Ir al menú de navegación principal Ir al contenido principal Ir al pie de página del sitio
Iuris Dictio

Dossier

Núm. 21 (2018)

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

  • Yota Negishi
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18272/iu.v21i21.1137
Enviado
junio 15, 2018
Publicado
2018-06-26

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.

viewed = 624 times

Citas

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Bessson, S. (2009). The authority of international law: lifting the state veil. Sydney Law Review, 31 (2), 343-380.
  5. "” (2016). State consent and disagreement in international law-making: dissolving the paradox. Leiden Journal of International Law, 29 (2), 289-316.
  6. 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.
  7. Çali, B. (2015). The Authority of International Law: Obedience, Respect, and Rebuttal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. Cançado Trindade, A. A. (2010). International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
  9. 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.
  10. Contesse, J. (2016). Contestation and Deference in the Inter-American Human Rights System. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79 (2), 123-145.
  11. "” (2017). The final word? Constitutional dialogue and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15 (2), 414-435.
  12. 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.
  13. García-Sayán, D. and Giraldo Muñoz, M. (2016). Reflexiones sobre los procesos de justicia transicional. EAFIT Journal of International Law, 7 (2), 96-143.
  15. 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).
  16. González-Domínguez, P. (2017). La doctrina del control de convencionalidad a la luz del principio de subsidiariedad. Estudios Constitucionales, 15 (1), 55-98.
  17. Hancco Suyo, G. (2017). Cuando un tribunal interno cuestiona el cumplimiento de una sentencia del tribunal supranacional. Actualidad Constitucional, 114, 234-246.
  18. Hennebel, L. (2011). The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: the ambassador of universalism. Quebec Journal of International Law, (Special Edition), 57-97.
  19. 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.
  20. Jakab, A., Dyevre, A. and Itzcovich, G. (eds.) (2017). Comparative Constitutional Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Lister, M. (2010). The legitimating role of consent in international law. Chicago Journal of International Law, 11(2), 663-691.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. "” (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.
  26. "” (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.
  27. "” (2017c). Conventionality control of domestic "abuse of power": maintaining human rights and democracy. Italian Yearbook of International Law, 26, 243-264.
  28. 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.
  29. "” (2013). Subsidiarity. In D. Shelton (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law (pp. 360-378). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  30. 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.
  31. Pascual Vives, F. (2014). Consenso e interpretación evolutiva de los tratados regionales de derechos humanos. Revista Española de Derecho Internacional, 66, 113-153.
  32. Pavoni, R. (2015). Simoncioni v. Germany. American Journal of International Law, 109 (2), 400-406.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. Roughan, N. (2013). Authorities: Conflict, Cooperation, and Transnational Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  37. "” (2016). Mind the gaps: authority and legality in unternational law. European Journal of International Law, 27 (2), 329-351.
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. Tsereteli, N. (2016). Emerging doctrine of deference of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights? International Journal of Human Rights, 20 (8), 1097-1112.
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. International Cases:
  45. 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.
  46. "” Artavia Murillo et al. ("In vitro fertilization") v. Costa Rica. Monitoring Compliance with Judgments. Order of 26 February 2016.
  47. "” Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile. Series C No. 239. Judgment of 24 February 2012.
  48. "” Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Series C No. 104. Judgment of 28 November 2003.
  49. "” Fontevecchia and D"™Amico v. Argentina. Merits. Reparations and Costs. Series C No.
  50. Judgment of 29 November 2011.
  51. "” Fontevecchia and D"™Amico v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of 18 October 2017.
  52. "” Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Series C No. 221. Judgment of 24 February 2011.
  53. "” Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of 20 March 2013.
  54. "” Gómez Murillo and otherss v. Costa Rica. Series C No. 326. Judgment of 29 November 2016.
  55. "” 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.
  56. "” The Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Series C No. 252. Judgment of 25 October 2012.
  57. "” The Massacres of El Mozote and the surrounding areas v. El Salvador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of 31 August 2017.
  58. "” 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.
  59. "” The Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Series No. 259. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of 30 November 2012.
  60. Domestic Cases:
  61. 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.
  62. Costa Rica, Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema. Ex. 15-013929-0007. Sentencia Nº 01692/ 2016 de 3 febrero 2016.
  63. El Salvador, Sala de lo Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. Inconstitucionalidad 44-2013/145-2013. Sentencia de 13 julio 2016.
  64. Italy, Corte costituzionale Italiana. Sentenzia 238 del 22 ottobre 2014.
  65. 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.