FGV-SP 2019: To be answered in English

FGV-SP 2019: Inglês - QUESTÃO 02 (Direito) FGV-SP 2019: To be answered in English (This question tests your ability to express yourself ...

FGV-SP 2019: Inglês - QUESTÃO 02 (Direito)

FGV-SP 2019: To be answered in English
(This question tests your ability to express yourself in a manner that is clear, precise, and relevant. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)

Allowing a person or entity that has freely entered a partnership or association to leave that partnership or association can be controversial. For example, although it is often a simple matter to quit a job, “quitting” the Armed Forces in time of war, even if you are a volunteer, is a crime. And one need only remember that some decades ago divorce was illegal in Brazil.

The United States came into being when 13 separate English colonies decided to leave the British Empire and form a federal union. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the introduction to the Declaration of Independence, in 1776:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident:
that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights;
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness;
that to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed;
that whenever any form of government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness.”

By 1860, however, the Southern states, believing that what they considered the tyranny of the Northern states and the Federal Government was threatening their way of life, a way of life supported by the institution of legalized slavery (which the South wanted not only to preserve but also to extend into new territories in the West), decided they had the right to secede and to form their own country, the Confederate States ofAmerica. PresidentAbraham Lincoln declared they did not have such a right, and a bloody civil war ensued, at first to preserve the union but eventually to abolish slavery forever in the United States. At the war’s end, the South was all but destroyed.

You should keep in mind that the Southerners wanted to preserve their independence and the inviolability of their culture – to “take back control,” so to speak. Moreover, at the beginning of the war, owning slaves, while controversial, was certainly not illegal, at least not in the South. You should keep in mind as well that had the Confederate States of America succeeded, it would have been the first country in history founded upon the idea of eternal slave labor and that, even before the war, Lincoln had said publicly, “If the Negro is a man, why then my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal’; and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.”

In your opinion, therefore, did the South, which had voluntarily become part of the United States, have the right to secede? What about the rights of those human beings the South kept in bondage [escravidão]? If the South had not permitted slavery, would it then have had the right to leave the United States – or would the existence or nonexistence of slavery have been irrelevant in this question?

Furthermore, is it possible that Brexit – which is also causing serious personal, economic, and diplomatic problems for Britain and Europe, but has not led to war – could be right, but the South’s attempted secession wrong? How are the two situations similar or different? In short, when may a geopolitical entity be justified in separating itself from a union with other geopolitical entities? What should be the guiding principle: law, morality, common sense?

In answering, you should present clear, well-balanced, and specific reasons for your point of view.

QUESTÃO ANTERIOR:
- FGV-SP 2019: This question tests your understanding of the text, as well as your ability to identify

RESOLUÇÃO:
Nesta questão, o candidato deveria posicionar-se em relação ao fato de o Sul dos EUA ter ou não o direito de separar-se do Norte. Seguem-se abaixo alguns pontos que poderiam ser explorados pelos candidatos, a depender de seu ponto de vista.

1) Os motivos que levaram o Sul a querer a separação do Norte: A tirania do Norte e o governo federal, que estavam ameaçando seu modo de vida. Queriam preservar sua independência e a inviolabilidade de sua cultura – assumir o controle por assim dizer.

2) Teriam os estados do Sul o direito de preservar sua independência baseada no sistema escravagista de produção? Lincoln defendia que não, já que se todos os homenssão criadosiguais, não pode existir um direito moral que justifique um homem escravizando outro homem.

3) Discutir também se o direito dos escravos estaria acima dos direitos dos cidadãos do Sul, utilizando-se como sugestão, a introdução da Declaração de Independência, escrita em 1776.

4) Ao discutir se a escravidão seria ou não um impeditivo para a independência dos estados do Sul, o candidato poderia questionar os motivos econômicos que levaram os estados do Norte a defender a união. Seriam somente motivos humanitários? Ou haveria um motivo de expansão de mercados, por exemplo?

5) Ao comparar o direito do Sul dos EUA e do Reino Unido de se separarem de seus respectivos acordos políticos e econômicos, o candidato poderia levantar a questão da soberania dos Estados e dos governos que representam esses Estados. Ao apontar uma semelhança, o candidato poderia referir-se ao fato de que tais associações não mais interessavam aos seus cidadãos e que, embora não haja uma guerra formal como houve na Guerra de Secessão, o Reino Unido vive hoje um clima de guerra econômica ao ter de equalizar os interesses internos com o interesse de sua população que hoje vive na Europa continental.

6) Por fim, uma questão extremamente relevante seria discutir se os princípios orientadores deste conflito deveriam ser banalizados pela lei, moralidade e senso comum. Em uma visão mais legalista, o candidato poderia questionar os contratos que edificaram tais acordos e se esses contratos previam cláusulas de saída dos blocos, como exemplo, o artigo 50 do Tratado da União Europeia. Por outro lado, questões morais e senso comum poderiam ser levantados. Quais as consequências para ambas as partes? Isso afetaria o modo de vida da população? Haveria uma forma de rever tal decisão? A paz mundial seria afetada?

PRÓXIMA QUESTÃO:
- FGV-SP 2019: To be answered in English