This paper aims to address some of the issues concerning the production of intellectual works in public institutions, focusing particularly on textual content. Starting from a brief analysis of the legal protection granted to authors in Brazil, it problematizes the treatment generally given by public institutions to certain types of informational content produced by public servants. To achieve this objective, we examine the legislation, doctrine and jurisprudence related to the matter. As a result, we present some of our impressions on the subject, especially with regard to the issue of the right to naming and recognition of authorship, an aspect that needs to be more carefully addressed by the Public Administration and included in its knowledge management policies.
This article analyzes the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the public decision-making process from an institutionalist perspective, based on the premise that technology acts as a normative infrastructure that reconfigures legal rationality. It is demonstrated that AI promotes the transition from a Law based on deductive "completeness folklore" to a Law based on inductive evidence, combating the chronic organizational amnesia of institutions. The concept of qualified argumentative burden is proposed: a requirement of superior reasoning for deviations from the standards of coherence revealed by the machine, operationalized as an inversion of the burden of opacity and anchored in the constitutional duty of motivation. It examines the risk of the industrialization of error, the uncritical automation of historical biases on an algorithmic scale, and the institutional mechanisms of external validation of the legitimate rupture with unfair standards. The role of the contemporary jurist as curator, auditor and normative leader, responsible for ensuring that algorithmic efficiency does not colonize the constitutional mission of the State, is redefined. Finally, it is argued that digital thinking operates by irradiation, forcing the rereading of classic categories in all branches of the legal system, similar to the constitutionalization of private law. The apex of this process is Digital Constitutionalism, whose positive basis is found in Article 5, LXXIX, of CF/88, inserted by EC No. 115/2022, and whose central methodological instrument is the argumentative burden qualified as a parameter of constitutionality on a systemic scale.
The Brazilian Judiciary is increasingly tackling structural litigation, a phenomenon present at both the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court and the lower courts. The recent filing of a constitutional claim (ADPF n. 635) has highlighted that these complex cases can also reach the Inter-American Human Rights System. Cases as "Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil", judged by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, can be brought to the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court to enforce the structural remedies mandated by the international Court. This scenario presents the possibility of pursuing strategic litigation within the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which cannot be overlooked. This article, therefore, seeks to identify criteria for applying this strategy in paradigmatic cases to advance the rights of vulnerable groups. Employing a deductive method, the study is based on bibliographic and documentary research, including an analysis of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights judgments.
The fast spread of generative AI embedded in digital platforms has reshaped technology-facilitated sexual violence by enabling the large-scale creation and circulation of synthetic intimate content, including sexual deepfakes and "fake nudes". This article argues that AI should be understood not merely as a technical tool but as a social institution: it structures practices, incentives, and risks, producing foreseeable and systemic harms, disproportionately affecting women and girls. From this institutional lens, the paper highlights the limits of traditional legal categories-especially consent, which presupposes a free, prior human manifestation of will-an element absent in algorithmic manipulation of images and videos. The analysis then examines shortcomings of Brazilian legal responses, focusing on constitutional protections of dignity, honor, and image; the liability framework under the Marco Civil da Internet; Brazil's data protection law (LGPD); recent criminal law amendments; and Law No. 15.211/2025 (Digital ECA), emphasizing regulatory gaps, evidentiary challenges, and the inadequacy of purely reactive enforcement. Finally, the article advances an institutional-arrangements approach, calling for preventive and ongoing duties of due diligence, risk-mitigation "by design", coordinated institutional action, and public policies capable of addressing the massive, transnational, and automated nature of digital sexual violence.
This article analyzes the paradigm shift from sample-based auditing to a continuous, census-based model within Brazilian public internal control, mediated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). Drawing on New Sociological Institutionalism and the concept of "Algorithmic Institutionalism," the study investigates how analytical systems transcend their role as mere tools to become genuine institutions that shape bureaucratic behavior. Through a descriptive-analytical case study of the Comptroller General of the State of Rio de Janeiro (CGE-RJ), it demonstrates that data integration and graph-based analysis enable exhaustive and predictive oversight. However, the research reveals that algorithmic accountability requires explainability mechanisms and human-in-the-loop supervision to reconcile technological efficiency with the principles of administrative due process.
