LIMITES DA CONSTITUCIONALIZAÇÃO DO DIREITO INTERNACIONAL NO SISTEMA INTERAMERICANO: UMA ANÁLISE DOS MODELOS TEÓRICOS DO PLURALISMO CONSTITUCIONAL E DO CONSTITUCIONALISMO MULTINÍVEL

The aim of the article is to compare the adaptation of the theories of constitutional pluralism and multilevel constitutionalism for the context of Latin America, encompassing the Interamerican System of Human Rights Protection. The new constitutionalist theories share the heterarchical approach, as well as the advocacy of an ongoing process of constitutionalization of international human rights law through regional jurisdictions. In that context, the theories are approached according to the criteria of practical developments, the tools used on the promotion of judicial dialogue and constitutionalization degree. Ultimately, it came to the conclusion that constitutional pluralism displays a descriptive approach, while multilevel constitutionalism aims to propose a new perspective to address the interamerican scene.O objetivo do artigo é de estabelecer um olhar comparado sobre as propostas de adaptação do pluralismo constitucional e do constitucionalismo multinível para o contexto da América Latina, englobando o Sistema Interamericano de Proteção dos Direitos Humanos. As novas teorias constitucionalistas tem em comum a abordagem heterárquica da relação entre direito internacional e direito interno, bem como a defesa do processo de constitucionalização do direito internacional dos direitos humanos por meio das jurisdições regionais. Nesse contexto, as teorias são abordadas segundo os desdobramentos práticos, as ferramentas empregadas na promoção do diálogo interjurisdicional e o grau de constitucionalização proposto. Ao final, concluiu-se que o pluralismo constitucional apresenta uma abordagem descritiva, ao passo que o constitucionalismo multinível tem um teor propositivo no cenário interamericano

Judicial Dialogue and Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America: The Case of Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendants

This research presents an example of transformative case law from the Inter- American Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Colombia. Due to the fact that these Courts had seriously contemplated the right to free, prior and informed consultation of indigenous peoples and afro-descendants, this study explains the standards and statistics produced for 25 years on the topic. It focuses on the principal outcomes of the interamerican case Saramaka v. Suriname (2007) and the Colombian Decision T-129 of 2011, which nowadays encompass the most plausible and balanced standard of protection on the matter. However, the progressive outcomes are at risk of being regressively changed. For that reason, this study analyses the relevance of “binding consent” as an alternative to the problematic category or wrongly so-called “veto power”En esta investigación se expone un ejemplo de diálogo judicial y transformador entre la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y la Corte Constitucional de Colombia. En la medida en que estos dos tribunales se han tomado en serio los derechos a la consulta previa, libre e informada de los pueblos indígenas y afrodescendientes, se presentan detalladas tablas con los casos y las estadísticas producidas durante 25 años sobre el tema. La investigación se centra en el histórico precedente de la Corte Interamericana Saramaka v. Suriname (2007) y la sentencia T-129 de 2011 de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia por medio de la cual se profundizó el diálogo judicial y de donde quizá ha surgido el estándar de protección más plausible y equilibrado en la materia, aunque en riesgo de ser modificado regresivamente. De ahí que se puntualice la relevancia del “consentimiento vinculante” como alternativa al mal denominado “poder de veto”

De la “constitucionalización” a la “convencionalización” del ordenamiento jurídico. La contribución del ius constitutionale commune

One of the most vivid expressions of the constitutional law trans-nationalization in Latin America is the scholar and judicial dialogue that have been developed in the last few decades. This dialogue has occurred mainly among those countries that have been reforming its constitutions during the last 25 years with key related elements such as the block of constitutionality. Such trans-nationalization has gained strength because of another of those expressions, namely, the Interamerican-Court of Justice case-law by means of the conventionality control. International obligations related to the rightsenshrined in the American Convention shapes the interpretation of laws and administrative practices. It is then pertinent to coin “conventionalization” of legal order as a concept that complements its process of constitutionalization. Constitutional norms no longer exclusively determine the validity and development of national legal orders. This paper moving towards that direction from the utility of another concept: “ius constitutionale commune” to understand this phenomena and project courses of action towards a transformative constitutionalism of political and social inequalities that have bedeviled the region.Una de las expresiones más vívidas de la transnacionalización del derecho constitucional en América Latina es el diálogo judicial y académico que se ha venido desarrollando –sobre todo entre los países que en los últimos 25 años reformaron sus constituciones con importantes elementos afines, como la incorporación del bloque de constitucionalidad–. Dicha transnacionalización se ha fortalecido, a su vez, por otra de estas expresiones, como es la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en ejercicio del control de convencionalidad. Es pertinente la difusión y depuración del concepto de “convencionalización” del ordenamiento jurídico, que complementa y armoniza su proceso de “constitucionalización”. En virtud del mismo, no son ya únicamente las disposiciones constitucionales las que condicionan la validez y el desarrollo de los ordenamientos jurídicos nacionales, sino también las obligaciones internacionales que adquieren los países sobre la protección de los derechos consagrados en la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos y otros pactos. Este trabajo procura avanzar en la dirección de dicha evolución a partir de la utilidad del concepto de ius constitutionale commune para comprender este fenómeno y proyectar rumbos de acción hacia un constitucionalismo transformador de las desigualdades sociales y políticas que aquejan a los países de la región

The Colliding Vernaculars of Foreign Investment Protection and Transitional Justice in Colombia: A Challenge for the Law in a Global Context

This doctoral dissertation explores an argued normative tension between the legal protection of foreign investors via international investment agreements and the implementation of a transitional justice project in Colombia. Considering its nature and extent, this tension is regarded from a global perspective. These legal fields are acknowledged as the opus of transnational legal processes that have been triggered both to diffuse the political vision and to represent the interests of corresponding global epistemic communities. Therefore, their placement at the same political/legal level, and the shared interest they have in regulating access to and use of land and natural resources located within the countrys jurisdiction, encompass a conflictual dynamic. That is, the spread of a neoliberal economic model through the domestic internalization of a set of rules and institutions that limit the capacity of the state to intervene in certain areas of public concern, as opposed to the exercise of legal resistance to the detrimental socioeconomic effects produced on the occasion of the countrys internal armed conflict, by means of the structural adjustment of social relations. The main contention of this dissertation is that, within the realm of the aforementioned normative tension, the legal protection offered to foreign investors in Colombia by virtue of the systematic conclusion of international investment agreements, has the potential to restrict the countrys democratic and sovereign choice to achieve durable peace through the production of profound transformations at the level of social justice. In particular, it is argued that although the international investment agreements concluded by the country are the result of the effective exercise of sovereign prerogatives and place-binding obligations on the state, they cannot be constituted as impregnable commands able to shape indeterminately the countrys public policy space with regards to the implementation of the transitional justice project. Moreover, it is also contended that the legal responses to these investor-state controversies must encompass strong political considerations rather than mere technical issues, since they must acknowledge both the contextual particularities of this type of controversies and the transnational nature of the interests at stake

Overlegalizing Human Rights: International Relations Theory and the Commonwealth Caribbean Backlash Against Human Rights Regimes

This article raises the intriguing claim that international law can be overlegalized. Overlegalization occurs where a treaty\u27s substantive rules or its review procedures are too constraining of sovereignty, causing governments to engage in acts of non-compliance or even to denounce the treaty. The concept of legalization and its potential excesses, although unfamiliar to many legal scholars, has begun to be explored by international relations theorists analyzing the effects of legal rules in changing state behavior. This article bridges the gap between international legal scholarship and international relations theory by exploring a recent case study of overlegalization. It seeks to understand why, in the late 1990s, three Commonwealth Caribbean governments denounced human rights treaties and withdrew from the jurisdiction of international tribunals. I refer to these events as the Caribbean backlash against human rights regimes. My study of this backlash has two objectives. The first is to show how overlegalizing human rights can lead even liberal democracies to reconsider their commitment to international institutions that protect those rights. The second objective is to assess three competing international relations theories that seek to explain the conditions under which states comply with their treaty commitments. To provide a more persuasive analysis of these issues, the article includes empirical data analyzing changes in the filing and review of international human rights petitions against Caribbean governments during the 1990s

Texas Law Review

Journal containing articles, notes, book reviews, and other analyses of law and legal cases