A (IN)COMPATIBILIDADE ENTRE A METODOLOGIA DO TRANSCONSTITUCIONALISMO E A HERMENÊUTICA DIATÓPICA

Abstract

The perception of a global society brought with it new forms of interaction between different normative orders. Sometimes, the cultural differences between each normative order involved in a conflict can seem irreconcilable. Transconstitutionalism then proposes conversations to resolve constitutional conflicts between these different legal orders, far from imperialist or imposing perspectives, focusing on valuing an external perspective. In the same sense, diatopical hermeneutics proposes the resolution of conflicts involving human rights, in a third way to the clash between cultural universalism and relativism. In this context, we sought to answer whether the methodology of transconstitutionalism, according to the theory of Marcelo Neves, and diatopical hermeneutics, proposed by Boaventura de Sousa Santos, would be compatible and dialogue with each other. To this end, the study was structured into three sections, namely: (i) considerations about global society and its challenges; (ii) definitions and proposals for transconstitutionalism in this context; and (iii) analysis of diatopic hermeneutics and comparison with the methodology of transconstitutionalism. The methodological procedure used in this article was based on qualitative research and inductive, deductive and dialectical reasoning between the relevant theoretical frameworks, finding, in the end, that diatopical hermeneutics, despite distinctions in the object of study, corresponds with the methodology of transconstitutionalism, with both theories guided by inclusive, plural, cooperative and hierarchy-free dialogue, and can be used in a complementary way in resolving human rights conflicts in the multilevel global system.