UMA ANÁLISE COMPARADA DAS DECRETAÇÕES DE URGÊNCIA: MEDIDA PROVISÓRIA - BRASIL E DECRETO DE NECESSIDADE E URGÊNCIA – ARGENTINA

The present article discusses the issue of provisional measures, problematizes the reasons for their maintenance at such alarming levels from the quantitative point of view, in the meantime it engages in a systemic dialogue in the field of comparative law, where, making a counterpoint with the same institute in Argentine law, points out the similarities and distinctions of the decrees of urgency in the two countries, exposing the weaknesses and virtues of each one of them. The research was anchored in a technical and doctrinal bibliographical reference pertinent to the two nations, as well as in their respective Transparency Portals and constitutional legislation, having as a product the understanding that although these institutes are similar in many aspects, they have different reasons for the same problem, and should pay attention not only to the law, since in the Brazilian case, surely the greatest obstacle is the non-observance of the law in its entirety, which, combined with the omission and complicity of the other powers, produce and foment the current mismatch, especially between the executive and legislative branches, while in Argentina, the central incidence of the problem is not so evident in the procedures, but in the law itself, obviously respecting the peculiarities of each country and in particular the level of commitment to legal certainty.