Autoridades relativas: resistencias constitucionales razonables en contra de las doctrinas de la Corte Interamericana

Yota Negishi

Resumen

Este artículo ilustra el razonamiento constitucional sobre el cual los tribunales nacionales muestran resistencia a relativizar las doctrinas de la Corte Interamericana. La Corte de San José ha dado un razonamiento constitucional en una doble dimensión, la doctrina del corpus juris internacional, y la doctrina del control de convencionalidad. La resistencia constitucional razonable contra tales doctrinas autorizadas interamericanas se ha manifestado en casos recientes relativos a la amnistía en la justicia transicional, los derechos conflictivos entre partes privadas y la invalidación de las decisiones internas. Para superar las reacciones recíprocas mutuas entre jueces interamericanos y nacionales, este artículo busca su potencial de una interacción más armoniosa y orientada a la democracia sobre la base del razonamiento constitucional compartido.


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18272/iu.v21i21.1137

Palabras clave

Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos; Corpus juris internacional; Control de convencionalidad; Doctrina constitucional; Resistencia razonable; Autoridad relativa de ley

Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias

Acosta López, J. I. (2016). The Inter-American Human Rights System and the Colombian Peace: Redefining the Fight Against Impunity. American Journal of International Law, 110 (2), 178-182.

Barker, R, S. (2016). Inverting human rights: fte Inter-American Court versus Costa Rica. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 47 (4), 1-19.

Benavides Hernández, V. and Carvajal Pérez, M. (2016). El Caso Artavia Murillo vs. Costa Rica: control de convencionalidad en el proceso de cumplimiento de obligaciones internacionales. Revista IIDH/Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, 64, 347- 372.

Bessson, S. (2009). The authority of international law: lifting the state veil. Sydney Law Review, 31 (2), 343-380.

— (2016). State consent and disagreement in international law-making: dissolving the paradox. Leiden Journal of International Law, 29 (2), 289-316.

Burgorgue-Larsen, L. (2014). La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos como tribunal constitucional. In A. von Bogdandy, H. Fix-Fierro, and M. Morales Antoniazzi, M. (eds.). Ius constitutonale commune en América Latina: rasgos, potencialidades y desafíos (pp. 421-457). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: México.

Çali, B. (2015). The Authority of International Law: Obedience, Respect, and Rebuttal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cançado Trindade, A. A. (2010). International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Christiano, T. (2010). Democratic legitimacy and international institutions. In S. Besson and J. Tasioulas (eds.). The Philosophy of International Law (pp. 119-137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Contesse, J. (2016). Contestation and Deference in the Inter-American Human Rights System. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79 (2), 123-145.

— (2017). The final word? Constitutional dialogue and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15 (2), 414-435.

Dulitzky, A. E. (2015). An Inter-American Constitutional Court? The invention of conventionality control by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Texas International Law Journal, 50 (1), 45-93.

García-Sayán, D. and Giraldo Muñoz, M. (2016). Reflexiones sobre los procesos de justicia transicional. EAFIT Journal of International Law, 7 (2), 96-143.

Gerards, J. (2017). The European Court of Human Rights. In A. Jakab, A. Dyevre, and G. Itzcovich (eds.). Comparative Constitutional Reasoning (pp. 237-276). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2017).

González-Domínguez, P. (2017). La doctrina del control de convencionalidad a la luz del principio de subsidiariedad. Estudios Constitucionales, 15 (1), 55-98.

Hancco Suyo, G. (2017). Cuando un tribunal interno cuestiona el cumplimiento de una sentencia del tribunal supranacional. Actualidad Constitucional, 114, 234-246.

Hennebel, L. (2011). The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: the ambassador of universalism. Quebec Journal of International Law, (Special Edition), 57-97.

Iovane, M. (2016). The Italian Constitutional Court Judgment No. 238 and the myth of the “constitutionalization” of international law. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 14 (3), 595-605.

Jakab, A., Dyevre, A. and Itzcovich, G. (eds.) (2017). Comparative Constitutional Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lister, M. (2010). The legitimating role of consent in international law. Chicago Journal of International Law, 11(2), 663-691.

Lixinski, L. (2017). The consensus method of interpretation by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law, 3 (1), 65-95.

McGotdrick, D. (2017). Affording States a Margin of Appreciation: Comparing the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In C. M. Buckley, A. Donald, P. Leach (eds.), Towards Convergence in International Human Rights Law: Approaches of Regional and International Systems (pp. 325-365). Leiden/ Boston: Brill.

Negishi, Y. (2016). fte subsidiarity principle’s role in allocating competences between human rights courts and states parties: the hybrid model of centralized and diffused conventionality control of domestic law. In A. von Bogdandy, F. Piovesan e M. Morales Antoniazzi (eds.). Ius Constitutionale Commune na América Latina, Volume III (pp. 125-160). Curitiba: Juruá Editora.

— (2017a). The pro homine principle’s role in regulating the relationship between conventionality control and constitutionality control. European Journal of International Law, 28 (2), 457-481.

— (2017b). Opinio juris as (the ultimate) international secondary rule of recognition: reconciling state consent and public conscience. SSRN European Society of International Law Conference Paper No. 04/2016, 1-25.

— (2017c). Conventionality control of domestic “abuse of power”: maintaining human rights and democracy. Italian Yearbook of International Law, 26, 243-264.

Neuman, G. L. (2008). Import, export and regional consent in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. European Journal of International Law, 19 (1), 101-123.

— (2013). Subsidiarity. In D. Shelton (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law (pp. 360-378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Palombino, F. M. (2015). Compliance with international judgments: between supremacy of international Law and national fundamental principles. Heidelberg Journal of International Law, 75, 1-27.

Pascual Vives, F. (2014). Consenso e interpretación evolutiva de los tratados regionales de derechos humanos. Revista Española de Derecho Internacional, 66, 113-153.

Pavoni, R. (2015). Simoncioni v. Germany. American Journal of International Law, 109 (2), 400-406.

Pérez, A. (2017). Una mirada desde América Latina sobre el margen de apreciación estatal en el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos: ¿génesis de una permanente tensión entre democracia y derechos? Revista Jurídica de la Universidad de Palermo, 15 (1), 79-98.

Potter, P. B. (1925). Relative authority of international law and national law in the United States. American Journal of International Law, 19 (2), 315-326.

Roughan, N. (2013). Authorities: Conflict, Cooperation, and Transnational Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

— (2016). Mind the gaps: authority and legality in unternational law. European Journal of International Law, 27 (2), 329-351.

Ruiz-Chiriboga, O. (2010). fte conventionality control: examples of (un)successful experiences in Latin America. Inter-American and European Human Rights Journal, 3, (1-2), 200- 219.

Tigroudja, H. (2013). fte Inter-American Court of Human Rights and international humanitarian law. In R. Kolb and G. Gaggioli (eds.), Research Handbook of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (pp. 466-479). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Tsereteli, N. (2016). Emerging doctrine of deference of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights? International Journal of Human Rights, 20 (8), 1097-1112.

Villagrán Sandoval, C. A. and Carvalho Veçoso, F. F. (2016). A Human Rights’ Tale of Competing Narratives. Revista Direito e Práxis, 8 (2), 1603-1651.

Von Bogdandy, A., Ferrer Mac-Gregor, F., Morales Antoniazzi, M., Piovesan, F., and Soley, X. (eds.) (2017). Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America: The Emergence of a New Ius Commune. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Werner, W. G. (2016). State consent as foundational myth. In C. Brölmann and Y. Radi (eds.). Research Handbook on the Theory and Practice of International Law-Making (pp.13-31). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

International Cases:

IACtHR. Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Series C No. 257. Judgment of November 28, 2012.

— Artavia Murillo et al. (“In vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Monitoring Compliance with Judgments. Order of 26 February 2016.

— Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Series C No. 239. Judgment of 24 February 2012.

— Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Series C No. 104. Judgment of 28 November 2003.

— Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina. Merits. Reparations and Costs. Series C No.

Judgment of 29 November 2011.

— Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of 18 October 2017.

— Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Series C No. 221. Judgment of 24 February 2011.

— Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of 20 March 2013.

— Gómez Murillo and otherss v. Costa Rica. Series C No. 326. Judgment of 29 November 2016.

— The Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Series C No. 158. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 24 November 2006.

— The Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Series C No. 252. Judgment of 25 October 2012.

— The Massacres of El Mozote and the surrounding areas v. El Salvador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of 31 August 2017.

— The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law. Series A No. 16. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of 1 October 1999.

— The Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Series No. 259. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of 30 November 2012.

Domestic Cases:

Argentina, Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación. CSJ 368/1998 (34-M)/CS1. Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto s/ informe sentencia dictada en el caso Fontevecchia y D’Amico vs. Argentina por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Sentencia de 14 febrero 2017.

Costa Rica, Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema. Ex. 15-013929-0007. Sentencia Nº 01692/ 2016 de 3 febrero 2016.

El Salvador, Sala de lo Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. Inconstitucionalidad 44-2013/145-2013. Sentencia de 13 julio 2016.

Italy, Corte costituzionale Italiana. Sentenzia 238 del 22 ottobre 2014.

Uruguay, Suprema Corte de Justicia. M. L., J. F. F., O.: Denuncia – Excepcion de inconstitucionalidad arts 1, 2 y 3 de la ley 18831. Sentencia Nº 20/2013 de 22 febrero 2013.

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.