The present thesis approachs how Westiphalian institutional arrangements work for the settlement of problems ensuing the rising of a pluralist system. The hypothesis to be verified is that conflicts among international law regimes will settled without prevalence of the rationality of a regime over the other's in those cases where (1) there was little institutional asymetry between conflicting regimes and (2) the conflict was object of public deliberation involving State and non state actors widely (private sector, academia and civil society organizations). Against this backdrop, I argue that the study of international regimes interaction shall necessarily aim at "legitimate" answers. Firstly, legitimacy as the non empire of a specific regime rationality; and secondly legitimacy as an objective for each international regime comprehending the elements of my hypotheses (strengthening of institutional features and public sphere).
News published in Agência FAPESP Newsletter about the scholarship: