Concurrent legislative competences in matters of environmental law
The interpretative ambiguity noted in the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court and federal legislation as a minimum protective standard
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12957/publicum.2024.87971Keywords:
environmental law, concurrent competence, federalism, constitutional jurisdictionAbstract
The article deals with the difficulties of interpreting and applying the concurrent legislative competences established in the Federal Constitution of 1988, particularly in matters of environmental law. There has been a hypertrophy of federal regulations to the detriment of the supplementary space of the state legislators. At the same time, the semantic ambiguities and polysemy of the constitutional text make it difficult to draw a precise line between federal normativity and local supplementation. An interpretative ambiguity can be noted in the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court, sometimes leaning in favor of federal competence, sometimes ensuring the space of the state legislator. However, federal legislation is often seen as a minimum protective standard from which the local legislator is not allowed to retreat. In view of the centrality of the environmental agenda, it would be desirable to build more solid jurisprudential parameters, encouraging the advancement of an effective ecological cooperative federalism.
References
BESSA ANTUNES, Paulo de. Federalismo e competências ambientais no Brasil. São Paulo: Editora Atlas S.A., 2ª Edição, 2015.
CAMPANHOLE, Adriano; CAMPANHOLE, Hilton Lobo (Orgs.) Constituições do Brasil (compilação e atualização dos textos, notas, revisão e índices). 13. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 1999.
COELHO, Luiz Fernando. A competência concorrente em matéria ambiental. Revista de Informação Legislativa, v. 29, n. 114, p. 63-72, abr.-jun. 1992.
FERRAZ JUNIOR, Tercio Sampaio. Normas gerais e competência concorrente: uma exegese do art. 24 da Constituição Federal. Revista Trimestral de Direito Público, n. 7, p. 16-20, 1994.
LOBO, Paulo Luiz Neto. Competência legislativa concorrente dos Estados-membros na Constituição de 1988. Revista de Informação Legislativa, v. 26, n. 101, p. 87-104, jan.-mar. 1989.
MOREIRA NETO, Diogo de Figueiredo. Competência concorrente limitada: o problema da conceituação das normas gerais. Revista de Informação Legislativa, v. 25, n. 100, p. 126-162, out.-dez. 1988.
PIRES, Thiago Magalhães. As Competências Legislativas na Constituição de 1988. Belo Horizonte: Fórum, 2015.
___________________________. Federalismo, flexibilidade e assimetria no direito brasileiro: agrupamentos municipais, convênios de cooperação e consórcios públicos. Revista de Direito Administrativo, Rio de Janeiro, v. 275, p. 125-154, maio/ago. 2017.
___________________________. O poder constituinte decorrente no Brasil: entre a Constituição e o Supremo Tribunal Federal. A&C – Revista de Direito Administrativo e Constitucional, Belo Horizonte, ano 18, n. 71, p. 295-314, jan./mar. 2018.
___________________________. Federalismo para quem? Um balanço aos 30 anos da Constituição de 1988. Revista Publicum: Rio de Janeiro, v. 4, Edição Comemorativa, 2018, p. 63-84.
SARLET, Ingo Wolfgang; FENSTERSEIFER, Tiago. STF e a solução de conflitos de competências legislativas em matéria ambiental. Acessível em: https://www.conjur.com.br/2020-jan-17/direitos-fundamentais-stf-conflitos-competencia-legislar-materia-ambiental?pagina=3
___________________________________________. Curso de direito ambiental. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Forense, 3ª Edição, 2022.
TOSTA, André Ribeiro. Instituições e o direito público: empirismo, inovação e um roteiro de análise. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, 1ª Edição, 2019.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Patricia Ferreira Baptista, Leonardo Antoun

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The author(s) of the paper declare(s) to know and agree to the following rules:
1) The author(s) undertook the work presented to the journal, being entirely responsible for the ideas and concepts therein transmitted, which do not necessarily correspond to the point of view of Publicum’s Editors.
2) The ethical principles alluded to in the evaluation policy of the journal [RDN1] were met in the conduction of the work presented to submission.
3) The author(s) assume(s) authorship and responsibility for their work, declaring that it does not infringe any third party intellectual property rights.
4) The author(s) take(s) full responsibility for moral or patrimonial damages that the distribution of the work may generate to third parties.
5) The author(s) grant(s) the journal the rights to reproduce, edit and first publish the paper in any media – in particular in digital form – in an electronic archive on the Internet.
6) The author(s) confer(s) the right to the editors to modify the text submitted, without prejudice of its contents, when necessary to standardize the presentation of the works and to meet the norms of the journals’ own edition.
7) The author(s) agree(s) to the final form of the paper approved by the journal.
8) The author(s) authorize(s) the disclosure of the paper in the channels of communication of the Faculty of Law of UERJ.
9) The author(s) agree(s) with the reproduction of short extracts from the paper in other UERJ publications.
10) The author(s) recognize(s) that, through the abovementioned assignment and authorizations, he/she/they will not receive payment under any modality, meaning these will have the nature of scientific collaboration.
11) The author(s) is(are) aware that publication of the work may be refused if it is not considered appropriate, for any reason, whatsoever, and such refusal does not create responsibility and/or burdens of any kind to the journal or UERJ.
[RDN1]Ver COPE.
Publicum está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.