"LEGAL REASONING IN REGIONAL SYSTEMS FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: study from topic-argumentative construction of rights about same-sex unions at the international level".
Legal reasoning, international human rights law, international case law, same-sex unions, international litigation.
The study discusses the contributions that theories of legal argumentation can offer to the practice of international human rights law. Initially, the historical and objective convergences that bring these two branches of law together are presented, with the observation that both emerge in the context of the second post-war period and have a strong concern to build a mechanism for controlling state power. From this premise, the institutional aspects of the current regional systems for the protection of human rights are examined, which reveal their topicalargumentative orientation, and empirical research is proposed to verify the activities of argumentation and topoi development in these international systems regarding the rights about from same-sex unions. It is extracted from the empirical analysis that, while the normative basis used in the regional systems in the analysis of the theme remained stable, the topoi catalogs applicable to same-sex unions were being significantly altered over time. The topical movements observed were only possible due to the articulation of arguments of different types in the resolution of concrete problems submitted to the analysis of conventional interpretive bodies. In the end, the empirical analysis made it possible to discuss possible criteria for evaluating the quality of international decisions on human rights. These general criteria are not absolute or exhaustive, but they offer a way for a rational discussion of the decision-making practice in development at the international level.