Regularização fundiária do território Kalunga ante o processo discriminatório das terras de Cavalcante/GO
Carregando...
Data
Autores
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Federal de Goiás
Resumo
This dissertation analyzes the process of (non)regularization of land tenure in the Kalunga
Quilombo Territory (TQK). The research problem focuses on the failure to guarantee the
territorial rights of the Kalunga people, supported by Article 68 of the Transitional
Constitutional Provisions (ADCT/CF), as well as other national and international provisions.
The safeguarding of territories for traditional communities constitutes a fundamental right, as
these communities do not exist without their territories—a fact that underscores the relevance
and justification for this study. Our research hypothesis is that part of the private properties
established in the TQK, through discriminatory land actions, was irregularly consolidated.
Methodologically, a predominantly qualitative approach will be adopted, using the hypotheticodeductive method to analyze the formation of real estate properties in the Kalunga territory
through documentary analysis, with the primary source being the judicial discriminatory
process of the lands in Cavalcante/GO and maps of the region. The historical method of
investigation and a literature review will also be employed. The specific objectives were: 1) To
investigate the origins of the Kalunga quilombo and the constitution of its territory; 2) To
discuss the formation of private land ownership in Brazil; and 3) To analyze the discriminatory
process of the lands in Cavalcante (GO) and the actions (or inaction) of the State of Goiás, the
Federal Government, and INCRA regarding the (non)titling of the TQK. The results indicate
that Article 150 of the 1947 Constitution of the State of Goiás was responsible for designating
the region's unallocated lands. Evidence of irregularities was identified in some properties
excluded from the discriminatory action in Cavalcante, as well as negligence by the competent
authorities regarding the obligations set forth in Article 68 of the ADCT, given that only 8.58%
of the TQK has been definitively titled.