Abstract
We investigate judiciary decision-making patterns regarding property rights conflicts between native Brazilians and rural farmers in the Midwest region of Brazil. Our main contribution is the use of the qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) method for the evaluation of the issue. We use QCA to examine a unique database composed of cases heard by a regional federal court in Brazil between 1999 and 2013. Our empirical analysis is based on the outcomes of the individual judicial procedures along with the specific laws and jurisprudences evoked by the federal judges in making their decisions. We find evidence that a major case settled by the Brazilian Supreme Court in 2009, celebrated as a landmark in national jurisprudence and expected to bring stability to the conflicts, did not have this effect on lower courts’ judgments. In fact, the 2009 decision triggered a proliferation of different interpretations among judges about how to analyze the land conflicts, thus changing the structure of the judges’ decisions. Based on these findings, we can shed new light on the dynamics of judicial decision-making regarding property rights conflicts of indigenous lands in Brazil.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Note Binscatter plot with a non-parametric estimation using 20 bins and discontinuity point on the year 2009 (STF decision over Raposa Serra do Sol case). The estimation was performed controlling by jurisprudence, plaintiff and defendant variables
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
de Oliveira and Garoupa (2012) note that stare decisis (as well as certiroari) "[responds] to a long debate in the Brazilian legal community on […] the role of the higher courts in establishing case law” (p. 555).
These data are refuted by the Federation of Agriculture and Livestock of Mato Grosso do Sul (Famasul 2013). According to a survey conducted by the State Secretary of Justice and Public Security, there were 27 homicides against Indians in 2011, and in 18 cases Indians committed the murders. Moreover, in the 7 cases the authors could not identify, the reasons were interpersonal disputes among Indians themselves. In any case, data confirm the degree of violence in the region. Considering the suicide rate of indigenous people in Mato Grosso do Sul—50% of the national number of suicides in 2011 (CIMI 2011)—the severity of the social scenario is obvious.
Ordinances nos. 788, 789, 790, 791, 792 and 793 from July, 2008.
As a usual rule, native Brazilians as individuals are not allowed to be an active party in litigation since the law does not recognize them as legally capable. The Federal Union or FUNAI is their usual representative. Only under very special circumstances are native Brazilians allowed to represent themselves in a legal suit.
Our sample included six cases in which a judicial decision appeared as the “defendant” party. These were usually situations where plaintiffs appealed against a particular decision, arguing ambiguity or unclearness from the judge. In Brazilian civil procedure, this kind of appeal is called Embargos de Declaração.
Differently from QCA, which is based on deterministic causality, econometric models such as OLS and Bootstrap OLS are based on a probabilistic causality.
References
Andrews, R., Beynon, M. J., & McDermott, A. M. (2015). Organization capability in the public sector: A configurational approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 239–258.
Aversa, P., Furnari, S., & Haefliger, S. (2015). Business model configurations and performance: A qualitative comparative analysis in Formula One racing, 2005–2013. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(3), 655–676.
Bell, R. G., Filatotchev, I., & Aguilera, R. V. (2014). Corporate governance and investors’ perceptions of foreign IPO value: An institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 301–320.
Brousseau, E., & Raynaud, E. (2007). Climbing the hierarchical ladders of rules: The dynamics of Institutional Framework. In 11th annual conference International Society for New Institutional Economics (ISNIE) June 21–23, 2007 May 2008. Reykjavík.
Camilo, A. S. F. (2010). O STF, a Condicionante no 17 do caso ‘Raposa Serra do Sol’e a sua possível repercussão na demarcação das terras indígenas no Ceará [The STF, Condition 17 of the Raposa Serra do Sol case and its possible repercussion in the demarcation of indigenous lands in Ceara]. Proceedings of the XIX National Meeting of CONPEDI (National Council for Research and Postgraduate Law). http://www.publicadireito.com.br/conpedi/manaus/arquivos/anais/fortaleza/3830.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2019.
Campbell, J. T., Sirmon, D. G., & Schijven, M. (2016). Fuzzy logic and the market: A configurational approach to investor perceptions of acquisition announcements. Academy of Management Journal, 59(1), 163–187.
Caren, N., & Panofsky, A. (2005). A technique for adding temporality to qualitative. Sociological Methods and Research, 34(2), 147–172.
de Oliveira, M. A. J. S. C., & Garoupa, N. (2012). Stare decisis and certiorari arrive to Brazil: A comparative law and economics approach. Emory International Law Review, 26, 555–598.
Dwivedi, P., Joshi, A., & Misangyi, V. F. (2018). Gender-inclusive gatekeeping: How (mostly male) predecessors influence the success of female CEOs. Academy of Management Journal, 61(2), 379–404.
Ferraz Junior, T. S. (2004). A demarcação de terras indígenas e seu fundamento constitucional [The demarcation of indigenous lands and its constitutional basis]. Revista Brasileira de Direito Constitucional, 3, 689–699.
Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198.
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.
Fon, V., & Parisi, F. (2006). Judicial precedents in civil law systems: A dynamic analysis. International Review of Law and Economics, 26(4), 519–535.
Griffiths, T. (2004). Indigenous peoples, land tenure and land policy in Latin America. Journal of Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives, 41(1), 46–63.
Heck, E., Loebens, F., & Carvalho, P. D. (2005). Amazônia indígena: Conquistas e desafios [Indigenous Amazon: Achievements and challenges]. Estudos Avançados, 19(53), 237–255.
Judge, W. Q., Fainshmidt, S., & Lee Brown, J., III. (2014). Which model of capitalism best delivers both wealth and equality? Journal of International Business Studies, 45(4), 363–386.
Lauriola, E. M. (2003). Amazônia em movimento: “redes” e percursos entre os índios Ye’kuana, Roraima [Amazon in motion: “Networks” and routes among the Ye’kuana Indians, Roraima]. Cadernos de Campo (São Paulo, 1991), 11(11), 21.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Plant, R., & Hvalkof, S. (2001). Land titling and indigenous peoples. Inter-American Development Bank, IND-109. Washington.
Ragin, C. C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291–310.
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. Annals of Physics, 54(2), 225–235.
Rangel, L. H. (2011). Violência contra os povos indígenas no Brasil [Violence against indigenous peoples in Brazil]. Campo Grande: Brazilian Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI).
Rihoux, B., & Ragin, C. C. (2009). Configurational comparative methods qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. (SAGE, Ed.) (Applied So). London and Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Souza, M. N., & Barbosa, E. M. (2011). Direitos indígenas fundamentais e sua tutela na ordem jurídica brasileira [Basic indigenous rights and their protection in the Brazilian legal system]. Âmbito Jurídico, XIV(85). https://ambitojuridico.com.br/cadernos/direito-constitucional/direitos-indigenas-fundamentais-e-sua-tutela-na-ordem-juridicabrasileira/. Accessed 1 July 2019.
Stepner, M. (2013). BINSCATTER: Stata module to generate binned scatterplots. Statistical Software Components, Boston College Department of Economics, October.
Thiem, A., & Dusa, A. (2013). Boolean minimization in social science research: A review of current software for qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Social Science Computer Review, 31(4), 505–521.
Tóth, Z., Thiesbrummel, C., Henneberg, S. C., & Naudé, P. (2015). Understanding configurations of relational attractiveness of the customer firm using fuzzy set QCA. Journal of Business Research, 68(3), 723–734.
UN. (2018). Informe de la Relatora Especial sobre los derechos de los pueblos indígenas [Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples]. New York, NY. http://www.hchr.org.mx/images/doc_pub/2018-mexico-a-hrc-39-17-add2-sp.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2018.
Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVIII(September), 595–613.
Yatchew, A. (2003). Semiparametric regression for the applied econometrician. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yeung, L. L. (2019). Bias, insecurity and the level of trust in the judiciary: The case of Brazil. Journal of Institutional Economics, 15(1), 163–188.
Acknowledgements
We thank, without implicating, Vincy Fon, the editor and reviewers for their valuable comments. Preliminary versions of this article were presented at the 3rd Economic Analysis of Litigation Workshop (France), XVII Annual Conference of the Latin American and Iberian Law and Economics Association (Brazil) and the VIII Research Workshop on Institutions and Organizations (Brazil).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Case search methodology
1.1 Database and sample
All cases used for the construction of our sample are real litigation cases effectively judged by the Third Regional Federal Court (TRF-3). This is a second-degree, appellate court that deals with the cases in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul. The judicial cases are available in digital file format on the TRF-3 website, on the “TRF-3 Jurisprudence” page (in the original: “Jurisprudência/Consultar Jurisprudência”). For our search, we used the following keywords “indigenous people” (in the original: “indígenas”), “lands” (in the original: “terras”) and “MS” (the abbreviation for the state of Mato Grosso do Sul). We further eliminated a few cases that referred to conflicts in the state of São Paulo (the second state covered by TRF-3). We concluded the search for all cases judged until July 20th, 2013. A total of 98 cases fulfilled the above requirements, and from this total, we created a sample of 60 cases for the current study.
1.2 Variables
For each case in our sample, we analyzed the following variables:
-
Variable 1: Was the court’s decision in favor of the indigenous people? The results are classified as \(x = 1\) (totally favorable); \(x = 2\) (partially favorable); \(x = 3\) (totally favorable to rural producers and/or totally unfavorable to the indigenous people). In legal terms, \(x = 1\) occurs when the decision of an appeal brought by the indigenous people’s representatives (FUNAI, Federal Prosecution Service, the Federal Union, etc.) is “admitted and deferred”, or when one appeal brought to TRF-3 by rural producers or by their representatives is “denied” and/or “not deferred”. Likewise, \(x = 3\) occurs when a lawsuit brought by indigenous representatives is not admitted and/or not deferred, or when an claim brought by the farmers or their representatives is deferred. The variable will be classified as \(x = 2\) if the decision partially defers the interests of indigenous people, and partly the interests of rural producers.
-
Variable 2: Did the judge at TRF-3 amended the lower court decision? (\(y = 1\) for “yes” and \({\text{y}} = 2\) for “no”).
-
Variable 3: type of parties involved in the litigation, i.e. who is the plaintiff, and who is the defendant in the case (see description on Sect. 3).
We also incorporate some control variables (not all of them used in the final regression models):
-
The Judge-Rapporteur of the case;
-
Trial date at the TRF-3;
-
The Municipality where the conflict occurred;
-
Whether the decision by TRF-3 was unanimous or not;
-
Juridical citations by the rapporteurs. As is customary in Brazilian courts, the rapporteur formats his/her decision based on legal norms or previous jurisprudence. For this specific case (indigenous peoples’ land conflicts), citations are mostly related to:
-
The Statute of the Indigenous People;
-
The 1988 Federal Constitution;
-
The Decree N. 1775 of 1996;
-
The Raposa Serra do Sol case, ruled by the Federal Supreme Court in 2009.
-
Appendix 2: Sample analyzed
TRF-3 Case ID | Judge-Rapporteur | Year of TRF-3 decision | Type of plaintiff (principal) | Type of plaintiff (secondary) | Type of defendant (principal) | Type of plaintiff (secondary) | County of origin (of the lawsuit) | Decision | Was the decision unanimous? | Did the decision reform a previous one? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2000.03.00.040816-3 | Mauricio Kato | 2002 | 1 | 3 | 3 | Campo Grande | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
2000.60.00.002532-9 | Suzana Camargo | 2006 | 3 | 3 | 1 | Campo Grande | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
2001.03.99.021064-0 | Marcio Mesquita | 2013 | 3 | 6 | Campo Grande | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||
2001.03.99.021064-0 | Leonel Ferreira | 2012 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | Campo Grande | 3 | 1 | 2 |
2001.60.00.003866-3 | Nelton Dos Santos | 2012 | 1 | 3 | 3 | N.A. | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
2001.60.02.001314-3 | Marcio Mesquita | 2007 | 3 | 1 | Dourados | 3 | 2 | 2 | ||
2003.03.00.017161-9 | Erik Gramstrup | 2004 | 3 | 1 | Campo Grande | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
2003.03.00.017162-0 | Erik Gramstrup | 2004 | 3 | 1 | Campo Grande | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
2003.03.00.054549-0 | Erik Gramstrup | 2004 | 1 | 3 | 1 | Campo Grande | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
2003.03.00.054550-7 | Erik Gramstrup | 2004 | 1 | 3 | Campo Grande | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
2003.03.00.057024-7 | Erik Gramstrup | 2004 | 1 | 3 | 3 | Campo Grande | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
2003.03.00.057027-7 | Erik Gramstrup | 2004 | 1 | 3 | 3 | Campo Grande | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
2003.60.00.005222-0 | Nelton Dos Santos | 2012 | 1 | 3 | 3 | Aquidauana | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
2003.60.00.011984-2 | Ramza Tartuce | 2013 | 1 | 3 | 3 | Aquidauana | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
2003.60.02.002540-3 | Vesna Kolmar | 2012 | 3 | 1 | 1 | Dourados | 1 | 1 | ||
2004.03.00.003087-1 | Ana Pezarini | 2005 | 3 | 3 | 1 | Dourados | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
2004.03.00.003118-8 | Antonio Cedenho | 2012 | 3 | 3 | 6 | Dourados | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
2004.03.00.003121-8 | Antonio Cedenho | 2012 | 3 | 3 | 6 | Dourados | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
2004.03.00.066491-4 | Ramza Tartuce | 2005 | 3 | 1 | Dourados | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
2004.60.00.004489-5 | Ramza Tartuce | 2008 | 3 | 1 | Campo Grande | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
2004.60.05.001250-6 | Valdeci Dos Santos | 2009 | 3 | 3 | 1 | Navirai | 2 | 1 | 1 | |
2005.03.00.002956-3 | Suzana Camargo | 2005 | 3 | 1 | Campo Grande | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
2005.03.00.006042-9 | Suzana Camargo | 2006 | 4 | 3 | 1 | Campo Grande | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
2005.03.00.031889-5 | Cecilia Mello | 2011 | 3 | 6 | 1 | Ponta Pora | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
2005.03.00.063274-7 | Suzana Camargo | 2005 | 3 | 1 | Navirai | 1 | 2 | 1 | ||
2005.03.00.064533-0 | Henrique Herkenhoff | 2009 | 3 | 3 | 1 | Dourados | 3 | 1 | 2 | |
2005.03.00.075141-4 | Ramza Tartuce | 2009 | 3 | 3 | 1 | Campo Grande | 3 | 1 | 1 | |
2006.03.00.003784-9 | Antonio Cedenho | 2013 | 1 | 6 | 3 | Campo Grande | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
2006.03.00.089251-8 | Valdeci Dos Santos | 2009 | 3 | 1 | Ponta Pora | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
2006.03.00.089688-3 | Valdeci Dos Santos | 2009 | 3 | 1 | Ponta Pora | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
2006.03.00.105849-6 | Valdeci Dos Santos | 2009 | 3 | 3 | Ponta Pora | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
2006.03.00.107230-4 | Henrique Herkenhoff | 2008 | 3 | 1 | Campo Grande | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
2007.03.00.032225-1 | Henrique Herkenhoff | 2008 | 3 | 1 | Navirai | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
2007.03.00.056925-6 | Márcio Mesquita | 2008 | 3 | 1 | Navirai | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
2007.03.00.095897-2 | Johonsom Di Salvo | 2008 | 1 | 3 | 3 | Ponta Pora | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
2007.03.99.046388-0 | Vesna Kolmar | 2009 | 1 | 5 | 3 | Maracaju | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
2008.03.00.007690-6 | André Nekatschalow | 2013 | 2 | 3 | Navirai | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
2008.03.00.044546-8 | Antonio Cedenho | 2013 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | Campo Grande | 2 | 1 | 1 |
2008.60.00.007863-1 | Henrique Herkenhoff | 2010 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | Campo Grande | 3 | 1 | 2 |
2008.60.00.012813-0 | Ricardo China | 2009 | 2 | 3 | N.A. | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
2008.60.05.001990-7 | José Lunardelli | 2013 | 5 | 3 | Ponta Pora | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
2008.60.05.001990-7 | José Lunardelli | 2013 | 5 | 3 | Ponta Pora | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
2008.60.06.001056-1 | Johonsom Di Salvo | 2012 | 5 | 3 | 3 | Navirai | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
2009.03.00.003297-0 | Baptista Ferreira | 2009 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | Campo Grande | 3 | 2 | 1 |
2009.03.00.003617-2 | José Lunardelli | 2011 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | Campo Grande | 3 | 2 | 2 |
2009.60.00.002638-6 | Antonio Cedenho | 2013 | 3 | 3 | 2 | Campo Grande | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
2010.03.00.035201-1 | Desembargador Federal Presidente | 2013 | 3 | 3 | 1 | Ponta Pora | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
2010.60.05.000156-9 | Raquel Perrini | 2012 | 3 | 5 | Ponta Pora | 3 | 1 | 2 | ||
2012.03.00.000072-3 | Desembargador Federal Presidente | 2013 | 3 | 6 | 1 | Navirai | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
2012.03.00.002512-4 | Vesna Kolmar | 2013 | 2 | 3 | 3 | Dourados | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
2012.03.00.010076-6 | Paulo Domingues | 2012 | 3 | 1 | Ponta Pora | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
2012.03.00.010911-3 | Paulo Domingues | 2012 | 3 | 1 | Ponta Pora | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
2013.03.00.003543-2 | André Nekatschalow | 2013 | 2 | 3 | 3 | Ponta Pora | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
90.03.044950-3 | Suzana Camargo | 2002 | 1 | 3 | Porto-Murtinho | 1 | 2 | 2 | ||
92.03.038856-7 | Andre Nabarrete | 2002 | 1 | 3 | Porto-Murtinho | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
92.03.039146-0 | David Diniz | 2001 | 1 | 3 | Porto-Murtinho | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
92.03.079229-5 | Andre Nabarrete | 2002 | 1 | 3 | Porto-Murtinho | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
93.03.039001-6 | Theotonio Costa | 1999 | 1 | 3 | N.A. | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
93.03.074503-5 | Luiz Stefanini | 2007 | 3 | 1 | Campo Grande | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
95.03.022717-8 | Marcelo Duarte | 2009 | 1 | 3 | Campo Grande | 2 | 1 | 1 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Monteiro, G.F.A., Yeung, L.LT., Caleman, S.M.Q. et al. Indigenous land demarcation conflicts in Brazil: Has the Supreme Court’s decision brought (in)stability?. Eur J Law Econ 48, 267–290 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-019-09628-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-019-09628-3