The insufficiency of emergency constitutional prescription to face terrorist attacks

Abstract

This is an article prepared with the aim of verifying, based on constitutional and infraconstitutional legislation, the insufficiency, or even the non-existence, of the emergency constitutional prescriptions presents in the Constitution to face the problem from arising modern terrorism. The question that motivated the research is the doubt about the sufficiency of the existing mechanisms to face terrorist attacks, mainly the concomitant or successive ones. The hypothesis is that the current mechanisms, ordinary and constitutional, are insuficiente. To develop the work, approaches, at first, the state of siege and the state of defense, which are inscribed in Part V of the Constitucion. Next, a brief analysis of federal law aimed at repressing terrorism is presented, with emphasis on Law 13.260/2016. Finally, a comparison is made between the law and the constitutional emergency model proposed by Bruce Ackerman. Initially this comparison develops through the verification of terrorism as a phenomenon that transcends common criminality, to check, in a second moment, existing emergency constitutional prescription lend themselves, or not, to confront that problem. The legal research methodology adopted for article was dogmatic, through documentary and bibliographical research.