Supreme Court v. Necropolitics: The Chaotic Judicialization of COVID-19 in Brazil

Worldwide, governments have reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic with emergency orders and policies restricting rights to movement, assembly, and education that have impacted daily lives and livelihoods in profound ways. But some leaders, such as President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, have resisted taking...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: João Biehl (Author), Lucas E. A. Prates (Author), Joseph J. Amon (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Harvard FXB Center for Health and Human Rights, 2020-06-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_caccc47da70b47cc9dadbe9f917eb074
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a João Biehl  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Lucas E. A. Prates  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Joseph J. Amon  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Supreme Court v. Necropolitics: The Chaotic Judicialization of COVID-19 in Brazil 
260 |b Harvard FXB Center for Health and Human Rights,   |c 2020-06-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 2150-4113 
500 |a 2150-4113 
520 |a Worldwide, governments have reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic with emergency orders and policies restricting rights to movement, assembly, and education that have impacted daily lives and livelihoods in profound ways. But some leaders, such as President Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, have resisted taking such steps, denying the seriousness of the pandemic and sabotaging local control measures, thereby compromising population health. Facing one of the world's highest rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths, multiple political actors in Brazil have resorted to judicialization to advance the right to health and other protections in the country. Responding to this litigation has provided the country's Supreme Court an opportunity to assertively confront and counter the executive's necropolitics. In this article, we probe the malleable form and the constitutional basis of the Supreme Court's decisions, assessing their impact on the separation of powers, on the protection of human rights (for example, on those of prisoners, indigenous peoples, and essential workers), and relative to the implementation of evidence-based interventions (for example, lockdowns and vaccination). While the court's actions open up a distinct legal-political field (sometimes called "supremocracy")-oscillating between progressive imperatives, neoliberal valuations, and conservative decisions-the capacity of the judiciary to significantly address systemic violence and to robustly advance human rights remains to be seen. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a Public aspects of medicine 
690 |a RA1-1270 
690 |a Social history and conditions. Social problems. Social reform 
690 |a HN1-995 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Health and Human Rights, Vol 23, Iss 1, Pp 151-162 (2020) 
787 0 |n https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2469/2021/06/Biehl.pdf 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/2150-4113 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/2150-4113 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/caccc47da70b47cc9dadbe9f917eb074  |z Connect to this object online.