Direitos Humanos

Actualmente vivimos en la Argentina una situación que se asemeja a la de un Estado que se consume en sí mismo y, perdiendo gradualmente su esencia política, asume características pre-naturales. Pareciera que nuestra Nación está recorriendo el camino inverso al que con una precisión magistralmente realista, aunque no necesariamente demasiado optimista ya que se trataba de elegir el mal menor , a mediados del S. XVII, describiera Thomas Hobbes, al presentar su modelo de sociedad y de Estado, ambos de origen contractual, surgiendo a partir de la ficción creada del estado natural del hombre, situación en que éste se hallaba en la condición que Hobbes denomina “de naturaleza”, es decir, de “guerra de todos contra todos”. La antropología de Hobbes parte de una definición del hombre en que éste es malo por naturaleza, por lo tanto será necesario ponerle límites. Textualmente, dice Hobbes, “el hombre es el lobo del hombre (homo homine lupus)”.

A Convenção inovou ao superar o aspecto meramente assistencialista da tutela da pessoa com deficiência. Cria-se um subsistema jurídico próprio para a defesa dos seus interesses. Desde a definição até aspectos processuais, a defesa dos seus direitos torna-se algo de direitos fundamentais na Constituição brasileira.

In the profit of human rights, there is no place for romantic issues. It´s a duty for all law careers. Students must be able to support those for which they work during the graduation. The prosecutor must pay attention to all interests during his routine. The lawyer has the ethic obligation of defend the justice. Judges should be able to answer those questions which begin by popular claims. There is no possible neutrality in law careers when the issue is the defense of rights.

This paper is an analysis of the Armenian Genocide (1915-1923) as an endogenous reaction of the Ottoman Empire against its own decadence and as an exogenous response to the great European powers in the First World War (1914-1918). In other words, the aim of this paper is to show how the Armenian Genocide was the result of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which is here presented as a paradigmatic phenomenon of the twentieth century. This hypothesis is analyzed by means of the study of the Ottoman Empire’s structures from its establishment until the fall of the sultanate, brought about by the Committee Union and Progress. This monograph also shows that the Armenian Genocide was an attempt by the Young Turks to support their country throughout the First World War by exterminating one and a half million people. By identifying the causes of the Genocide, an analysis is made of its consequences for the contemporary world – understood as a paradigmatic phenomenon of the twentieth century – and for the Armenian diaspora. The inner cohesion of this research is supported both by a specific bibliography about the massacres and by works which explain the world context at the time of the events analyzed herein.