Brazil’s 1988 Constitution and International Law: Treaties and Courts

Introduction

Brazil’s Constitution of 1988 establishes a legal system in which international treaties can become part of domestic law, but their authority depends on their subject matter and the constitutional procedures governing their incorporation. Under the prevailing jurisprudence of Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal, or STF), ordinary international treaties generally possess the status of federal legislation, human rights treaties incorporated without special constitutional approval occupy a supralegal position, and human rights treaties approved under Article 5(3) are equivalent to constitutional amendments.

This differentiated system emerged through constitutional interpretation and subsequent reform. The Constitution originally recognized rights arising from international treaties through Article 5(2), without expressly determining their hierarchical position. Constitutional Amendment No. 45 of 2004 introduced a procedure allowing qualifying human rights treaties to acquire constitutional-amendment status. Four years later, the STF consolidated the supralegal doctrine in RE 466.343/SP, establishing the prevailing treatment of human rights agreements not approved under that procedure.

Brazil’s constitutional relationship with international law also extends to international adjudication. The country participates in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, although each institution possesses different jurisdictional powers. Their authority over Brazil arises from distinct international instruments and conditions of consent. Understanding this relationship requires separating the incorporation and hierarchy of treaties from the jurisdiction of international courts and the domestic implementation of their decisions.

1. Brazil’s 1988 Constitution and International Law

Promulgated on October 5, 1988, following Brazil’s transition from military rule to constitutional democracy, the Constitution established a legal order centered on fundamental rights, democratic institutions, and judicial protection. Human dignity became a foundational principle of the Republic under Article 1(III), while Article 5 provided an extensive catalogue of individual and collective rights. These commitments helped create the constitutional conditions for international human rights law to assume greater importance in domestic adjudication.

Article 4 supplies the most explicit constitutional statement concerning Brazil’s international legal commitments. It identifies the prevalence of human rights, sovereign equality, peaceful settlement of disputes, nonintervention, and international cooperation among the principles governing the Republic’s international relations.

These provisions establish constitutional standards for state action, but they do not independently incorporate every international treaty or confer jurisdiction on an international court. Treaty-making authority and judicial competence depend on other constitutional and international provisions.

A particularly significant provision is Article 5(2), which recognizes that the rights and guarantees expressly stated in the Constitution do not exclude others derived from the constitutional order, its principles, or international treaties to which Brazil is a party. Its language permits treaty-based rights to supplement the constitutional catalogue. The provision did not expressly establish whether those treaties automatically possessed constitutional superiority over ordinary legislation, leaving an important question for judicial interpretation.

Article 5(1) adds another dimension by providing for the immediate application of norms defining fundamental rights and guarantees. Immediate applicability, however, must be distinguished from the incorporation of an international agreement into domestic law. The constitutional recognition of fundamental rights does not mean that every signed or ratified treaty automatically becomes enforceable before Brazilian courts. The legal effect of an international instrument depends on the relevant constitutional procedures, its domestic status, and the nature of the provisions invoked.

Brazil’s constitutional arrangement consequently cannot be explained solely through traditional theories of international-law reception. The country uses domestic procedures to incorporate treaties, while constitutional text and judicial decisions determine their internal status. This particular relationship between international law and municipal law explains why an agreement may bind Brazil internationally before it becomes executable in domestic litigation.

The 1988 Constitution remains in force despite extensive subsequent amendments. As of October 20, 2026, the official constitutional amendment register extends through Constitutional Amendment No. 141, adopted on October 16, 2026. These amendments have altered numerous areas of constitutional law without replacing the international-law provisions examined here.

Readers consulting the Brazilian Constitution in English should distinguish the legally operative Portuguese text from available translations. The Federal Senate provides English-language constitutional materials, but its public legislative pages identify differing update cutoffs, including Constitutional Amendments Nos. 132/2023 and 134/2024. Neither represents a complete consolidation of amendments through October 2026. For current legal interpretation, the updated Portuguese text and the relevant constitutional amendments remain controlling.

2. How International Treaties Become Brazilian Law

Brazil’s treaty-making system requires several legally distinct acts. International negotiations may produce an agreement signed by representatives of the executive branch, but signature does not invariably establish definitive consent to be bound. Depending on the treaty and its terms, Brazil may need congressional approval followed by presidential ratification or accession before assuming the international obligations contemplated by the agreement.

The constitutional incorporation process also differs from the international rules governing treaty entry into force. An international agreement may become binding on Brazil under its own provisions while still awaiting domestic promulgation and publication. This distinction is particularly important when private individuals or public authorities seek to invoke treaty provisions before Brazilian courts.

The STF addressed the internal incorporation process in ADI 1.480 MC, decided on September 4, 1997. The Court emphasized the combined constitutional participation of the executive and legislative branches, describing treaty incorporation as a legally complex process. Its reasoning established the importance of presidential promulgation for domestic application. The subsequent decision in CR 8.279 AgR, in 1998, further explained the successive acts required for ordinary treaties to become executable within the Brazilian legal system.

2.1 Presidential Powers and Congressional Approval

Article 84(VIII) authorizes the President of the Republic to conclude treaties, conventions, and international acts, subject to congressional approval. Article 49(I) assigns Congress the authority to decide definitively on treaties, agreements, or international acts that impose burdens or substantial commitments on national patrimony. Read together, these provisions establish the principal constitutional allocation of treaty-making responsibilities between Brazil’s executive and legislative branches.

In ordinary treaty practice, the executive negotiates and signs the international instrument, while Congress examines the agreement and approves it through a legislative decree where parliamentary authorization is constitutionally required. This legislative act authorizes the subsequent international commitment but does not itself constitute ratification. That distinction preserves the executive’s constitutional responsibility for representing Brazil internationally and expressing its consent to be bound.

The scope of congressional participation cannot be reduced to an unqualified statement that every instrument called an international agreement necessarily follows an identical procedure. Article 49(I) contains specific language concerning burdens and substantial commitments, and Brazilian constitutional scholarship has debated its relationship with the broader approval language of Article 84(VIII). The legal character of the instrument, its obligations, and the relevant constitutional provisions must be considered when determining the applicable procedure.

The STF’s treatment of these provisions in ADI 1.480 MC confirms the constitutional importance of both branches. Congressional approval and presidential action perform complementary functions in the ordinary incorporation process. Neither should be confused with the international legal question of when a treaty enters into force for Brazil.

2.2 Ratification, Promulgation, and Legal Effect

Once the constitutionally necessary approval has been obtained, the President may proceed with ratification or another recognized form of international consent. Ratification expresses Brazil’s definitive consent to be bound, subject to the treaty’s requirements concerning deposit, exchange of instruments, and entry into force. A treaty may enter into force internationally on a date different from the date on which Brazil deposits its ratification instrument.

Domestic promulgation constitutes a further stage under the STF’s traditional doctrine. Through a presidential decree, the executive formally promulgates the treaty and provides for its execution within the Brazilian legal order. The congressional decree approving the agreement and the presidential decree promulgating it perform different functions. Publication makes the incorporated treaty text officially available to domestic authorities and the public.

In CR 8.279 AgR, decided on June 17, 1998, the STF identified congressional approval, international ratification, and presidential promulgation as successive stages in the ordinary domestic reception of treaties. The Court associated promulgation and official publication with the treaty’s domestic executory force. This approach distinguishes the international act establishing Brazil’s consent from the constitutional procedure that allows the agreement to operate as domestic positive law.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties supplies the international legal framework governing much of this process. Brazil deposited its instrument of ratification on September 25, 2009, and promulgated the Convention through Decree No. 7,030 of December 14, 2009, with reservations to Articles 25 and 66. Article 26 expresses pacta sunt servanda, requiring treaties in force to be performed in good faith. Article 27 generally prevents a state from invoking its internal law to justify nonperformance.

Article 46 contains a distinct rule concerning manifest violations of internal provisions of fundamental importance governing competence to conclude treaties. Its conditions should not be confused with an unrestricted right to invoke domestic law against international obligations. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties regulates these international questions without determining the domestic legislative hierarchy of every treaty.

The distinction has practical consequences. Domestic constitutional law determines how an agreement becomes applicable within Brazil and which authorities may enforce it. International law determines whether Brazil has assumed a binding obligation and whether its subsequent conduct complies with that commitment. Domestic obstacles to performance do not ordinarily extinguish the corresponding international responsibility.

3. The Constitutional Hierarchy of International Treaties

The legal status of international treaties within Brazil depends on distinctions developed through constitutional text and STF jurisprudence. Ordinary treaties generally occupy the level of federal legislation. International human rights treaties incorporated without the qualified approval procedure of Article 5(3) possess supralegal authority, while human rights treaties approved under that provision are equivalent to constitutional amendments.

These categories determine how domestic courts address conflicts between international agreements and national legislation. An ordinary treaty does not automatically prevail over all subsequent statutes. A supralegal human rights treaty can prevent the application of incompatible ordinary legislation, whereas a treaty approved with constitutional equivalence may form part of the constitutional standard against which domestic legal measures are assessed.

The hierarchy concerns the internal legal effect of treaties, rather than their binding character under international law. A treaty possessing ordinary legislative status domestically remains an international obligation that Brazil must perform in accordance with applicable international law. Its internal rank cannot, by itself, determine whether Brazil has complied with its international commitments.

The STF’s differentiated approach also reflects the Constitution’s particular treatment of human rights. Article 5(2) recognizes treaty-based rights without prescribing a comprehensive hierarchy, while Article 5(3) establishes a special procedure for constitutional equivalence. The supralegal doctrine developed judicially to address human rights treaties outside that procedure.

3.1 Ordinary Treaties and Federal Legislation

The STF’s traditional approach places ordinary international treaties at the level of federal legislation. This position developed through jurisprudence addressing conflicts between incorporated agreements and domestic statutes, including RE 80.004, decided in 1977 under the previous constitutional order. The general principle continued to influence treaty interpretation after the adoption of the 1988 Constitution, although the present hierarchy must be understood through subsequent constitutional provisions and judicial developments.

Legislative equivalence means that an ordinary treaty generally does not possess inherent superiority over federal statutes. Conflicts may involve chronological criteria, specificity, constitutional provisions, or statutory interpretation. The domestic consequences should not be reduced to an automatic rule that every later statute extinguishes an earlier treaty’s international obligations. Even where a domestic measure prevails internally, Brazil may remain internationally responsible for noncompliance.

Article 178 provides an important qualification. It requires legislation concerning international transport to observe agreements concluded by the Union, subject to the constitutional provision’s terms. In RE 636.331, decided on May 25, 2017, the STF recognized the precedence of the Warsaw and Montreal Convention rules governing international air-carrier liability over conflicting provisions of Brazil’s Consumer Protection Code in the circumstances covered by the judgment.

The scope of that precedent was subsequently clarified. In ARE 766.618 ED/SP, decided on November 30, 2023, the STF amended the binding formulation of Theme 210 to exclude nonpecuniary damages from the relevant treaty-precedence holding. The distinction preserves the precedence recognized for the applicable international liability rules without extending it to compensation for nonpecuniary harm.

This jurisprudence demonstrates that treaty priority may arise from a specific constitutional provision. It does not establish a general rule elevating all ordinary treaties above domestic legislation. The applicable constitutional text and the precise scope of the judicial holding remain decisive.

3.2 Article 5(2) and the Constitutional Status Debate

Article 5(2) generated an important debate concerning the relationship between fundamental rights and international human rights treaties. Its recognition of rights derived from international commitments encouraged interpretations under which those rights formed part of the substantive constitutional protection afforded to individuals. The provision nevertheless contains no express statement establishing identical formal constitutional rank for every human rights treaty incorporated by Brazil.

Flávia Piovesan is among the Brazilian constitutional scholars associated with the argument that international human rights treaties contribute to a materially constitutional body of rights. This interpretation emphasizes the openness of the constitutional catalogue and the protective function of Article 5(2). Other approaches distinguish the constitutional recognition of treaty-based fundamental rights from the formal hierarchical position of the international instruments containing them.

The disagreement became especially significant after Constitutional Amendment No. 45 introduced Article 5(3). A textual procedure now existed for giving qualifying human rights treaties constitutional-amendment equivalence. The question remained whether treaties incorporated without that procedure should possess ordinary legislative status, constitutional status through Article 5(2), or an intermediate position.

Article 5(1), which provides for the immediate application of norms defining fundamental rights and guarantees, adds a related but separate question. Recognition of a right within the constitutional order does not resolve every issue concerning the domestic reception, applicability, or enforceability of the treaty provision from which it arises. The interpretation of Article 5(2) must account for this distinction between fundamental-rights protection and treaty incorporation.

The STF ultimately adopted the intermediate supralegal position as the prevailing rule. This doctrinal solution cannot be adequately explained simply by categorizing Brazil as either monist or dualist. As the broader debate concerning monism and dualism in international law demonstrates, treaty incorporation, direct applicability, and domestic hierarchy are analytically distinct questions. Brazilian constitutional jurisprudence addresses them through specific constitutional provisions and judicial doctrines.

3.3 Supralegality and RE 466.343/SP

The decisive judicial development occurred on December 3, 2008, when the STF concluded its judgment in RE 466.343/SP, concerning civil imprisonment for an unfaithful depositary. The case involved the relationship between Article 5(LXVII) of the Constitution, domestic legislation authorizing civil imprisonment, and international human rights obligations. The American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were relevant to the constitutional analysis.

Article 5(LXVII) originally provided two constitutional exceptions to the prohibition of imprisonment for debt: inexcusable nonpayment of maintenance obligations and the situation of an unfaithful depositary, traditionally described as depositário infiel. Article 7(7) of the American Convention on Human Rights restricts detention for debt, while preserving judicial orders arising from failure to fulfill duties of maintenance. This created a conflict between the domestic legislation authorizing imprisonment and Brazil’s international human rights commitments.

The STF’s prevailing approach recognized that human rights treaties incorporated without the Article 5(3) procedure possess supralegal status. They stand below the Constitution but above ordinary legislation. This position was associated particularly with Justice Gilmar Mendes’s reasoning, which distinguished the special authority of human rights treaties from their formal constitutional rank.

Supralegality means that incompatible statutory provisions cannot continue to operate merely because the Constitution contains language under which the legislature could otherwise have authorized the measure. The judgment did not formally amend Article 5(LXVII). Instead, the higher-ranking human rights treaties deprived the domestic legislation authorizing imprisonment of its operative legal foundation.

The resulting prohibition was expressed in Súmula Vinculante No. 25, adopted in 2009, which establishes that civil imprisonment of an unfaithful depositary is unlawful regardless of the particular form of deposit. The binding precedent consolidated the consequences of the STF’s supralegal approach and established a rule applicable throughout the Brazilian judiciary.

The judgment also revealed differences in constitutional reasoning. Justice Celso de Mello favored constitutional status for international human rights treaties under his interpretation of Article 5(2), while Justice Gilmar Mendes advanced the intermediate supralegal position. Their disagreement concerned the formal domestic hierarchy of human rights instruments, even though both approaches supported the rejection of civil imprisonment in the circumstances examined.

The controlling doctrine became supralegality, rather than the proposition that Article 5(2) automatically transformed every human rights treaty into a formal constitutional norm. The decision remains central to the relationship between Brazilian constitutional law and international human rights obligations.

4. Constitutional Amendment No. 45 and Human Rights Treaties

Constitutional Amendment No. 45, promulgated on December 30, 2004, substantially reformed Brazil’s judicial system. Its provisions included changes to judicial administration, procedural guarantees, and the relationship between Brazilian constitutional law and international human rights obligations. For treaty law, the most important change was the insertion of Article 5(3), establishing a qualified procedure for granting certain international human rights treaties equivalence to constitutional amendments.

Before this reform, Article 5(2) recognized treaty-based rights without expressly specifying a procedure for giving international instruments formal constitutional status. Amendment No. 45 introduced a textual mechanism based on enhanced congressional approval. The resulting provision makes the constitutional status of an eligible treaty dependent on a particular legislative procedure rather than merely on the treaty’s subject matter.

The amendment also inserted Article 5(4), expressly recognizing Brazil’s submission to the jurisdiction of an International Criminal Court whose establishment it had joined. These two provisions serve different legal purposes. Article 5(3) concerns domestic treaty hierarchy, while Article 5(4) addresses Brazil’s constitutional acceptance of an international criminal jurisdiction.

4.1 Article 5(3) and the Special Approval Procedure

Article 5(3) establishes that international human rights treaties approved in each chamber of Congress, in two voting rounds, by three-fifths of the respective members, are equivalent to constitutional amendments. The procedure resembles the qualified voting requirements for constitutional amendments under Article 60(2), although the two processes remain legally distinct. A treaty approved under Article 5(3) is incorporated as an international agreement possessing constitutional-amendment equivalence, rather than necessarily becoming an additional article of the Constitution.

The provision establishes a significant distinction between the international legal character of a human rights treaty and its domestic constitutional status. Ratification makes the agreement binding internationally in accordance with its terms. Formal constitutional equivalence, however, requires compliance with the special approval procedure. A treaty does not acquire that status simply because it concerns internationally protected rights or was ratified after December 2004.

The position of instruments incorporated before Constitutional Amendment No. 45 requires particular care. The STF’s supralegal doctrine applies to human rights treaties lacking qualified constitutional approval, including important agreements ratified before the amendment. Scholarly arguments that certain preexisting treaties possess materially constitutional significance should be distinguished from the Court’s prevailing formal hierarchical approach.

Treaties with constitutional-amendment equivalence may serve as constitutional standards in domestic adjudication. Their special approval does not extinguish their separate character as international instruments, nor does it make every possible interpretation immune from constitutional analysis. The relevance of constitutional limitations, including the protection afforded to fundamental rights under Article 60(4), must be assessed according to the particular legal question.

4.2 Treaties Approved with Constitutional Equivalence

Brazil has used the Article 5(3) procedure for several significant international human rights instruments. The first was the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol. Congress approved both through Legislative Decree No. 186 of July 9, 2008, and they were promulgated through Presidential Decree No. 6,949 of August 25, 2009. Their approval demonstrated that the special procedure established in 2004 could operate in practice.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities establishes international obligations concerning equality, accessibility, autonomy, participation, and protection against discrimination. Its constitutional-amendment equivalence gives those treaty guarantees an especially significant place within Brazilian constitutional adjudication. The Optional Protocol separately establishes international supervisory procedures and was approved through the same qualified process.

The Marrakesh Treaty followed a different substantive path. Adopted in 2013 within the World Intellectual Property Organization, it seeks to facilitate access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print-disabled. Brazil approved the treaty through Legislative Decree No. 261 of November 25, 2015, under Article 5(3), and promulgated it through Decree No. 9,522 of October 8, 2018.

Its inclusion demonstrates that the special constitutional procedure is not restricted to conventions whose titles expressly identify them as human rights instruments. The treaty addresses accessibility through obligations involving copyright limitations and exceptions, connecting the protection of persons with disabilities to international intellectual property law.

A third treaty package concerns the Inter-American Convention against Racism, Racial Discrimination and Related Forms of Intolerance. Congress approved the instrument through Legislative Decree No. 1 of February 18, 2021, and Brazil promulgated it through Decree No. 10,932 of January 10, 2022. The Convention entered into force for Brazil internationally on June 27, 2021, following the deposit of its ratification instrument on May 28, 2021.

These examples establish the difference between a treaty’s international legal importance and the constitutional procedure applied to its incorporation. The American Convention on Human Rights, despite its central position within Brazil’s human rights obligations, was not incorporated through Article 5(3) and remains subject to the STF’s supralegal doctrine.

The Constitution distinguishes instruments through legal status and procedure, rather than establishing a universal hierarchy among human rights treaties according to their substantive importance. The constitutional equivalence of the instruments approved through Article 5(3) does not automatically extend to other treaties addressing similar rights.

5. Brazilian Courts and the Application of International Law

Brazil’s domestic judiciary determines how incorporated international agreements interact with constitutional rights, federal legislation, and judicial procedures. The STF exercises constitutional jurisdiction under Article 102, including authority to review the constitutionality of federal laws and international treaties. It consequently occupies a central position in determining the constitutional limits and hierarchical consequences of treaty incorporation.

The Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça, or STJ) performs a different function. Article 105(III)(a) establishes its competence, under the constitutional requirements for special appeals, to review decisions contrary to treaties or federal laws or denying their validity. The STJ’s role concerns the interpretation and uniform application of federal law, including treaty provisions within its jurisdiction, rather than displacing the STF’s final constitutional authority.

Constitutional Amendment No. 45 also introduced Article 109(V-A) and paragraph 5, creating a mechanism for transferring jurisdiction to federal courts in cases involving grave human rights violations. The Prosecutor General of the Republic may request such a transfer before the STJ under constitutional conditions designed to secure compliance with international human rights obligations. This mechanism does not automatically federalize every alleged human rights violation; it requires a specific judicial determination under the applicable constitutional standard.

5.1 Constitutional Review and Conventionality Control

Constitutional review concerns the compatibility of legal acts with the Constitution. Conventionality control addresses their compatibility with applicable international treaty obligations, particularly international human rights instruments. The distinction is important because a treaty may serve as a constitutional standard when approved under Article 5(3), or as a supralegal standard when incorporated without that procedure.

The STF’s supralegal doctrine demonstrates one way treaty obligations influence domestic judicial review. Ordinary legislation incompatible with an applicable supralegal human rights treaty may be deprived of effect. Constitutional review and conventionality control may consequently interact in a single dispute, although they depend on different legal standards and need not produce identical forms of judicial relief.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights developed an influential account of conventionality control in Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, decided on September 26, 2006. In paragraph 124, the Court explained that national judges must consider the American Convention when applying domestic law and take account of the Court’s interpretation of the treaty. The judgment connected conventionality control to the obligation to prevent domestic legislation from undermining rights protected by the Convention.

The Court subsequently developed the doctrine in Trabajadores Cesados del Congreso (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, decided on November 24, 2006. Its approach emphasized the responsibilities of domestic judicial authorities within their respective competences and applicable procedural rules. These decisions provide an important doctrinal foundation for examining how conventionality control operates in national legal systems.

Brazilian legal scholarship and judicial practice have examined the relationship between this doctrine and the domestic constitutional distribution of judicial authority. The international doctrine should not be presented as eliminating Brazilian procedural requirements or transferring general constitutional appellate jurisdiction to the Inter-American Court. The applicable treaty obligations must be considered alongside the domestic powers of the institution responsible for their implementation.

The National Council of Justice (Conselho Nacional de Justiça, or CNJ) has encouraged greater engagement with international human rights jurisprudence. Recommendation No. 123 of January 7, 2022, addressed observance of international human rights treaties and the use of Inter-American jurisprudence. Recommendation No. 168 of March 23, 2026, amended that guidance and introduced the Estatuto da Magistratura Brasileira Interamericana, including recommendations concerning conventionality control and judicial training.

These measures demonstrate institutional attention to international human rights law within Brazil’s judiciary. Their legal character remains distinct from constitutional amendments and binding STF precedents. A CNJ recommendation can guide judicial practice and encourage institutional coordination without independently altering treaty hierarchy or the constitutional allocation of judicial competence.

5.2 Treaty Withdrawal and the STF's Decision in ADC 39

Treaty withdrawal presented a significant constitutional question because the 1988 Constitution expressly addresses treaty conclusion and congressional participation without establishing an equally detailed general procedure for denunciation. Historically, the Brazilian executive had exercised substantial authority over treaty withdrawal, including situations in which the original international agreement had received congressional approval.

The issue arose in connection with Brazil’s denunciation of International Labour Organization Convention No. 158, concerning termination of employment. Presidential Decree No. 2,100 of December 20, 1996, recorded Brazil’s withdrawal from the Convention. The constitutional dispute concerned whether a treaty approved by Congress could subsequently be denounced through unilateral presidential action.

In ADC 39, whose virtual judgment concluded on June 16, 2023, the STF held that presidential denunciation of treaties previously approved by Congress requires congressional approval to produce effects within the domestic legal order. The Court based its approach on the constitutional distribution of powers and the need to preserve legislative participation in decisions concerning Brazil’s international commitments.

The majority preserved the validity of the contested 1996 decree and established prospective application of the new requirement, using publication of the judgment minutes as the relevant temporal boundary. Earlier treaty denunciations remained effective. Justices Edson Fachin, Ricardo Lewandowski, and Rosa Weber dissented from the preservation of the contested withdrawal, reflecting disagreement over the temporal consequences of the constitutional requirement.

The STF applied the same approach in ADI 1.625, in a judgment concluded on August 16, 2024, and published on August 22, 2024. The Court unanimously maintained the validity of Decree No. 2,100/1996 in accordance with the rule established in ADC 39. The decision reinforced the prospective requirement of congressional participation while preserving the effects of the earlier withdrawal.

The constitutional significance of these judgments lies in their treatment of treaty denunciation as an exercise of public authority requiring attention to both executive competence and legislative participation. Their domestic consequences remain distinct from the international conditions governing treaty termination and withdrawal. Whether withdrawal takes effect internationally depends on the relevant treaty provisions and applicable rules of international law.

6. Brazil and International Courts

Brazil participates in several international judicial systems, but international courts do not constitute a unified appellate structure above the national judiciary. Their competence derives from particular treaties, statutes, declarations, and jurisdictional conditions. The legal basis for Brazil’s participation in one institution does not automatically establish the jurisdiction of another.

The International Court of Justice adjudicates legal disputes between states and issues advisory opinions. The International Criminal Court addresses the individual criminal responsibility of persons accused of crimes within its statutory jurisdiction. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights adjudicates regional human rights obligations in contentious proceedings and exercises a separate advisory function.

These differences affect who may appear before each institution, what claims may be brought, and which decisions bind Brazil. Membership or treaty participation must be distinguished from acceptance of jurisdiction over particular disputes. Brazil’s constitutional commitment to peaceful settlement does not, by itself, override the consent and jurisdictional requirements established by international law.

6.1 International Court of Justice and State Consent

Brazil is an original member of the United Nations and consequently a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice under Article 93(1) of the UN Charter. The ICJ serves as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, with contentious jurisdiction over disputes between states and advisory jurisdiction concerning legal questions submitted by authorized international organs and agencies.

Participation in the Statute establishes Brazil’s capacity to appear before the Court, but it does not amount to unrestricted consent to contentious jurisdiction. Article 36 recognizes several jurisdictional bases, including special agreements referring particular disputes to the Court, jurisdictional clauses contained in applicable treaties, and declarations accepting compulsory jurisdiction under the optional-clause procedure.

Brazil is not listed among states with an operative general declaration under Article 36(2) in the ICJ’s published optional-clause register, whose underlying documentary reference includes declarations effective as of June 1, 2023. That record alone does not establish whether subsequent declarations or changes occurred. In any event, the absence of a general optional-clause declaration would not prevent jurisdiction based on a separate valid form of consent.

The Court must establish its competence according to the legal instrument relied upon in the particular dispute. A treaty may confer jurisdiction over disagreements concerning its interpretation or application even when the respondent state has not accepted general compulsory jurisdiction. Consent may also be expressed through a special agreement concluded for a particular controversy.

The Statute of the International Court of Justice establishes the limits of contentious judgments. Article 59 confines their binding force to the parties and the particular case, while Article 60 provides that judgments are final and without appeal. Advisory opinions operate differently and do not ordinarily impose the same case-specific obligations as contentious judgments, although they may carry substantial legal authority.

The distinction between contentious and advisory jurisdiction is especially important when considering the domestic consequences of international judicial decisions. A state’s general participation in the United Nations does not make every ICJ pronouncement a binding judgment against it.

6.2 International Criminal Court and Article 5(4)

Brazil signed the Rome Statute on February 7, 2000, and deposited its instrument of ratification on June 20, 2002. The Statute entered into force internationally on July 1, 2002, and became operative for Brazil on September 1, 2002. It was promulgated domestically through Presidential Decree No. 4,388 of September 25, 2002, following congressional approval through Legislative Decree No. 112 of June 6, 2002.

Constitutional Amendment No. 45 subsequently inserted Article 5(4), providing express constitutional recognition of Brazil’s submission to the jurisdiction of an International Criminal Court whose establishment it had joined. This amendment addressed Brazil’s constitutional relationship with international criminal jurisdiction. It did not automatically transform every provision of the Rome Statute into a constitutional amendment or confer authority on international criminal tribunals outside the terms of the constitutional provision.

The ICC exercises jurisdiction over individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, subject to distinct statutory conditions. Its jurisdiction is limited by temporal, territorial, nationality, and other requirements under the Rome Statute. The Court cannot be treated as possessing unrestricted universal criminal jurisdiction over every serious offense alleged to have occurred anywhere in the world.

Complementarity is central to this system. Under Articles 1 and 17 of the Rome Statute, national criminal jurisdictions retain primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting relevant crimes. The ICC generally does not proceed where a competent state is genuinely investigating or prosecuting the case. Admissibility may arise where domestic proceedings are affected by unwillingness or inability to genuinely carry out the investigation or prosecution, subject to the Statute’s requirements concerning prior proceedings, the same case, and sufficient gravity.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court consequently establishes an international criminal jurisdiction that supplements, rather than generally replaces, domestic criminal justice. The ICC is not a general appellate court reviewing ordinary criminal convictions rendered by Brazilian courts.

Brazil’s constitutional obligations also raise questions concerning cooperation and surrender of accused persons. Article 102 of the Rome Statute distinguishes surrender to the ICC from extradition between states. This distinction is relevant because Article 5(LI) of the Brazilian Constitution restricts extradition of Brazilian nationals. It would nevertheless be inaccurate to claim that every constitutional question concerning surrender has been conclusively resolved by a definitive STF judgment.

A further issue concerns penalties. Article 5(XLVII)(b) of the Constitution prohibits penalties of a perpetual character, while Article 77 of the Rome Statute permits life imprisonment in exceptional circumstances. Article 80 preserves the application of penalties prescribed under national law within national criminal justice systems, but does not by itself resolve every question concerning the relationship between international sentences and domestic constitutional guarantees.

These issues demonstrate why Article 5(4) must be interpreted within both constitutional and international legal contexts. Brazil’s participation in the ICC creates obligations under the Rome Statute, while the precise operation of cooperation measures within Brazil remains subject to the relevant legal provisions and competent authorities.

6.3 Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Brazil

Brazil acceded to the American Convention on Human Rights on July 9, 1992, and deposited its instrument of accession with the Organization of American States on September 25, 1992. The Convention entered into force for Brazil on the date of deposit and was promulgated domestically through Decree No. 678 of November 6, 1992. Accession established Brazil’s treaty obligations under the regional human rights system but did not, on its own, constitute acceptance of the Inter-American Court’s contentious jurisdiction.

Brazil recognized that jurisdiction through a separate declaration deposited on December 10, 1998, following congressional approval through Legislative Decree No. 89 of December 3, 1998. The declaration was subsequently promulgated by Presidential Decree No. 4,463 of November 8, 2002. Brazil accepted the Court’s compulsory contentious jurisdiction for an indefinite period, on the basis of reciprocity and concerning facts subsequent to December 10, 1998.

The temporal condition is particularly important. Recognition of jurisdiction does not automatically authorize the Court to determine responsibility for every historical event involving Brazil. Questions concerning continuing conduct and the legal characterization of events may affect temporal jurisdiction, but the existence and limits of jurisdiction must be established within the applicable provisions of the Convention and Brazil’s declaration.

The Inter-American Commission and the Court perform different functions. Under Articles 44 and 46 of the American Convention, individuals and qualifying organizations may submit petitions to the Commission, subject to admissibility requirements that ordinarily include exhaustion of domestic remedies and applicable exceptions. Article 61 reserves the submission of contentious cases to the Court to the Commission and states parties. Individuals cannot initiate contentious proceedings directly before the Court through the same procedure used to petition the Commission.

The Court also exercises advisory jurisdiction under Article 64. Advisory opinions concern the interpretation of the American Convention and other relevant international human rights instruments within the scope of that provision. They differ from final judgments rendered against a respondent state in contentious proceedings.

Articles 67 and 68 establish the finality and binding obligations associated with contentious judgments, including the duty of states parties to comply with judgments in cases to which they are parties. Article 68(2) separately addresses the execution of compensatory awards through domestic procedures governing judgments against the state.

Brazil’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction creates binding international obligations without changing the formal constitutional hierarchy of the American Convention itself. Under the prevailing STF doctrine, the Convention occupies a supralegal position domestically. The international duty to comply with a judgment and the internal procedures necessary for its implementation remain distinct legal questions.

7. International Judgments and Brazil's Domestic Legal Order

The consequences of international judicial decisions depend on the institution issuing them and the treaty provisions governing their authority. An ICJ judgment, an ICC order requesting cooperation, and a contentious judgment of the Inter-American Court may all create international obligations, but their legal character, addressees, and methods of implementation differ. Brazilian constitutional law determines the powers of domestic institutions involved in compliance, while the relevant international instruments establish the state’s international duties.

Under Article 94(1) of the UN Charter, United Nations members undertake to comply with ICJ decisions in cases to which they are parties. Article 94(2) establishes a possible Security Council route where a party fails to perform its obligations under a judgment, although the Council’s role is discretionary and conditioned by its decision-making rules. ICJ judgments are not equivalent to decisions of a Brazilian superior court and do not automatically enter the national appellate hierarchy.

The ICC’s relationship with Brazil operates primarily through the Rome Statute’s jurisdictional and cooperation provisions. Article 86 establishes the general obligation of states parties to cooperate fully with the Court in investigations and prosecutions, subject to the statutory framework. Requests involving arrest, surrender, evidence, or other forms of assistance require implementation through legally competent national authorities. The Rome Statute does not make the ICC an ordinary criminal appellate court for judgments rendered in Brazil.

The American Convention contains a different compliance structure. Article 68(1) requires states parties to comply with judgments of the Inter-American Court in cases involving them. Article 68(2) specifically addresses execution of the compensatory part of a judgment through domestic procedures governing judgments against the state. These provisions establish international duties while leaving questions concerning institutional competence, enforcement measures, and other forms of reparation to be addressed within the interaction between treaty obligations and domestic law.

Brazil has developed judicial administrative arrangements intended to support compliance with the Inter-American human rights system. CNJ Resolution No. 364 of January 12, 2021, established a monitoring and supervisory unit for decisions and deliberations of the Inter-American Court. Resolution No. 544 of January 11, 2024, revised the arrangement and provided guidance for developing corresponding units within Brazilian courts. The framework also addresses the monitoring of relevant pronouncements within the wider Inter-American system.

These monitoring arrangements do not eliminate distinctions between the acts of different international bodies. A final contentious judgment of the Inter-American Court has a different legal status from a Commission recommendation, an advisory opinion, or an institutional monitoring report. Their inclusion within related administrative mechanisms does not convert them into identical forms of binding judicial authority. Implementation requires examination of the legal basis, scope, and effect of the relevant international act.

The CNJ’s Recommendation No. 168 of 2026 adds a further institutional dimension by encouraging judicial application of human rights treaties, engagement with Inter-American jurisprudence, and conventionality control. Its guidance reflects attention to the relationship between domestic adjudication and international human rights obligations. It does not amend Brazil’s Constitution, change the hierarchy of the American Convention, or establish a new international jurisdiction.

The constitutional position is determined through several distinct legal inquiries. Courts must identify whether an international obligation binds Brazil, whether the relevant treaty has been incorporated domestically, what hierarchical status it possesses, and which institution has authority to implement the obligation. Failure to comply with a binding international judgment may engage Brazil’s international responsibility even when the domestic legal procedures necessary for compliance are disputed or incomplete.

The relationship between the STF and international courts illustrates the distinction. The STF retains its constitutional responsibilities within the Brazilian judiciary, including constitutional review and the interpretation of domestic constitutional provisions. International courts exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon them under the relevant international instruments. Their decisions may create obligations for Brazil, but they do not automatically replace domestic judicial procedures or operate as appeals from national judgments.

The legal consequences of international adjudication depend on the particular treaty regime. The binding effect of an international judgment, its domestic implementation, and the remedies available to affected persons are related questions requiring separate examination. Neither international jurisdiction nor domestic constitutional authority can be understood adequately without reference to the other.

Conclusion

Brazil’s 1988 Constitution establishes a differentiated relationship between international law and the domestic legal system. Treaties may become part of Brazilian law through constitutional incorporation procedures, but their internal status is not uniform. Ordinary treaties generally possess federal legislative status, human rights treaties incorporated without special constitutional approval occupy a supralegal position, and human rights treaties approved under Article 5(3) are equivalent to constitutional amendments.

Constitutional Amendment No. 45 of 2004 and the STF’s subsequent jurisprudence were decisive in defining this structure. The amendment established a formal procedure for granting constitutional equivalence to qualifying human rights treaties, while RE 466.343/SP consolidated the supralegal status of other human rights instruments. More recent jurisprudence concerning treaty denunciation has also clarified the constitutional role of Congress in the withdrawal process.

Brazil’s participation in international courts operates through distinct treaty commitments and jurisdictional conditions. The ICJ addresses interstate legal disputes, the ICC exercises jurisdiction over individual criminal responsibility, and the Inter-American Court adjudicates regional human rights obligations. Their decisions and requests may create binding international duties, but they do not operate through a single domestic enforcement mechanism or displace the constitutional functions of Brazilian courts.

The relationship between Brazil’s Constitution and international law depends on keeping several legal questions separate: the formation of international obligations, their incorporation into domestic law, their hierarchical status, the jurisdiction of international courts, and the mechanisms available for implementation. Brazilian constitutional law governs domestic legal authority, while international law continues to determine the obligations Brazil has undertaken and the consequences of failing to fulfill them.

References

American Convention on Human Rights (1969) Adopted at San José, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969; entered into force 18 July 1978. Organization of American States, Treaty Series No. 36. Available at: https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm (Accessed: 10 October 2026).

Brazil (1988) Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988, promulgated 5 October 1988, as amended. Brasília: Presidência da República. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicaocompilado.htm (Accessed: 10 October 2026).

Brazil (1992) Decreto nº 678, de 6 de novembro de 1992. Promulga a Convenção Americana sobre Direitos Humanos (Pacto de São José da Costa Rica). Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/d0678.htm (Accessed: 10 October 2026).

Brazil (1996) Decreto nº 2.100, de 20 de dezembro de 1996. Torna pública a denúncia, pelo Brasil, da Convenção nº 158 da Organização Internacional do Trabalho. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/1996/d2100.htm (Accessed: 10 October 2026).

Brazil (1998) Decreto Legislativo nº 89, de 3 de dezembro de 1998. Aprova a solicitação de reconhecimento da competência obrigatória da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. Available at: https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decleg/1998/decretolegislativo-89-3-dezembro-1998-369634-publicacaooriginal-1-pl.html (Accessed: 10 October 2026).

Brazil (2002a) Decreto Legislativo nº 112, de 6 de junho de 2002. Aprova o texto do Estatuto de Roma do Tribunal Penal Internacional. Available at: https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decleg/2002/decretolegislativo-112-6-junho-2002-391904-estatuto-1-pl.html (Accessed: 10 October 2026).

Brazil (2002b) Decreto nº 4.388, de 25 de setembro de 2002. Promulga o Estatuto de Roma do Tribunal Penal Internacional. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/2002/d4388.htm (Accessed: 10 October 2026).

Brazil (2002c) Decreto nº 4.463, de 8 de novembro de 2002. Promulga a Declaração de Reconhecimento da Competência Obrigatória da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/2002/d4463.htm (Accessed: 10 October 2026).

Brazil (2004) Emenda Constitucional nº 45, de 30 de dezembro de 2004. Altera dispositivos da Constituição Federal relativos à organização do Poder Judiciário e aos direitos fundamentais. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/emendas/emc/emc45.htm (Accessed: 10 October 2026).

Brazil (2008) Decreto Legislativo nº 186, de 9 de julho de 2008. Aprova o texto da Convenção sobre os Direitos das Pessoas com Deficiência e de seu Protocolo Facultativo. Available at: https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decleg/2008/decretolegislativo-186-9-julho-2008-577811-normaatualizada-pl.html (Accessed: 10 October 2026).

Brazil (2009a) Decreto nº 6.949, de 25 de agosto de 2009. Promulga a Convenção Internacional sobre os Direitos das Pessoas com Deficiência e seu Protocolo Facultativo. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2009/decreto/d6949.htm (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Brazil (2009b) Decreto nº 7.030, de 14 de dezembro de 2009. Promulga a Convenção de Viena sobre o Direito dos Tratados, com reservas aos artigos 25 e 66. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2009/decreto/d7030.htm (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Brazil (2018) Decreto nº 9.522, de 8 de outubro de 2018. Promulga o Tratado de Marraqueche para Facilitar o Acesso a Obras Publicadas às Pessoas Cegas, com Deficiência Visual ou com Outras Dificuldades para Ter Acesso ao Texto Impresso. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2018/decreto/d9522.htm (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Brazil (2021) Decreto Legislativo nº 1, de 18 de fevereiro de 2021. Aprova o texto da Convenção Interamericana contra o Racismo, a Discriminação Racial e Formas Correlatas de Intolerância. Available at: https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decleg/2021/decretolegislativo-1-18-fevereiro-2021-791057-publicacaooriginal-162295-pl.html (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Brazil (2022) Decreto nº 10.932, de 10 de janeiro de 2022. Promulga a Convenção Interamericana contra o Racismo, a Discriminação Racial e Formas Correlatas de Intolerância. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2022/decreto/d10932.htm (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Brazil, Presidência da República (2026) Emendas Constitucionais: Quadro de Emendas Constitucionais [online]. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/emendas/emc/quadro_emc.htm (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2021) Resolução nº 364, de 12 de janeiro de 2021. Dispõe sobre a instituição da Unidade de Monitoramento e Fiscalização de decisões e deliberações da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos no âmbito do Conselho Nacional de Justiça. Available at: https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/3659 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2022) Recomendação nº 123, de 7 de janeiro de 2022. Recomenda aos órgãos do Poder Judiciário brasileiro a observância dos tratados e convenções internacionais de direitos humanos e o uso da jurisprudência da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. Available at: https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/4305 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2024) Resolução nº 544, de 11 de janeiro de 2024. Altera a Resolução CNJ nº 364/2021 e estabelece diretrizes para unidades de monitoramento e fiscalização de decisões do Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos. Available at: https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/5403 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2026) Recomendação nº 168, de 23 de março de 2026. Institui o Estatuto da Magistratura Brasileira Interamericana e altera a Recomendação CNJ nº 123/2022. Available at: https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/6817 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2006a) Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 26 September 2006, Series C No. 154. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_154_esp.pdf (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2006b) Trabajadores Cesados del Congreso (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 24 November 2006, Series C No. 158. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_158_esp.pdf (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

International Court of Justice (1945) Statute of the International Court of Justice, adopted 26 June 1945; entered into force 24 October 1945. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/statute (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

International Court of Justice (n.d.) Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/declarations (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Organization of American States (n.d.) American Convention on Human Rights: Signatories and Ratifications [online]. Available at: https://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/b-32.html (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Piovesan, F. (2023) Direitos Humanos e o Direito Constitucional Internacional. 21st edn. São Paulo: SaraivaJur.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) Adopted at Rome, 17 July 1998; entered into force 1 July 2002. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, p. 3. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280025774 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Senado Federal (n.d.) Constituição Federal: Legislação e Versões em Língua Estrangeira [online]. Available at: https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/legislacao/constituicao-federal (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Supremo Tribunal Federal (1977) Recurso Extraordinário nº 80.004/SE, Judgment of 1 June 1977, Revista Trimestral de Jurisprudência, vol. 83, p. 809. Available at: https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=AC&docID=175365 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Supremo Tribunal Federal (1997) ADI 1.480 MC/DF, Preliminary Injunction, Judgment of 4 September 1997, Rapporteur Justice Celso de Mello. Available at: https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=1646696 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Supremo Tribunal Federal (1998) CR 8.279 AgR/AT, Interlocutory Appeal in Letters Rogatory, Judgment of 17 June 1998, Rapporteur Justice Celso de Mello. Available at: https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=AC&docID=324396 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Supremo Tribunal Federal (2008) Recurso Extraordinário nº 466.343/SP, Judgment of 3 December 2008, Rapporteur Justice Cezar Peluso, Theme 60. Available at: https://portal.stf.jus.br/jurisprudenciaRepercussao/tema.asp?num=60 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Supremo Tribunal Federal (2009) Súmula Vinculante nº 25, approved in 2009, concerning civil imprisonment of an unfaithful depositary. Available at: https://portal.stf.jus.br/jurisprudencia/sumariosumulas.asp?base=26&sumula=1268 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Supremo Tribunal Federal (2017) Recurso Extraordinário nº 636.331/RJ, Judgment of 25 May 2017, Rapporteur Justice Gilmar Mendes, Theme 210. Available at: https://portal.stf.jus.br/jurisprudenciaRepercussao/verAndamentoProcesso.asp?classeProcesso=RE&incidente=4040813&numeroProcesso=636331&numeroTema=210 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Supremo Tribunal Federal (2023a) Ação Declaratória de Constitucionalidade nº 39/DF, Judgment concluded 16 June 2023, Rapporteur Justice Dias Toffoli, concerning congressional approval of treaty denunciation. Available at: https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/listarProcessos.asp?classe=ADC&numeroProcesso=39 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Supremo Tribunal Federal (2023b) ARE 766.618 ED/SP, Embargos de Declaração, Judgment of 30 November 2023, concerning nonpecuniary damages in international air carriage, Theme 210. Available at: https://portal.stf.jus.br/noticias/verNoticiaDetalhe.asp?idConteudo=521084 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Supremo Tribunal Federal (2024) Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade nº 1.625/DF, Judgment concluded 16 August 2024, concerning the denunciation of ILO Convention No. 158. Available at: https://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=1675413 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations, signed at San Francisco, 26 June 1945; entered into force 24 October 1945. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1, p. XVI. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 20 October 2026).

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Adopted at Vienna, 23 May 1969; entered into force 27 January 1980. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2009/decreto/d7030.htm (Accessed: 20 October 2026).