Judiciário, desenvolvimento e necropolítica a partir da duplicação da BR-135

Abstract

This monographic study analyzes the actions of the Maranhão Judiciary in the socioenvironmental conflicts arising from the duplication of the BR-135 highway, a project that directly impacted quilombola communities in the Itapecuru Valley, in the Itapecuru-Mirim region (MA). The study starts from the observation that, since the second half of the 20th century, Maranhão has consolidated a development model based on large infrastructure, mining, and agribusiness projects, of which the BR-135, the main access corridor to the Port of Itaqui, constitutes a contemporary expression, generating tensions between developmentalist logic and the territorial rights of traditional peoples. The general objective of the research is to analyze the actions of the Maranhão Judiciary in conflicts related to development policies that affect traditional communities, in light of necropolitics theory, identifying their effects on the realization of human rights. The specific objectives include examining the theoretical foundations linking development, necropolitics, and human rights; understanding the historical process of implementing large projects in the state; investigating the legal conflicts generated by the project; and analyzing the arguments mobilized in judicial decisions. Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative approach, of an exploratory nature and interdisciplinary character, bringing together Law, Legal Sociology, and Development Studies. The research path is grounded in bibliographic, documentary, and jurisprudential research, with a survey of decisions on the website of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region (TRF-1), and Public Civil Action No. 1024159-16.2019.4.01.3700, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office against DNIT and the State of Maranhão, was selected as the case study. The theoretical basis of the study is anchored in discussions of Necropolitics (Mbembe, 2018), Development (Escobar, 2007), the State and symbolic power (Bourdieu, 2014), Territorialization (Almeida, 2002), Legal Pluralism (Wolkmer, 2001), and Environmental Justice (Acselrad, 2009). The results indicate that, although the Judiciary formally recognized the mandatory nature of the Quilombola Component Study and of free, prior, and informed consultation as provided for in ILO Convention 169, its actions repeatedly prioritized procedural aspects to the detriment of the substantive protection of collective rights: it authorized the resumption of construction works before the studies were completed, accepted the reduction of the consultation's radius of coverage from 40 to 10 km, and systematically denied quilombola associations direct participation in the proceedings. This decision-making pattern confirms the hypothesis that the Judiciary, even though constitutionally entrusted with protecting fundamental rights, tends to reproduce developmentalist rationalities that subordinate territorial and cultural rights to economic interests, functioning more as an instance of conflict management and containment than as an effective space for guaranteeing quilombola self-determination.