O Trabalho Escravo Contemporâneo e os Usos Da História (Contemporary Slave Labor and the Uses of History)

The English version of a related article, containing the source notes, can be found at: ssrn.com/abstract=2292681.O uso da palavra “escravidao” para descrever varias formas contemporâneas de exploracao suscita questoes de definicao legal. A escravidao nas Americas no seculo dezenove estava ancorada na reivindicacao de propriedade sobre pessoas, portanto usar o termo para caracterizar abusos modernos, quando nenhum Estado reconhece mais a propriedade sobre pessoas, pode representar um risco de anacronismo. Em debates parlamentares recentes, tanto na Franca quanto no Brasil, a acusacao de anacronismo foi feita pelos opositores do reconhecimento legal do crime de escravizacao. Evidencias historicas demonstram, entretanto, que o exercicio dos poderes inerentes ao direito de propriedade nao necessariamente derivam de um previo direito legal a propriedade. O controle sobre pessoas, equivalente a posse, podia ocorrer fora da lei e no entanto ser reconhecido como propriedade legal apos o fato. Na justaposicao de um caso de 1810, de Nova Orleans, na Louisiana, com a situacao que deu origem a decisao do caso Siliadin v. Franca pela Corte Europeia de Direitos Humanos, esse artigo analisa os paralelos nas circunstâncias de escravidao urbana e os mecanismos atraves dos quais os “poderes inerentes ao direito de propriedade” foram exercidos, independente de qualquer direito de fato. O argumento apoia tanto a reforma do codigo penal frances para tornar o crime de escravizacao explicito, e a emenda proposta a Constituicao brasileira que elevaria as penas para o uso de trabalho escravo.As fontes documentais e arquivisticas para este ensaio podem ser encontradas no meu artigo “Under Color of Law: Siliadin vs France and the Dynamics of Enslavement in Historical Perspective”. In: Jean Allain (ed.). The Legal Understanding of Slavery: From the Historical to the Contemporary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Acesso em: ssrn.com/abstract=2292681.The use of the word “slavery” to describe various contemporary forms of exploitation raises questions of legal definition. Slavery in the 19th century Americas was rooted in the claim of property in persons, so using the term to characterize modern abuses, when no state any longer recognizes the ownership of persons, seems to pose a risk of anachronism. During recent parliamentary debates in both France and Brazil, the charge of anachronism has been levied by opponents of the explicit recognition in law of a criminal offense of enslavement. Historical evidence demonstrates, however, that the exercise of the powers attaching to a right of ownership did not, in fact, necessarily derive from a prior legal right of ownership. Control over persons, tantamount to possession, could occur quite outside the law, though it might be cognized as legal ownership after the fact. Juxtaposing an episode from New Orleans in 1810 with the situation that gave rise to the 2005 European Court of Human Rights decision in Siliadin v. France, the paper analyzes the parallels in the circumstances of urban slavery, and the mechanisms by which “powers attaching to a right of ownership” came to be exercised, quite independent of any actual right. The argument thus supports both the proposed 2013 reforms to the French penal code that would make the crime of enslavement explicit, and the proposed amendment to the Brazilian Constitution that would raise the penalties for the use of slave labor.