ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

ECPR

Install the app

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap Share then “Add to Home Screen”

Brazil and multilateralism: Sovereignty in disguise?

Civil Society
Foreign Policy
Governance
International Relations

Abstract

The primacy of state sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention have been bedrock principles for Brazil’s interpretation of multilateralism and its foreign policy since independence. Brazil’s null-tolerance against intervention and international meddling with internal affairs can be understood as a safeguard of sovereign autonomy, necessary after almost two centuries of American and European interventionism and hegemony in global affairs. The principles of self-determination, non-intervention and the sovereign equality of states are not only written into the Brazilian constitution of 1988 but also serves as the core of Brazilian diplomats and politicians self-image and self-understanding. Yet, despite this seemingly non-negotiable position on the need for respect for state sovereignty, Brazil has ratified international covenants that binds their sovereignty. A particularly puzzling example is Brazil’s ratification of the International Labour Organisation’s ‘indigenous and tribal peoples convention’ (commonly known as ILO 169) which propagates that indigenous and tribal people have the right to be consulted on any legislative or administrative matter that may impact their lives (ILO 1989). The ratification and later application of ILO 169 within Brazil seem to suggest that the conventional picture of Brazil as a proponent of a multilateralist order sovereignty prevails must, at least, be nuanced, and perhaps reconsidered. Furthermore, civil society’s use of ILO 169 in pressuring their government and business associations to stop unwanted dam projects in the Amazon, testifies to the fact that international covenants are not only wanted by parts of the population but also an actively used instrument in realizing their rights. Hence, in order to fully grasp Brazil’s “approach” to multilateralism, it is necessary to go beyond the government’s statements and decisions in international organisations and look at how civil society and affected citizens make use of international covenants to realise their rights.