Limites e possibilidades do direito administrativo global: análise do relatório de avaliação da OCDE sobre o sistema de integridade da administração pública federal brasileira

Abstract

In the context of a hyper-complex, multicentric society with an international state, nonstate and mixed organization, an academic proposal for Global Administrative Law emerges at the New York University School of Law in the USA, at the beginning of the 21st century. The aim of this paper is to reflect on the contemporary process of administrative regulation built on a global level. In this perspective, the core is to analyze the limits and possibilities of this theoretical proposal. The methodology used is preliminarily bibliographic, articulating the discussion between sociology and the theories of constitutionalism today. Subsequently, it appears that the categorical body built within the scope of legal dogmatics is not sufficient to solve burning problems of the 21st century - eminently cross-border. This insufficiency of dogmatics is related to the type of rationality with which Law has been constituted. Therefore, it is essential to analyze some aspects that demonstrate the overthrow of purpose-oriented rationality (Zweckrationalität), both within the scope of cognitive and normative expectations. Taking into account that the reflection in the Law is indirect, a case study was used, specifically the OECD Evaluation on the Integrity System of the Brazilian Federal Public Administration. It is observed, in this analysis, that the OECD's concerns are umbilically connected with a rationality aimed at certain ends (Zweckrationalität). It was inferred, in this way, that the DAG has advanced in the sense of abandoning neo- Weberianism - new ways of building legitimacy - in an attempt to rationalize what legitimizes the international political order that is in place. Operationalized Law, in these terms, is a bureaucratic substitutionary instrument for the political representativeness of nation-states in favor of particularist interests. The conclusion of the present study is that the legitimacy and legality of global level guidelines / standards must follow a general principle of inclusion and this must be built with a focus on another rationality. Dogmatics, in these terms, cannot be subservient to the particularistic languages of the “market” at the global level, it must epistemically constrain and present possible solutions to contemporary problems.