Rights Without Body-Territory - Why Colonial Constitutions Can Grant and Withdraw Humanity

Rights without body-territory are fragile because they can be granted by the same architecture that may one day withdraw them. The Greco-Roman colonial constitutional tradition taught the State to write rights in abstract language: person, property, contract, freedom, equality, citizenship, company, crime, punishment, representation. This language has been important for protecting many lives, but it remains incomplete when it does not ask which body sustains the right, which territory makes life possible, which biome regulates existence, and which Jiwasa prevents the human being from being reduced to voter, consumer, debtor, CPF, or labor force. The visible effect is formal citizenship; the hidden cause may be a State that has still not recognized where its own existence comes from.

The baby is not born wanting to capture the State. The baby is born trying to express Weichö: to create an inner world from the body, care, hunger, fear, imitation, language, affection, and territory. The problem begins when this baby grows up in a monetarist society that rewards those who master the rule, perform empathy, monetize attention, manipulate belonging, and accumulate without returning. In this environment, Weichö may learn that creating a world does not mean caring for the common world, but capturing the world of others. The constitutional cause, therefore, begins before the law: it begins in the type of civilization that teaches the child what it means to win.

Here appears the risk of social near-psychopaths, or functional false psychopaths. This is not about diagnosing individuals, politicians, religious leaders, economists, influencers, or businesspeople. It is about investigating structures that reward traits functionally similar to social psychopathy: coldness toward harm, instrumental use of others, the ability to perform morality, manipulation of belonging, narrative seduction, and absence of return to body-territory. The NeuroSoft text on psychopathy biomarkers helps shift the discussion away from moral insult and toward patterns of empathy, manipulation, coldness, and behavioral reading. In this text, the causal point is this: if society rewards capture, some Weichös will learn to capture.

These subjects do not always need to act against the law. They can act at its limit, in its margins, or work to change the law itself. Law becomes a technique of capture: legal opinion, lobbying, prescription, governance, compliance, CNPJ, fund, holding, tax thesis, public office, budget, media, and narrative. When harm appears, the real CPF hides behind the CNPJ, the board, the fund, the market, the auditor, the “systemic failure,” or technical complexity. The affected body-territory sees life deteriorate; the legal system sees a fragmented chain of responsibilities.

The Americanas case shows why this causality matters, without needing to condemn specific people outside the judicial process. The crisis came to light in 2023, when the company revealed multibillion-real accounting inconsistencies; in 2024, Reuters reported accusations and investigations involving former executives, insider trading, and an accounting fraud described by authorities as one of the largest in the history of the Brazilian financial market. The example serves to show the distance between CNPJ and CPF, between formal governance and real command, between systemic damage and delayed accountability. The law arrives, but often arrives after the social body-territory has already paid: suppliers, workers, small investors, public trust, and the market.

This is the limit of colonial constitutions: they can protect rights in the text and, at the same time, allow the economy to organize inner worlds against those rights. The State says that all are equal before the law, but the poor child learns early that their body will be watched; the rich child learns early that rules are instruments; the biome learns that it exists only when someone represents it; the community learns that it must prove harm; the CNPJ learns that it can operate with more shielding than the vulnerable CPF. Formal equality can hide material inequality. Formal citizenship can hide territorial expulsion. Formal freedom can hide debt. Formal legality can hide capture.

In Latin America, this fragility also appears when advanced rights remain vulnerable to constitutional changes or temporary majorities. Ecuador was the first country to recognize the rights of nature in its 2008 Constitution; in 2025, reports pointed to concerns among environmentalists and Indigenous leaders that a new constituent process could weaken those rights, especially in a context of mining and oil expansion. The lesson is clear: even rights of nature, when they remain trapped in traditional political architecture, can be reopened, rewritten, or reduced by forces that control money, media, fear, and representation.

At the same time, the region shows paths forward. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in its Advisory Opinion OC-32/25 on the climate emergency and human rights, requested by Chile and Colombia, affirmed the relationship between climate, substantive rights, procedural rights, Indigenous peoples, children, poverty, and vulnerable groups. The opinion itself records that States, courts, public entities, community organizations, and Indigenous peoples participated in the advisory process. This is an important advance: climate stops being an isolated environmental issue and becomes a condition of life. But the deeper turn is still missing: not only protecting rights affected by a wounded biome, but recognizing biome and body-territory as foundations of the State itself.

This turn requires overcoming the idea that the State grants humanity. The modern State often acts as if humanity comes from the document, the birth certificate, the CPF, nationality, contract, property, or vote. But the body comes first. Water comes first. Territory comes first. Forest comes first. Childhood comes first. Care comes first. The State does not create body-territory; it is born upon it. When a constitution forgets this, it may grant rights without changing the source of power. And everything that is merely granted can once again be conditioned, interpreted, reduced, suspended, or withdrawn.

For this reason, a body-territorial Constitution would not begin by asking only which rights the State offers the people. It would ask which State the body-territory authorizes to exist. It would ask which biome must have veto power. It would ask which limit prevents CPFs hidden behind CNPJs from controlling land, media, attention, and politics. It would ask which Citizen DREX returns yield to the territory. It would ask which National AI keeps high-impact cases alive so that money does not win through forgetting. It would ask which school protects the baby’s Weichö before monetization transforms intelligence into capture.

Constitutional Real Jiwasa begins when rights stop being a catalog and become metabolism. Water is not merely a right; it is a condition for the State’s existence. Housing is not merely public policy; it is Tekoha. Health is not merely a service; it is preservation of Nerope. Education is not merely curriculum; it is protection of Weichö. The environment is not merely a diffuse good; it is expanded body. Basic yield is not assistance; it is the return of original co-ownership. Participation is not a symbolic public hearing; it is body-territory saying what kind of State may act in its name.

This change also protects childhood against the formation of Weichös of capture. A body-territorial State does not educate the baby to win through manipulation, but to create worlds that return life. It does not reward only performance, monetization, influence, and accumulation. It rewards care, repair, traceability, cooperation, metacognition, bond, living biome, and shared prosperity. The best policy against social near-psychopathy is not moralism; it is an architecture of incentives. If society rewards those who capture, it will form capturers. If it rewards those who return, it will form builders of Real Jiwasa.

Rights without body-territory will remain vulnerable because they depend on the good will of a machine that can be captured. Rights with body-territory change the source of legitimacy: the State stops being the lord that grants humanity and becomes an instrument authorized by situated life. This is the central constitutional critique. The Greco-Roman colonial base can write beautiful promises, but if it does not refound property, money, childhood, biome, attention, CPF/CNPJ, and participation, it will continue allowing functional near-psychopaths to learn how to use the law to remove life without appearing violent.

The conclusion is direct: the people do not receive humanity from the State. The State receives existence from the people, from the territory, from water, from the biome, from childhood, and from the Jiwasa that sustains common life. A Constitution of the New World should not only protect conquered rights; it must prevent the architecture of power itself from continuing to form subjects capable of capturing those rights. Because a right that does not reach the body can become a promise. A right that does not reach the territory can become discourse. And a right that does not protect the baby’s Weichö can allow the next generation to learn how to transform intelligence into domination.

Selected references after 2021

NeuroSoft — “Biomarcador da psicopatia” — 2026

Helps support the distinction between individual diagnosis and the reading of social patterns linked to coldness, manipulation, low empathy, and instrumental use of others. In the text, this reference is used to think about “social near-psychopathy” as an effect of systems that reward capture, not as a clinical accusation against individuals.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Advisory Opinion OC-32/25: Climate Emergency and Human Rights — 2025

Supports the connection between climate emergency, human rights, Indigenous peoples, children, vulnerability, participation, information, and State duties. It helps show that climate and biome are already entering the field of rights, but must still be deepened as foundations of body-territory.

Time — “Ecuador’s Constitution Was the First to Protect the Rights of Nature. Now That’s at Risk” — 2025

Supports the example that even constitutional rights of nature can remain vulnerable to political and constitutional changes when the architecture of the State remains disputable by economic and extractive forces.

Mihnea Tănăsescu — “Rights of nature and rivers in Ecuador’s Constitutional Court” — 2024

Supports the discussion of Ecuadorian jurisprudence involving rights of nature, rivers, and bodies of water, showing advances and limits of transforming nature into a legal subject within existing constitutional institutions.

Mariana Carvalho Fuchs — “The Concept of Rights of Nature in Colombia and Ecuador” — 2025

Supports the comparison between Colombia and Ecuador on rights of nature in legislation and jurisprudence, helping think of the biome as a possible legal and political subject.

Laura Gamboa — “Courts against backsliding: Lessons from Latin America” — 2024

Supports the discussion of democratic backsliding and the role of courts in Latin America, helping show that formal rights depend on institutions capable of resisting political capture.

Reuters — Brazilian securities regulator accuses former Americanas executives of insider trading — 2024

Supports the careful use of the Americanas case as an example of complexity among CNPJ, governance, financial market, executives, accountability, and systemic damage, without asserting definitive guilt outside the legal process.

Reuters — former Americanas executive tied to fraud probe returns to Brazil — 2024

Supports the context of the investigation into alleged multibillion-real accounting fraud, searches, former executives, and impacts on the Brazilian financial market.

Martinelli Advogados — Brazilian update on beneficial ownership / UBO — 2026

Supports the need to trace ultimate beneficial owners and legal structures, connecting CPF, CNPJ, funds, and real control. It helps ground the critique of patrimonial concealment within corporate systems.

Kara-Kichwa Data Sovereignty Framework — 2026

Supports the idea of Indigenous and relational data sovereignty in Latin America, reinforcing that memory, territory, ancestry, and self-determination must enter the State’s legal and technological architecture.