitores,
Revista de Direito Internacional (Brazilian Journal of International Law) acaba de publicar seu último número em:
http://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/index.php/rdi.

Convidamos a navegar no sumário da revista para acessar os artigos e itens de interesse.
Agradecemos seu interesse em nosso trabalho,
Os editores

Dear Readers:
We would like to inform you that the Brazilian Journal of International law has just released its new issue available
at: http://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/index.php/rdi.

Thanks for your continuing interest in our work,
The editors

Revista de Direito Internacional (Brazilian Journal of International Law)
v. 12, n. 2 (2015): Teoria do direito internacional
 
Sumário
http://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/index.php/rdi/issue/view/216

Crônicas
--------
Crônicas da atualidade do Direito Internacional
    Sarah Dayanna Lacerda Martins Lima,    Carina Costa de Oliveira,    Erika Braga

Crônicas do Direito Internacional dos Investimentos
    Nitish Monebhurrun

Artigos
--------
Por que voltar a Kelsen, o jurista do século  XX ?
    Inocêncio M. Coelho

O princípio da efetividade como conteúdo da norma fundamental (grundnorm) de Kelsen
    Carlos Alberto Simões de Tomaz,    Renata Mantovani de Lima

A juridificação de conflitos políticos no direito internacional público contemporâneo: uma leitura política da paz pelo direito de Hans Kelsen a partir do pensamento político de Claude Lefort
    Arthur Roberto Capella Giannattasio

O sincretismo teórico na apropriação das teorias monista e dualista e sua questionável utilidade como critério para a classificação do modelo brasileiro de incorporação de normas internacionais
    Breno Baía Magalhães

Direito global em pedaços: fragmentação, regimes e pluralismo
    Salem Hikmat Nasser

Por uma teoria jurídica da integração regional: a inter-relação direito interno, direito internacional público e direito da integração
    Jamile Bergamaschine,    Augusto Jaeger Júnior

A teoria da interconstitucionalidade: uma análise com base na América Latina
    Daniela Menengoti Ribeiro,    Malu Romancini

O diálogo hermenêutico e a pergunta adequada à aplicação dos tratados internacionais de direitos humanos no Brasil: caminhos para o processo de internacionalização da constituição
    Rafael Fonseca Ferreira,    Celine Barreto Anadon

O direito comparado no STF: internacionalização da jurisdição constitucional brasileira
    Carlos Horbach

The philosophy of international law in contemporary scholarship: overcoming negligence through the global expansion of human rights
    Fabrício Bertini Pasquot Polido,    Vinicius Machado Calixto,    Lucas Costa dos Anjos

Oportunidades e desafios das TWAIL no contexto latino-americano a partir de perspectivas dos povos indígenas ao direito internacional
    Fernanda Cristina de Oliveira Franco

Por que uma análise econômica do direito internacional público? Desafios e perspectivas do método no Brasil
    Gustavo Ferreira Ribeiro,    José Guilherme Moreno Caiado

Análise econômica do direito internacional
    Michele Alessandra Hastreiter,    Luís Alexandre Carta Winter

Racionalidade econômica e os acordos bilaterais de investimento
    Michele Alessandra Hastreiter,    Luís Alexandre Carta Winter

Looking for a BRICS perspective on international law
    Gabriel Webber Ziero

A influência do direito desportivo transnacional no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro: da reprodução de normas à aplicação direta pela jurisdição estatal
    Tiago Silveira de Faria

Convencionalização do direito civil – a aplicação dos tratados e convenções internacionais no âmbito das relações privadas
    Alexander Perazo Nunes de Carvalho

National judges and courts as institutions for global economic governance
    Camilla Capucio

Is trade governance changing?
    Alberto Amaral Junior

Os fundos abutres: meros participantes do cenário internacional ou sujeitos perante o direito internacional?
    Guilherme Berger Schmitt

Shareholder agreements in publicly traded companies: a comparison between the U.S. and Brazil
    Helena Masullo

Regulação do investimento estrangeiro direto no Brasil: da resistência aos tratados bilaterais de investimento à emergência de um novo modelo regulatório
    Fabio Costa Morosini,    Ely Caetano Xavier Junior

Da qualificação jurídica das distintas formas de prestação tecnológica: breve análise do marco regulatório internacional
    Daniel Amin Ferraz

Redefining terrorism: the danger of misunderstanding the modern world’s gravest threat
    Jennifer Breedon

As execuções seletivas e a responsabilização de agentes terroristas
    Alexandre Guerreiro

International criminals and their virtual currencies: the need for an international effort in regulating virtual currencies and combating cyber crime
    Joy Marie Virga

Criminalidad transnacional organizada en el ámbito del Mercosur: ¿Hacia um derecho penal regional?
    Nicolás Santiago Cordini,    Mariano Javier Hoet

Rumo à internacionalização da proteção penal do meio ambiente: dos ecocrimes ao ecocídio
    Kathia Martin-Chenut,    Laurent Neyret,    Camila Perruso

Engaging the U.N. Guiding principles on business and human rights: the inter-american commission on human rights & the extractive sector
    Cindy Woods

O direito humano à comunicação prévia e pormenorizada das acusações nos processos administrativos: o desprezo do Superior Tribunal de Justiça ao Pacto de San José da Costa Rica e à Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos
    Daniel Wunder Hachem,    Eloi Rodrigues Barreto Pethechust

A responsabilidade internacional do Brasil em face do controle de convencionalidade em sede de direitos humanos: conflito de interpretação entre a jurisdição da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos e o Supremo Tribunal Federal quanto a Lei de anistia.
    Carla Ribeiro Volpini Silva,    Bruno Wanderley Junior

A criação de um espaço de livre residência no Mercosul sob a perspectiva teleológica da integração regional: aspectos normativos e sociais dos acordos de residência
    Aline Beltrame de Moura

A funcionalização como tendência evolutiva do direito internacional e sua contribuição ao regime legal do banco de dados genéticos no Brasil
    Antonio Henrique Graciano Suxberger

O direito internacional e a proteção dos direitos de crianças e de adolescentes em conflito com a lei em Moçambique
    Bernardo Fernando Sicoche

Obtenção de provas no exterior: para além da lex fori e a lex diligentiae
    André de Carvalho Ramos

A Slight Revenge and a Growing Hope for Mauritius and the Chagossians: The UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal’s Award of 18 March 2015 on Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom)
    Géraldine Giraudeau

Análise da responsabilidade internacional da Ucrânia por violação dos direitos humanos na queda do voo da Malaysia Airlines (MH17)
    Daniela Cravo

Natureza jurídica do desenvolvimento sustentável no direito internacional
    Pedro Ivo Ribeiro Diniz

A influência da soft law na formação do direito ambiental
    Leonardo da Rocha de Souza,    Margareth Anne Leister

As complicadas inter-relações entre os sistemas internos e internacionais de proteção do direito ao meio ambiente sadio
    José Adércio Leite Sampaio,    Beatriz Souza Costa

Revista de Direito Internacional, v. 12, n. 2 (completa)
    Marcelo D. Varella,    Nitish Monebhurrun

________________________________________________________________________
Revista de Direito Internacional
http://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/index.php/rdi

Brazilian Journal of International Law
www.brazilianjournal.org

The Conspiracy: o filme sobre a solução final

Postado num de meus blogs anteriores em 

domingo, junho 07, 2009

429) A Conspiracao: o filme sobre a solucao final dos nazistas contra os judeus

CONSPIRACY
April 05, 2001
Film Is A Dramatic Reconstruction Of The 90-Minute Meeting That Set In Motion The Details Of Hitler's Final Solution

Directed By Frank Pierson From A Script By Loring Mandel, Drama Also Stars David Threlfall And Colin Firth

On January 20, 1942, 15 men gathered in a villa on the outskirts of Berlin for a clandestine meeting that would ultimately seal the fate of the European Jewish population. Ninety minutes later, the blueprint for Hitler's Final Solution was in place.

Adolf Eichmann prepared 30 top-secret copies of the meeting's minutes. By the fall of the Reich, all had disappeared or been destroyed — except one. The Wannsee Protocol, found in the files of the Reich's Foreign Office, is the only document where the details of Hitler's maniacal plan were actually codified, and serves as the basis for CONSPIRACY.

Starring Kenneth Branagh (Academy Award® nominee for 1996's "Hamlet" and 1989's "Henry V") and Stanley Tucci (Emmy® and Golden Globe winner for HBO's "Winchell"), CONSPIRACY recreates one of the most infamous gatherings in world history, the meeting at Wannsee, when the German High Command was mobilized by Reinhard Heydrich to implement their unthinkable plan — the extermination of the Jews.

Debuting SATURDAY, MAY19 at 9:00 p.m. (ET), the HBO Films presentation also stars David Threlfall (HBO's "Murderers Among Us: The Simon Wiesenthal Story") and Colin Firth ("Bridget Jones' Diary").

Other playdates: May 22 (1:00 p.m.), 27 (12:15 p.m., 11:00 p.m.) and 31 (2:30 p.m., 11:55 p.m.), and June 4 (10:00 a.m.,8:00 p.m.), 9 (5:30 p.m.) and 13 (5:15 p.m.).

Directed by Frank Pierson (Academy Award® for writing 1975's "Dog Day Afternoon"; director of HBO's "Truman" and "Citizen Cohn"), CONSPIRACY is an HBO Films presentation and a co-production with BBC Films. The executive producers are Pierson, Frank Doelger (Emmy® for HBO's "A Child Betrayed: The Calvin Mire Story") and Peter Zinner (Academy Award® for editing 1978's "The Deer Hunter"); the producer is Nick Gillot ("Jakob the Liar"); the script is by Loring Mandel ("The Little Drummer Girl"). Jonathan Krauss, vice president, HBO Films, is the executive in charge of the film.

ABOUT THE PRODUCTION
Director Frank Pierson's goal in filming CONSPIRACY was not to create a traditional dramatization of history, but to present a close approximation of actually being there, as if it were a live event.

"The camera was never above or below eye level," Pierson explains. "The film required the presence of all 15 actors for the entire length of production. All of our actors were experienced in rehearsing, which is a technique in itself and is very seldom done in movies — at least not in the sense of having extended rehearsals where we get into long, sometimes 10-minute takes. The actors had an opportunity to truly act as an ensemble rather than how movies are traditionally made, which is breaking everything up into a few lines at a time and later assembling the performances in the editing room. It has been an absolute glory to work in this way with this cast, and a glory for the actors because they got to really, truly sculpt and work out a performance."

In keeping with the spirit of the production, the actors used their regular speaking voices rather than German accents, which Pierson and the cast felt would have interfered with the immediacy of the performances, distracting audiences from the emotional truth of the material.

For Kenneth Branagh, playing Reinhard Heydrich was not only a challenge, but one of the most disturbing experiences of his nearly 20-year acting career. "Even amongst a group of men who committed the most extraordinary crimes, Heydrich was unique for the ferocity and the cruelty of what he did, and the ruthless efficiency with which he did it," Branagh notes. "In my preparation I thoroughly researched Heydrich, but I found that when it came down to playing him, the 'inner' man seemed invisible.

"Our scriptwriter, Loring Mandel, tried to do a psychological profile of Heydrich, looking for elements of behavior that may not appeal but perhaps lend to understanding his character, whether it be hatred of parents, a childhood trauma, some physical or mental disability, something that might illuminate his motives. Nothing seemed to make conventional psychological sense. His utter lack of compassion, lack of pity, revealed a man who has a buried conscience and as a result, seems to be soulless.

"Playing such a character, I didn't want to say the lines, I didn't want to be connected to this moral vacuum that seems to be the man himself. He was an absolutely extraordinary mind, a fantastic manager, but also an absolutely ghastly human being. There is something purely evil about him that is absolutely repellent and I'll be very happy not to wear his uniform or play him ever again. Despite this, the ultimate message of this movie and the necessity for doing it seem to me to be immensely positive and important."

Stanley Tucci had an equally tough time playing Adolf Eichmann, famously described by Hannah Arendt as epitomizing the "banality of evil." Tucci explains, "Even at the end of the war, when Himmler said to him, 'Let's just stop this, let's put an end to the concentration camps,' and so on, Eichmann kept it going. His personal technique with people was to be more silkily persuasive, and he often played the card of self-deprecation and modesty. He was different in that way from Heydrich.

"There were a lot of Germans at the time who did what Eichmann did, but either they didn't get caught or were killed before they were brought to trial. This [Nuremberg] was the first Nazi trial to be televised, so I think that had a huge impact on people and is why Eichmann is such a well-known player."

Colin Firth (Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart) believes the subject matter of CONSPIRACY is a timely topic, serving as a reminder that something so evil once occurred, as well as a mirror for current events. "I am reading a book about Rwanda at the moment, and it is remarkable to me how many parallels there are," he says. "The Balkans might be a more fitting comparison, but nevertheless the attacks by machete in Rwanda were not performed by frenzied mobs and not necessarily by tribesmen. The people who were committing these murders were doctors, parish priests, research scientists and all sorts of other professional people.

"It seems more removed to us; it doesn't feel like the industrialized society of Germany in the '30s, but it is much closer than you might think. They weren't doing it in the spirit of passion, but because they felt it was necessary and that their lives would not be better until they got rid of an entire race of people. The same sort of normalization of what is absolutely unthinkable is still happening today."

David Threlfall, who plays Friedrich Kritzinger agrees. "This movie takes 90 minutes to watch, and it took just a little longer for the actual meeting at Wannsee to take place. Think about that. It took just a little longer to make a decision over a few drinks and some food to set about completely eradicating a whole race of people. There are people alive who still believe that can be achieved."

CONSPIRACY was filmed on location at Shepperton Studios in London, with exterior filming at Wannsee, Germany, at the actual site where the meeting took place. Now called the House of the Wannsee Conference, the former mansion serves as a memorial and education center, which was formally inaugurated on the 50th anniversary of the Wannsee Conference in January 1992.

SYNOPSIS
January 20, 1942. Inside an ornate mansion in Wannsee, on the outskirts of Berlin, SS major Adolf Eichmann (Stanley Tucci) oversees a phalanx of butlers and adjutants. Their task is to prepare a sumptuous buffet and bar for a group of Nazis expected for a top-secret meeting. One by one, high-ranking members of the Third Reich — some in SS uniforms, some in non-military government outfits, others in civilian clothes — arrive in chauffeured vehicles. The last of the 15 to arrive, and the one with the biggest limousine, is Reinhard Heydrich (Kenneth Branagh), director of Reich Security Main Office and head of the Protectorate. Entering the reception hall, Heydrich commands instant respect among the guests: He's the highest-ranking member of this group, and has been appointed by Reichmarshal Göring to initiate this meeting and map out the details of a "final solution" to Germany's Jewish "problem."

After initial pleasantries that sort out the group's pecking order, the men move into a huge meeting room and take seats around a lavishly appointed table. With a stenographer in place to take notes (his input will be carefully monitored by Eichmann, who is Heydrich's deputy), the group gets down to business. After each member introduces himself, Heydrich gets to the point, observing, "We've a storage problem in Germany with these Jews...We're going to cleanse the continent of Jews without respect to national boundaries." This latest initiative is a kind of addendum to the "Nuremberg Laws" enacted by the Nazis in 1935, devised in part by one of the Wannsee attendees, State Secretary of the Interior Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart (Colin Firth). Those laws proclaimed the legality of a Jewish-free society and economy, and paved the way for the "physical eradication" of Jews from German living spaces.

Heydrich explains that the original German idea of resettling Jews makes no sense with Germany at war; not only are there millions more Russian Jews to deal with on the Eastern front, but Germany simply can't spare their valuable ships to transport Jews. Furthermore, it is noted that Jewish refugees might very well sign on with enemy armies once they've left home. According to Heydrich, the best solution isn't emigration, but evacuation. Deputy Commander Rudolph Lange (Barnaby Kay), who supervised the killing of 30,000 Jews at Riga, reveals that evacuation is simply a euphemism for extermination, even if Jews will initially be evacuated to ghettos and concentration camps.

As the meeting progresses, some attendees, including Josef Bühler (Ben Daniels), secretary of state of the general government of German-occupied Poland, and Friedrich Kritzinger (David Threlfall), ministerial director of the Reich Chancellery, are uncomfortable with the authority shown by Heydrich. They're also upset that emerging details of the Final Solution are only just now being revealed to them. Yet, with the deftness of a master politician, Heydrich defuses tense confrontations by taking several prudent breaks for drinks and lunch. There's nothing like booze and food to temper a foul mood.

Erich Neumann (Jonathan Coy), who repeatedly identifies himself as "Director, Office of the Four-Year Plan," argues that exterminating millions of Jews will create a void in the German work force and end up hurting the economy. The others scoff at this idea, declaring that most Jews don't know how to do manual labor, and are in fact a drain on the economy. Far more attention is paid instead to a ludicrous, and convoluted, argument about who is in fact a Jew, and whether or not a "mixed blood person," of which there are several types, is entitled to a special "exemption" in which case he or she should still be sterilized, or simply should be evacuated with the rest of the Jews. Dr. Stuckart in particular objects to these plans as "unworkable," adding, "Some things you cannot do."

Shelving for the time being the idea of who is and is not a Jew — there are in fact whispers that Heydrich himself may have mixed blood running through his veins — the group now addresses, with increasing openness, the plans by which Germany will purge all Jews from he continent. After Eichmann reads out the numbers of Jews known to live in German-occupied countries, as well as those in countries like England and America, which they believe will soon be under Nazi control, Heydrich outlines the Reich's plan to mass-exterminate Jews using carbon monoxide or cyanide gas.

Although mobile gas trucks capable of killing small batches of people are a short-term solution, far more efficient will be the permanent gas chambers that are currently under construction at Belzec, with others planned for Sobibór and possibly Treblinka. (Auschwitz will be proposed later.) In fact, says Heydrich with a touch of pride, a "T-4" euthanasia program (in which gas chambers are disguised as showers) has already been implemented with great success on more than 70,000 mental patients at several facilities.

By the end of the meeting, which lasts less than two hours, it's obvious that Heydrich is not proposing a final solution to the Jewish problem; he's telling the group that such a solution is already in place. Indeed, on the issues of concentration camps, gas chambers and crematoriums, there can be no debate. With a unanimous consensus supporting the final solution, Heydrich concludes, "History will mark us for having the vision and the gift and the will to advance the human race to greater purity in a space of time so short that Charles Darwin would be astonished."

Their meeting adjourned, the group disperses, setting out to implement what will be the wholesale slaughtering of millions of Jews. Several participants mill around the mansion before departing, grabbing a last-minute drink or bite to eat. After giving guests until the end of the day to memorize their notes before burning them, Heydrich orders Eichmann to supervise the transcription of the stenographer's notes, pass edits to him, then make 30 copies of the edited transcript. Only one of these 30 copies will survive the end of the war.

Having tied up all the loose ends, Eichmann has a celebratory drink with Heydrich and chief of Gestapo Heinrich Müller (Brenden Coyle) before his two superiors depart. He then bids farewell to the last guest at Wannsee: Gerhard Klopfer (Ian McNeice) of the party chancellery, who has partaken more than his fair share of food and drink that afternoon. Klopfer's parting words: "You do know how to throw a party."

The meeting has ended, but the Final Solution has just begun.

HISTORICAL NOTES
Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann invited 13 high-ranking government officials to Wannsee to ensure their cooperation in the escalation of the "Final Solution" against the Jews. The 15 participants, with their ranks at the time of the Conference, were:

* Dr. Josef Bühler — State Secretary in the General Government of Occupied Poland.
* SS Lt. Col. Adolf Eichmann — head of SS Jewish Affairs office.
* Dr. Roland Freisler — State Secretary in the Justice Ministry, later known as the "Hanging Judge"; SA brigadier general.
* SS Gen. Reinhard Heydrich — No. 2 to Himmler as head of the Reich Main Security Office (RSHA) and its Security Service (SS); chief of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
* SS Lt. Gen. Otto Hofmann — Chief of the SS Race and Settlement Main Office (RuSHA).
* SS Col. Dr. Gerhard Klopfer — State Secretary of the Party Chancellery, directly under Martin Bormann.
* Dr. Friedrich Wilhelm Kritzinger — State Secretary of the Reich Chancellery, directly under Hans Lammers.
* SS Major Dr. Rudolf Lange — Commander of the Security Police and SD for Latvia and deputy to the commander for the task forces (Einsatzkommandos) in the Occupied Eastern Territories (Ostland).
* Dr. Georg Leibrandt — Chief of the political division for the Occupied Eastern Territories (Ostland).
* Martin Luther — Under State Secretary of the Reich Foreign Office and Heydrich's main operative there.
* Dr. Alfred Meyer — District leader (Gauleiter) in the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories (Ostland); undersecretary to the Ministry's chief, Alfred Rosenberg, with responsibility for its political, administrative and economic departments.
* SS Maj. Gen. Heinrich Müller — Chief of the Gestapo, reporting to Heydrich.
* Dr. Erich Neumann — State Secretary in the Office of the Four-Year Plan, reporting to Göring.
* SS Col. Karl Eberhard Schöngarth — Commander of the Security Police and Security Service in the General Government of Occupied Poland.
* Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart — State Secretary of the Reich Ministry for the Interior; and co-author of the Nuremberg Laws. 

* Note: With the conquering of Poland, the Baltics and portions of the Soviet Union, the Reich divided and administered the territory roughly as follows: The western third of Poland was incorporated into the Greater Reich.
* The central portion of Poland was administered as the General Government, under Hans Frank.
* The eastern portion of Poland, the Baltics, White Russia and Ukraine were grouped as the Occupied Eastern Territories ("Ostland"), under Alfred Rosenberg.

BIOS
Kenneth Branagh (Reinhard Heydrich) has received four Academy Award® nominations, for his screenplay for "Hamlet," for his live-action short film "Swan Song," and for directing and starring in "Henry V." His direction of "Henry V" also garnered him the BAFTA Film Award, the National Board of Review Award and the New York Film Critics Circle Award. Branagh starred in, directed, wrote and produced "Love's Labour's Lost" and "Much Ado About Nothing"; starred in, directed and wrote "Hamlet" and "Henry V"; starred in, directed and produced "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" and "Peter's Friends"; and directed and wrote "A Midwinter's Tale." His other acting credits include "Wild Wild West," "The Theory of Flight," "Celebrity," "Othello," "Swing Kids," "Peter's Friends," "Dead Again," which he also directed, and the animated feature "The Road to El Dorado."

Stanley Tucci (Adolph Eichmann) won an Emmy® and Golden Globe Award for playing the title role of HBO's "Winchell." He starred in, directed, wrote and produced "The Imposters" and "Big Night," which won him a Best New Director Award from the New York Film Critics Circle and a screenwriting award from the Sundance Film Festival. Tucci also recently starred in, directed and produced "Joe Gould's Secret." His other acting credits include "In Too Deep," "A Midsummer Night's Dream," "Deconstructing Harry," "The Daytrippers," "It Could Happen to You," "Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle," "The Pelican Brief" and "Billy Bathgate." Tucci's latest films include "Big Trouble," "Scottsboro: An American Tragedy," "Sidewalks of New York" and "The Whole Shebang." He was recently seen on the TV series "Bull."

David Threlfall's (Friedrich Kritzinger) TV credits include "Diana: Her True Story," "Mary, Mother of Jesus" and HBO's "Murderers Among Us: The Simon Wiesenthal Story." He was also seen in the films "The Russia House" and "Patriot Games."

Colin Firth (Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart) includes "Shakespeare in Love," "The English Patient," "Bridget Jones' Diary," "Valmont" and "Apartment Zero" among his many film credits. On TV, he appeared in HBO's "Hostages."

Frank Pierson (director) won an Academy Award® and a Writers Guild of America Screen Award for his original screenplay for "Dog Day Afternoon." He also received Academy Award® nominations for his screenplays for "Cool Hand Luke" and "Cat Ballou." Pierson's HBO directing credits include "Truman," which won the 1996 Emmy® for Outstanding Made-for-TV Movie, "Citizen Cohn" and "Somebody Has to Shoot the Picture"; among his other TV directing credits are "Dirty Pictures," "Lakota Woman: Siege at Wounded Knee" and "Alfred Hitchcock Presents." Pierson also directed and wrote the feature films "A Star Is Born" and "King of the Gypsies." His other writing credits include "Copycat," "Presumed Innocent," "In Country," "Haywire," "The Anderson Tapes," "The Looking Glass War" and "The Happening."

Producer Nick Gillot's film credits include "Jakob the Liar" and "Back to the Secret Garden." His TV productions include HBO's "Rasputin," "The Attic: The Hiding of Anne Frank" and "Charles and Diana: Unhappily Ever After."

Executive producer Frank Doelger's previous HBO credits include the Emmy® winners "A Child Betrayed: The Calvin Mire Story" and "Dead Drunk," as well as the Emmy®-nominated "Dead Ahead: The Exxon Valdez Disaster" and "Public Law 106: The Becky Bell Story." Among his other TV credits are "Remember WENN" and "Lethal Innocence."

Executive producer Peter Zinner's credits include "The Deer Hunter," which brought him an Academy Award® for editing, as well as "The Godfather," "The Godfather Part II," "A Star Is Born," "An Officer and a Gentleman," "Saving Grace" and "Gladiator." For TV he also produced "The Winds of War," "The Enemy Within" and "War and Remembrance."

Writer Loring Mandel has more than 40 TV credits, among them the Emmy®-winning "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night," "Project Immortality," "The Coming Asunder of Jimmy Bright" and "Breaking Up." His feature films include "Countdown," "Promises in the Dark" and "The Little Drummer Girl."

Academy Award® and Oscar® are registered trademarks and service marks of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

Marcos Troyjo e o Brasil "barato" - FSP

Não só pelos fatores mencionados, pois um dos principais elementos da nossa crise atual (que não tem nada a ver com uma suposta crise internacional) é a total fslta de legitimidade e de credibilidade do governo atual. 

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Folha de S.Paulo

Quarta-feira, 24 de fevereiro de 2016

O que algumas empresas estão enxergando (de bom) no Brasil

Companhias querem investir, mas no Brasil mesmo o curto prazo é "longo"

MARCOS TROYJO

Críticos da intervenção governamental na economia gostam de evocar uma famosa frase pronunciada por John Maynard Keynes ("no longo prazo, estaremos todos mortos").

Utilizam-na como símbolo do desprezo que o grande economista britânico supostamente nutria pelos efeitos de longo prazo das políticas de estímulo sobre finanças públicas. 

Nada disso. Concorde-se ou não com a visão macroeconômica de Keynes, na origem os dizeres do grande economista britânico referiam-se à política monetária (mais especificamente, à Teoria Quantitativa da Moeda).

Ainda assim, talvez de forma incidental, Keynes notoriamente afirmou uma verdade filosófica e biológica. A frase encontra ampla aplicação em diferentes contextos.

Na presente conjuntura de grande desalento sobre o Brasil, contudo, algumas empresas estrangeiras estão colocando a frase de Keynes de ponta-cabeça.

No médio e longo prazo, o país reencontrará seu caminho de crescimento. No curto prazo, estamos todos mortos.

Entre os escombros, acham-se pechinchas. Com o real enfraquecido, juros nas alturas e uma brutal recessão, muitas empresas brasileiras estão à venda – por uma bagatela.

Isso representa grandes oportunidades para os que querem fincar pé no Brasil ou aqui consolidar setores.

No auge da “Brasilmania” em 2010, com o real sobrevalorizado, ficou famosa a “caipirinha de US$ 25”, que Ruchir Sharma menciona em seu livro “Breakout Nations”.

Os altos preços relativos no país constituíam uma formidável barreira de entrada a empresas do exterior interessadas em adquirir congêneres nacionais.

O banqueiro Jim O’Neill, primeiro formulador do acrônimo “Brics”, dizia há alguns anos que recebia amigos brasileiros em Londres, eles logo queriam ir às compras e aos restaurantes já que, comparada a Rio de Janeiro e São Paulo, a capital britânica era “barata”.

Mesmo com ativos empresariais por uma fração do valor no Brasil, não é fácil para executivos entusiasmarem seus conselhos de administração com uma visão de futuro em que o país brilha.

O Brasil experimenta uma década perdida em termos de crescimento. Resultados corporativos convertidos de real para dólar não impressionam. O quadro fiscal preocupa. A política é disfuncional.

Ainda assim, os que querem “comprar” Brasil acham que o país pode ser uma aposta bem fundamentada.

Há muito dinheiro barato disponível no mundo. A onda de assepsia na República e na relação do governo com empresas trará benefícios institucionais e fortalecimento das regras do jogo.

Em algum momento, as commodities sairão do nível raso em que se encontram. O Brasil tem um enorme mercado consumidor e, agora, encontra-se numa conjuntura cambial que lhe fornece mais competitividade exportadora.

No campo das relações internacionais, também a possibilidade do Brasil juntar-se, pragmaticamente, a acordos de liberalização comercial é algo que se leva em conta. 

Tem gente nas empresas a prever que uma sugestão de mudança de rumos mais firme jogará a Bovespa lá para cima e arrefecerá o dólar (embora não para um patamar inferior a R$3,50).    

Nessa linha, argumentam que, da mesma maneira que 2008, subprimes, colapso do Lehmann Brothers etc. representaram “sinistros” numa economia de mercado que essencialmente funciona bem, o Brasil também está passando por seu “acidente”. 

Caberia portanto a esse “capital estrangeiro sem pressa” ter o fígado para comprar agora, sanear, e posicionar-se para a retomada logo após o “curto prazo”.

O problema é que, no Brasil, mesmo o curto prazo é longo.

Na ausência de uma inflexão mais próxima na titularidade do Planalto, faltam ainda 1042 dias para 2019, quando o país estará sob nova administração. Tal intervalo de tempo é maior do que a duração do governo de John Kennedy.

Em meio à usina de más notícias na qual o Brasil se converteu, o continuado interesse do capital estrangeiro ajuda a manter a fé no potencial brasileiro.

Não deixa de ser curioso, contudo, que a ênfase na política de apoio a empresas “campeãs nacionais” nos últimos 13 anos, que tantos recursos drenou de áreas em que a competitividade internacional brasileira poderia ser mais bem servida, acaba por funcionar como um tiro pela culatra.    

Um dos efeitos colaterais dessa dinâmica é a drástica redução do número de nacionais brasileiros como acionistas e diretores de empresas a operar no país.

Lição a aprender: quem planta capitalismo de compadrio colhe desnacionalização.

mt2792@columbia.edu

@MarcosTroyjo

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/marcostroyjo/2016/02/1742545-o-que-algumas-empresas-estao-enxergando-de-bom-no-brasil.shtml

De l'Inegalite en Amerique: Piketty, o novo Tocqueville - Le Monde

Thomas Piketty, o mais famoso economista francês da atualidade, e no mundo, publica um artigo no Le Monde no qual parafraseia o famoso título de Tocqueville, para demonstrar como foram os Estadis Unidos que conduziram e lideraram o movimento no século 20 em prol da redução das desigualdades de renda e de um maior igualitarismo social, via mecanismos fiscais: forte aumento da progressividade no imposto de renda e punção fiscal muito forte no imposto de sucessões, mecanismos revertidos a partir de Reagan, nos anos 1980. Ele também examina a desigualdade de acesso à educação superior, muito forte nos EUA. Por isso mesmo, ele gosta do candidato Bernie Sanders, objeto de um outro artigo seu linkado neste aqui. Um debate extremamente importante que se junta ao debate já fundamental em torno das teses de Piketty sobre o famoso "Capital no Século 21" -- e admito que ele possa estar correto quanto ao aumento das desigualdades de renda -- e sobre os "remédios" a isso, que ele pretende corrigir por um novo forte aumento da progressividade e da redistribuição via Estado, o que eu considero indesejado. Mas vamos ler o novo Tocqueville das rendas...

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Le Monde, 18 février 2016 ↔ 77 commentaires

De l’inégalité en Amérique

Thomas Piketty

PartagerTweeter+ 1E-mail

Partager cet article

490

Au moment où la primaire américaine bat son plein, il n'est pas inutile de s'interroger sur la relation complexe entretenue par les Etats-Unis avec l'idée d'égalité et d'inégalité. Cela permettra également de répondre à plusieurs questions posées par les internautes à la suite de ma chronique "Le choc Sanders".

On s'imagine parfois que les Etats-Unis ont une tolérance sans limite et éternelle pour l'inégalité, alors que la France serait caractérisée par une passion sans pareil pour l'égalité. Rien n'est plus faux. En vérité, ce sont les Etats-Unis - suivi du Royaume-Uni - qui ont inventé dans l'entre-deux-guerres l'impôt fortement progressif sur le revenu et sur les successions, avec des niveaux de progressivité fiscale jamais utilisés en France ou en Allemagne (sauf pendant de très courtes périodes). Commençons par examiner le graphique suivant, qui décrit l'évolution du taux supérieur de l'impôt sur le revenu (c'est-à-dire le taux applicable aux revenus les plus élevés) aux Etats-Unis, au Royaume-Uni, en Allemagne et en France de 1900 à 2015:

Il y a un siècle, à la veille de la Première guerre mondiale, l'impôt sur le revenu n'existait quasiment pas. Puis les taux montèrent très vite à la fin de la guerre et au début des années 1920. Tous les pays sont concernés, mais ce sont clairement les Etats-Unis puis le Royaume-Uni qui mènent le mouvement. Si l'on fait la moyenne sur la période 1930-1980, c'est-à-dire un demi-siècle, on constate que le taux applicable aux revenus américains les plus élevés est en moyenne de 82 %, avec des pointes à 91 % des années 1940 aux années 1960, de Roosevelt à Kennedy, et toujours 70 % lors de l’élection de Reagan en 1980. Sur la même période, la France et l'Allemagne se limitent à des taux supérieurs de l'ordre de 50-60%, ce qui est déjà une révolution par rapport à l'avant-Première guerre mondiale, mais ce qui reste modeste par comparaison à ce qui se fait à la même époque dans les pays anglo-saxons.

L'écart est encore plus massif si l'on examine maintenant le cas de l'impôt successoral. Les Etats-Unis et le Royaume-Uni appliquent pendant des décennies des taux de l'ordre de 70-80% aux plus grandes fortunes, alors que le taux supérieur de l'impôt sur les successions a généralement été compris entre 20% et 40% en Allemagne et en France tout au long du 20e siècle. Le taux de 45% actuellement appliqué aux plus fortes successions en ligne directe est le plus élévé jamais utilisé dans l'hexagone, mais il paraît bien modeste par comparaison aux sommets anglo-saxons de l'après-Seconde guerre mondiale.

Pourquoi les Etats-Unis mettent-ils en place à partir des années 1920-1930 cette vigoureuse politique de réduction des inégalités? Dès la fin du 19e siècle et au début du 20e siècle, on observe outre-Atlantique une inquiétude de plus en plus vive au sujet de la montée des inégalités. Cela conduit au terme d'un long processus à amender la constitution américaine (procédure pourtant peu commode) pour permettre la création d'un impôt fédéral sur le revenu en 1913, puis d'un impôt fédéral sur les successions en 1916. Il est intéressant de noter que les Etats-Unis craignent à cette époque de ressembler un jour à la Vieille Europe, alors perçue comme hyper-inégalitaire, et contraire à l’esprit démocratique américain.

Cela apparaît clairement à la lecture du fameux discours tenu en 1919 par Irving Fisher, alors président de l'association des économistes américains. Fisher, qui n'avait rien d'un dangereux gauchiste, explique à ses distingués collègues réunis pour leur congrès annuel que la montée des inégalités et d'une concentration "non-démocratique" des richesses, s'approchant des niveaux européens, est la principale menace pour le développement harmonieux de l'Amérique. Il en conclut notamment qu'il faut imposer lourdement les plus hautes successions, par exemple en les amputant d'un tiers à la première génération, deux tiers à la seconde, et trois tiers à la troisième (voir ici). C'est quasiment ce qui arriva, puisque le taux supérieur du tout nouvel impôt successoral bondit à 40% dès les années 1920 et 70-80% dès les années 1930-1940.

Il est également intéressant de noter que le seul moment où l'Allemagne applique des taux très élevés aux plus hautes successions et aux plus hauts revenus survient entre 1946 et 1949, c'est-à-dire pendant la période d'occupation américaine, quand la politique fiscale allemande est fixée par l'Allied Control Council, en pratique dominé par les Etats-Unis. On retrouve d'ailleurs le même phénomène au Japon, comme le montrent les deux graphiques suivants (où le Japon a été ajouté en plus des quatre autre pays):

 

Insistons sur le fait que les Etats-Unis de 1946-1949 ne cherchent aucunement à "punir" les Allemands et Japonais en leur imposant des taux confiscatoires, puisqu'il s'agit très exactement de la même politique que celle appliquée à la maison. Dans l'esprit américain de l'époque, même si cela peut semble étonnant vu d'aujourd'hui, cela participe au contraire de leur mission civilisatrice: il s'agit d'apporter dans le même temps de nouvelles institutions démocratiques et de nouvelles institutions fiscales à ces deux pays, de façon à éviter qu'une concentration excessive des richesses se mette en place, et que la démocratie ne se transforme en ploutocratie.

Le cas de l'impôt successoral japonais a également ceci d'intéressant qu'il est toujours resté relativement lourd, au moins nominalement, avec un taux supérieur qui vient d'être remonté à 55% par le gouvernement de centre-droit en 2015.

Plus généralement, assisterait-on aujourd'hui aux prémisses d'un retour historique à une plus forte progressivité fiscale, une sorte de remake du mouvement amorcé il y a près d'un siècle ? Le succès de Sanders aux primaires américaines traduit sans nulle doute une exaspération croissante vis-à-vis de la montée des inégalités et des pseudo-alternances Clinton et Obama. Il faudra toutefois bien des combats politiques pour parvenir à contrer l'emprise croissante de l'argent privé sur la vie politique et sur les médias, notamment aux Etats-Unis (mais pas seulement).

Une autre différence essentielle avec le début du 20e siècle tient au fait que la concurrence fiscale entre pays et l'opacité financière ont atteint en ce début de 21e siècle des proportions inédites dans l'histoire, ce qui rend difficile le retour à une forte progressivité fiscale en l'absence d'une coordination internationale adéquate (qui est techniquement possible, mais politiquement et intellectuellement compliquée dans le contexte actuel).

On ajoutera un autre facteur qui ne faisait pas partie du paysage politico-idéologique d'il y a un siècle: il existe aujourd'hui deux grands pays ex-communistes, la Russie et la Chine, qui après leurs expériences traumatiques ont quasiment renoncé à toute tentative rationnelle de réduction des inégalités par la puissance publique. Il n'existe ainsi aucun impôt successoral dans ces deux pays (capitalistes de tous les pays, allez mourir en Russie ou en Chine pour transmettre votre fortune sans payer le moindre impôt!), et même si le gouvernement chinois parle d'en introduire un, dans le cadre d'une vaste réforme fiscale, sa réticence vis-à-vis de l'état de droit risque fort de le dissuader de passer à l'acte.

Examinons maintenant une autre dimension de la lutte contre les inégalités, à savoir le salaire minimum, qui pourrait bien jouer un rôle central à l'avenir. Dans la foulée du New Deal, les Etats-Unis ont créé un salaire minimum fédéral dès les années 1930, et son niveau (exprimé en dollars de 2015) a dépassé les 10 dollars par heure à la fin des années 1960, soit trois fois plus que le niveau français de l'époque:

On assiste là encore à un retournement complet à la suite de l'élection de Reagan en 1980. En l'absence de mécanisme d'indexation automatique, le salaire minimum fédéral est gelé pendant de longues périodes, avec quelques revalorisations ponctuelles sous Clinton et Obama, qui ne suffisent pas à compenser le fait que le pouvoir d'achat du salaire minimum se retrouve lentement mais surement grignoté par l'inflation depuis maintenant plusieurs décennies: guère plus de 7 dollars par heure en 2016, contre près de 11 dollars en 1969, soit une perte du niveau absolu de pouvoir d'achat de plus d'un tiers en un demi-siècle, ce qui n'est pas banal pour un pays en croissance. On comprend mieux pourquoi Sanders propose de revaloriser à 15 dollars par heure le salaire minimum fédéral.

L'autre enjeu crucial soulevé par Sanders est celui de la gratuité de la santé et de l'université. La question est centrale, car les inégalités d'accès à l'éduction ont atteint des sommets inouïs aux Etats-Unis, comme le montre clairement ce graphique, issue des travaux d'Emmanuel Saez et Raj Chetty, et qui décrit le lien observé aux Etats-Unis en 2008-2012 entre le revenu des parents (exprimé en percentiles, du 1% le plus faible au 1% le plus élevé) et la probabilité que les enfants fassent des études supérieures: On observe une ligne droite quasi-parfaite, qui va pratiquement de 0% à 100% : les enfants issus des milieux les plus modestes ont un probabilité à peine supérieure à 20% d'accéder aux études supérieures, contre plus de 90% pour les enfants issus des milieux les plus favorisés. Ce graphique montre le gouffre béant qui existe parfois entre d'un côté les lénifiants discours méritocratiques tenus par les élites et les gagnants du système (qui ont toujours eu beaucoup d'imagination pour justifier leur position, mais qui en un siècle ont fait d'indéniables progrès dans cette direction), et de l'autre la réalité de ce que vivent les classes populaires et de très larges groupes de la population. Encore faut-il préciser que les enfants d'origine modeste qui parviennent à se frayer un chemin vers les études ne vont évidemment pas aux mêmes universités que les enfants favorisés. Le revenu moyen des parents des étudiants de Harvard correspond actuellement au revenu moyen des 2% des Américains les plus aisés. Il existe certes quelques étudiants dont les parents ne font pas partie du top 2%, mais ils sont tellement peu nombreux, et ceux qui sont issus du top 2% sont tellement haut placés dans le top 2%, que la moyenne est la même que si tous les étudiants avaient été choisis au hasard au sein du top 2%.

Là encore, les résistances au changement seront fortes, en particulier de la part des grandes universités et des élites, qui ne veulent pas perdre la main sur les procédures d'admission. Le combat pour l'égalité d'accès à l'éducation n'en reste pas moins l'un des plus porteurs pour l'avenir, ne serait-ce que parce qu'il est fortement susceptible de mobiliser les minorités hispaniques et noires (en passe de devenir la majorité), davantage peut-être que la question de la progressivité fiscale ou même le salaire minimum (même si ces différents combats peuvent et doivent avancer de concert).

Une chose de sûre: même si les inégalités y sont devenus beaucoup plus élevés qu'en Europe au cours des dernières décennies, les Etats-Unis ont une relation avec la notion d'égalité et d'inégalité qui est beaucoup plus complexe que ce que l'on imagine parfois, et qui n'a pas fini de nous surprendre, au 21e siècle comme au 20e siècle. Confrontés à des inégalités jugées insupportables, les Etats-Unis ont inventé au cours du siècle écoulé de nouveaux outils pour les réduire. Il en ira sans doute de même à l'avenir, sous des formes qu'il est difficile de prévoir, mais auxquelles on peut se préparer en remettant ces questions en perspective longue. La fin de l'histoire n'est pas pour demain.

(données complètes en format xls disponibles ici)

Partager cet article

490

IRICE: um novo centro de relacoes internacionais em SP - Embaixador Rubens Barbosa, Prof. Carlos Pio

Recebido nesta terça-feira, 23/02/2016:

São Paulo, 23 de fevereiro de 2016.

Prezados

A despeito de sua centralidade econômica e política, o estado de São Paulo carece de uma instituição dedicada à discussão da inserção internacional do Brasil. Em particular, precisamos discutir com profundidade e objetividade temas de política externa e de comércio exterior que afetem o ambiente de negócios e as empresas brasileiras, nos moldes do que fazem renomados thinktanks internacionais, como a ChathamHouse (Reino Unido), o Council on Foreign Relations, o Center for Strategic and International Studies e o AspenInstitute(todos nos Estados Unidos) e o CARI—Conselho Argentino de Relações Internacionais.

Em vista disso, estou constituindo o IRICE—INSTITUTO DE RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS E COMÉRCIO EXTERIOR, com o propósito de aglutinar diferentes setores da sociedade de São Paulo para discutir os interesses do País e sua estratégia de inserção internacional. O IRICE terá um olhar para o futuro. Ele pretende estruturar o debate nacional sobre a evolução das relações internacionais, de um lado, e sobre a inserção internacional do Brasil, de outro. Será uma referência no debate nacional da política externa brasileira e da agenda de reformas estruturais com vistas a preparar nossas empresas para os sobressaltos que nos chegam do exterior e para torná-las mais competitivas e realmente globais.

O IRICE pretende disseminar uma visão objetiva dos desafios e oportunidades enfrentados pelo país e pelas empresas estabelecidas em sua região mais dinâmica e globalizada. Privilegiará os aspectos voltados aos interesses empresariais, governamentais e da sociedade paulista, na justa medida do seu potencial e de suas necessidades.

O IRICE será um fórum privilegiado para a discussão de temas da agenda externa do Brasil. O Instituto receberá visitantes internacionais de passagem por São Paulo e promoverá reuniões e, inicialmente, encontros virtuais para discutir temas relevantes aos seus stakeholders.

O Instituto desenvolverá parcerias com organizações análogas e com organismos intergovernamentais para promover reuniões, seminários e estudos nas seguintes áreas: política externa brasileira; comércio exterior e negociações comerciais; competitividade, inovação e internacionalização de empresas; investimento e negócios transnacionais; energia, meio-ambiente e mudança climática; terrorismo, epidemias e crises migratórias; segurança internacional e defesa nacional.

O IRICE começará a funcionar em abril de 2016 e será uma entidade privada, sem fins lucrativos, independente e inteiramente desvinculada de partidos políticos e grupos de interesse.

O Instituto será presidido pelo Embaixador Rubens Barbosa. O IRICE será gerido por um Conselho Consultivo, do qual fazem parte algumas das mais destacadas lideranças do mundo empresarial, político e cultural de São Paulo. A Secretaria Executiva será exercida pelo Dr. Carlos Pio, acadêmico de prestígio na área de abrangência do Instituto.

Certo de poder contar com seu interesse nos trabalhos do IRICE, informo que a primeira reunião do Instituto deverá ocorrer no inicio de abril.

Em anexo, a missão, a justificativa e os objetivos do Instituto.

Cordialmente,
Rubens Barbosa
___________________________

IRICE
Avenida Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2413
Sobreloja, Conj B, Pinheiros
São Paulo-SP 01452-000
Brasil