REGIME CONSTITUCIONAL DO EMPREGO SOCIALMENTE PROTEGIDO: IMUNIDADE DE EXECUÇÃO E O REALINHAMENTO DO PRINCÍPIO DA RECIPROCIDADE DE TRATAMENTO.

Abstract

ABSTRACT: During the evolution of Labor Law in Brazil and in the World, we must not fail to observe the direct impact of the movement called Social Constitutionalism on the strengthening and stability of social rights, rooted in the Constitution of Mexico of 1917 and Germany of Weimar in 1919, and with repercussions in Brazil as from the 1934 Constitution. Since the Federal Constitution of 1988, there was no neutrality on the part of the constitutional legislator in the prescription of social rights, the effectiveness of which would be ensured internally, whether normative hierarchy linked to the traditional concept of sovereignty, or even, at the international level, for the contemporary recognition of labor law, as a social and economic aspect, of Human Rights, allowing the construction of the concept linked to the “Constitutional Regime for Socially Protected Employment”, which in the field of procedural law, challenges the overcome idea of ​​immunity from execution o, for the convergence and centrality of the protection of human rights before the international community. As a fundamental right confirmed in art. 4, item II, of the FC the Federative Republic of Brazil in its international relations assumes the uncompromising commitment to the “prevalence of human rights”, and it is not the interpreter's duty to exception when there is no space for such in the constitutional legislation, evidencing in the interpretation systematically the material competence of the Labor Court, without exceptions, to judge, which includes the execution of its own decisions, under penalty of complete uselessness of the movement of the judicial machine to prosecute and judge “entities of external public law” (art. 114 , item I, of the CF), which has not been observed by the jurisprudence of the Superior Labor Court, without specific manifestation of the Supreme Federal Court on the subject, due, even, by the anachronism of the provision of art. 32 of the Vienna Convention of 1961 in the current legal context, since the waiver of immunity would be a piece of fiction placed as a barrier to the realization of human rights: “the accrediting State can waive immunity from the jurisdiction of its diplomatic agents and persons who enjoy immunity under the terms of article 37. We have identified the need to realign the Principle of Reciprocity in the Treatment of International Law, with an analysis, including the existence, or not, of a constitutional seat.