DOCSLIB.ORG

Mixed-Form Inter-American Judicial Review and the Latin American Path to Global Constitutionalism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mixed-Form Inter-American Judicial Review and the Latin American Path to Global Constitutionalism Cosmopolitan Greetings: Mixed-Form inter-American Judicial Review and the Latin American Path to Global Constitutionalism DISSERTATION zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doctor iuris (Dr. iur.) Eingereicht an der Juristischen Fakultät der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin von Iderpaulo Carvalho Bossolani Präsidentin der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Prof. Dr. -Ing. Dr. Sabine Kunst Dekan der Juristischen Fakultät: Prof. Dr. Dr. Stefan Grundmann, LL.M (Berkeley) Gutachter: 1. Prof. Mattias Kumm, J.S.D (Harvard) 2. Prof. Dr. Christoph Möllers, LL.M (Chicago) Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 02.10.2020 Zusammenfassung In den letzten Jahrzehnten hat sich in Lateinamerika ein neuer Kontext für die Durchsetzung von Menschenrechten herausgebildet. Die organisatorische Entwicklung des Interamerikanischen Menschenrechtsschutzsystems (IAS), die Verabschiedung neuer Verfassungen durch die nationalen Gesetzgeber und die Anwendung innovativer Verfassungsauslegungen durch die maßgeblichen Gerichte in der Region haben zur Entstehung eines kosmopolitischen lateinamerikanischen Konstitutionalismus geführt. In diesem neuen Kontext hat der Interamerikanische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (IACtHR) damit begonnen, die gerichtliche Überprüfung innerstaatlicher Gesetze zu praktizieren, d.h. er hat bei mehreren Gelegenheiten nationale Behörden angewiesen, innerstaatliche Gesetze wegen ihrer Unvereinbarkeit mit der Amerikanischen Menschenrechtskonvention (ACHR) für ungültig zu erklären. Angesichts der zunehmenden Konflikte zwischen nationalen und internationalen Menschenrechtsautoritäten zielt diese Studie darauf ab, den legitimsten und effektivsten Ansatz für die Praxis der interamerikanischen Konventionskontrolle zu finden. Ausgehend von der Debatte über die innerstaatliche richterliche Normenkontrolle werden zunächst die Gründe für die Praxis einer starken internationalen Normenkontrolle untersucht. Anschließend adressiert diese Studie Theorien, die versucht haben, die interamerikanische Konventionskontrolle zu schwächen. Diese Theorien haben sich häufig für die Übernahme des nationalen Ermessensspielraums auf der Grundlage der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte ausgesprochen. Schließlich plädiert die vorliegende Studie für eine kontextbasierte Theorie der interamerikanischen gerichtlichen Überprüfung und versucht, den nationalen Ermessensspielraum mit dem kosmopolitischen Konstitutionalismus Lateinamerikas in Einklang zu bringen. Die Theorie der gemischten Form der Konventionskontrolle befasst sich mit der Entwicklung der interamerikanischen Menschenrechtsgesetzgebung und Rechtsprechung. Ihr zufolge sollte das IACtHR in Fällen, in denen Mitgliedstaaten die durch die interamerikanischen Menschenrechtsgesetze geschützten bürgerlichen und politischen Rechte eklatant verletzen, eine starke Konventionskontrolle praktizieren. Dies ist auf die starke normative Dimension dieser Rechte innerhalb der interamerikanischen Menschenrechtsgesetzgebung zurückzuführen. Dagegen sollte das IACtHR dieser Theorie zufolge in Fällen, die sozioökonomische Rechte betreffen, eine schwache gerichtliche Überprüfung praktizieren, da diese erst spät in den interamerikanischen Menschenrechtsgesetzen und der Rechtsprechung auftauchen. Diese Studie beabsichtigt auch, die Nützlichkeit dieser Theorie für den kosmopolitischen Konstitutionalismus Lateinamerikas konkret aufzuzeigen, indem sie auf brasilianische Gesetze angewandt wird. Vor allem beansprucht diese Studie jedoch den Wert dieses rechtswissenschaftlichen Ansatzes für die Förderung der Entwicklung des globalen Konstitutionalismus in Lateinamerika zu belegen. i Abstract In recent decades, a new human rights enforcement context has emerged in Latin America. The organizational evolution of the Inter-American System for Human Rights Protection (IAS), the adoption of new constitutions by national legislatures, and the adoption of innovative constitutional interpretations by the most authoritative courts in the region have led to the emergence of Latin American cosmopolitan constitutionalism. Within this new context, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) has started practicing the judicial review of domestic laws, i.e., on several occasions, it has ordered national authorities to invalidate domestic laws due to their incompatibility with the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). By reviewing domestic laws, the IACtHR has placed itself in the middle of a dialogue between legislatures and courts that was long seen as an exclusively domestic conversation within Latin American constitutionalism. This strong form of international jurisprudence has made the normative questions relating to judicial review much more complex to address. Given the increasing conflicts between domestic and inter-American human rights authorities, this study aims to find the most legitimate and effective approach to the practice of inter-American judicial review. In line with this, and drawing on the debate about domestic judicial review, it first assesses the reasons behind the practice of strong international judicial review. In order to offer a better form of inter-institutional interaction within the IAS, this study later addresses theories that have sought to weaken the practice of inter-American judicial review based on the principle of subsidiarity. These theories have often advocated for the adoption of the national margin of appreciation based on the European experience with this concept of deference to national authorities. Finally, this study advocates for a context-based theory of inter-American judicial review and tries to reconcile the national margin of appreciation with Latin American cosmopolitan constitutionalism. The theory of mixed-form inter- American judicial review looks at the evolution of inter-American human rights legislation and jurisprudence. According to this theory, the IACtHR should practice strong inter-American judicial review in cases in which member states flagrantly violate the civil and political rights protected by inter- American human rights law. This is due to the arguably strong normative dimension of these rights within inter-American human rights law. By contrast, according to this theory, the IACtHR should practice weak inter-American judicial review in cases involving socioeconomic rights due their late emergence within inter-American human rights law. This study also intends to prove the usefulness of mixed-form theory for Latin American cosmopolitan constitutionalism by applying it to Brazilian laws. Most importantly, it seeks to prove the value of this jurisprudential approach for promoting the evolution of global constitutionalism in Latin America. ii Für Paul iii Stand up against governments, against God. Stay irresponsible. Say only what we know & imagine. Absolutes are coercion. Change is absolute. Ordinary mind includes eternal perceptions. Observe what’s vivid. Notice what you notice. Catch yourself thinking. Vividness is self-selecting. If we don’t show anyone, we’re free to write anything. Remember the future. (Allen Ginsberg, Cosmopolitan Greetings) Come writers and critics, who prophesize with your pen And keep your eyes wide, the chance won’t come again And don’t speak too soon For the wheel’s still in spin And there’s no tellin' who that it’s namin' For the loser now will be later to win For the times they are a-changin' (Bob Dylan, The Times They Are a-Changin’) iv Acknowledgements When I started doing my research on the relationship between constitutional and international law in Latin America at the end of 2016, I already had uneasy feelings about the stability of democracy in the region. The impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff in 2016 gave me the first impression that democracy in my country was under threat. I was born in the 1990s, which was the first decade of the new Brazilian democracy established after years of authoritarian politics. During three decades, this new democracy was aligning its practices with the ones found in more mature constitutional democracies around the world. Brazilians were finally enjoying their civil and political rights, and the political authorities were finding ways to address the massive social inequality in the country by implementing socioeconomic rights. Little did I know how the end of this era could affect my generation and the future generations. Brazil is currently under the rule of an authoritarian government, which is evidence that many things have gone wrong. It is necessary to find the way back to consistent institutional development. I was lucky to have written this study in one of the few still remaining functional constitutional democracies in the world. All these years in Germany served not only to improve my knowledge of Rechtswissenschaft and Dogmatik but also gave me the chance to look at Latin American countries through a different perspective. By living abroad, one realizes that things can be different. Maybe this is the reason why cosmopolitan constitutionalists often strive to change domestic constitutional law. Many institutions and people helped me during my PhD studies in Germany. I would first like to thank my family for all the support and patience during all these years of research. I wonder if my mother would had voluntarily sent me to any German language school if she knew that this would take me away from her, later on in life, for several years. I would also like to thank Mattias Kumm for accepting to supervise this dissertation and for providing me the best academic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proportionality As a Constitutional Doctrine Author(S): Dimitrios Kyritsis Source: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , Summer 2014, Vol
    Whatever Works: Proportionality as a Constitutional Doctrine Author(s): Dimitrios Kyritsis Source: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , Summer 2014, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Summer 2014), pp. 395-415 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/24562824 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oxford Journal of Legal Studies This content downloaded from 152.3.102.254 on Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:35:21 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 34, No. 2 (2014), pp. 395-415 doi:10.1093/ojls/gqt033 Published Advance Access January 13, 2014 Whatever Works: Proportionality as a Constitutional Doctrine* Dimitrios Kyritsis ie* Abstract—In The Global Model of Constitutional Rights Kai Möller claims that the proportionality test is underlain by an expansive moral right to autonomy. This putative right protects everything that advances one's self-conception. It may of course be limited when balanced against other considerations such as the rights of others. But it always creates a duty on the state to justify the limitation.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr Aravind Ganesh Vice Chancellor‘S Research Fellow in Law at Oxford Brookes University - Lecturer
    ALUMNI Max Planck Lecture Series Rightful Relations with Distant Strangers: Kant, the EU, and the Wider World Thursday, 6 May 2021, 17:00 - 18:30 Dr Aravind Ganesh Vice Chancellor‘s Research Fellow in Law at Oxford Brookes University - Lecturer Aravind Ganesh is the Vice-Chancellor’s Research Fellow in Law at Oxford Brookes University, as well as a Reconstitution Fellow for 2020-21. His research interests include EU law, public international law, private law theory, and the legal and political philosophy of Immanuel Kant. In June 2019, Aravind obtained a PhD (cum laude) from the Faculty of Law, VU Amsterdam. In addition, he possesses degrees from King’s College London (LLB), Columbia Law School (JD), and Oxford (BCL). From 2015 to 2019, Aravind worked as a Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law. Besides, he has also worked as a Research Associate for the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, practiced as a Corporate Lawyer in New York, as well as volunteered in South Africa in that country‘s premier public interest law firm. Aravind has held visiting fellowships at UCLouvain (2009-2010) and Tel Aviv University (2014-2015), and his work has been published in journals such as Legal Theory and the Michigan Journal of International Law. A monograph based on his PhD thesis was just published in March 2021 by Hart/Bloomsbury as the 12th title under the “Law and Practical Reason“ series. Prof. Mattias Kumm Professor of Law at New York University and Humboldt University - Discussant Mattias Kumm is the Inge Rennert Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, as well as a Research Professor on “Globalization and the Rule of Law“ at Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB) and Humboldt University in Berlin.
    [Show full text]
  • Read Pdfread
    INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW AND JUSTICE NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW International Law and Justice Working Papers IILJ Working Paper 2006/4 History and Theory of International Law Series Kelsen Lives Alexander Somek University of Iowa Faculty Director: Benedict Kingsbury Program in the History & Theory of International Law Co-Directors: Philip Alston and J.H.H. Weiler Directors: Benedict Kingsbury and Martti Koskenniemi Executive Director: Simon Chesterman Institute for International Law and Justice Faculty Advisory Committee: New York University School of Law Philip Alston, Kevin Davis, David Golove, Benedict Kingsbury , 40 Washington Square South, VH 314 Martti Koskenniemi, Mattias Kumm, Linda Silberman, New York, NY 10012 Richard Stewart, J.H.H. Weiler, Katrina Wyman Website: www.iilj.org All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the author. ISSN: 1552-6275 ©Alexander Somek New York University School of Law New York, NY 10012 U.S.A. Cite as: IILJ Working Paper 2006/2 (Global Administrative Law Series) (www.iilj.org) Alexander Somek Kelsen Lives Does it make sense, any longer, to study international law as a system of law? In both theory and practice, the impression of fragmentation and feebleness is eclips- ing the traditional faith in the unity and efficacy cosmopolitan benevolence. Re- peatedly, state-interest has trumped the discipline of norms; international regimes do not form one coherent system, and behind their multiplicity seems to lurk dis- array. This paper proposes to meet these arguments, by reintroducing to the dis- cipline a set of ideas about the foundations of, and the properly modest aspirations in the analysis of, international law that are associated with Hans Kelsen.
    [Show full text]
  • Customary Law Without Custom? Rules, Principles, and the Role of State Practice in International Norm Creation Niels Petersen
    American University International Law Review Volume 23 | Issue 2 Article 2 2007 Customary Law Without Custom? Rules, Principles, and the Role of State Practice in International Norm Creation Niels Petersen Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Petersen, Niles. "Customary Law Without Custom? Rules, Principles, and the Role of State Practice in International Norm Creation." American University International Law Review 23, no.2 (2007): 275-310. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CUSTOMARY LAW WITHOUT CUSTOM? RULES, PRINCIPLES, AND THE ROLE OF STATE PRACTICE IN INTERNATIONAL NORM CREATION NIELS PETERSEN* I. THE SOURCES OF UNWRITTEN INTERNATIONAL L A W ...................................................................................... 2 76 A. CUSTOM: FROM INDUCTIVE TO INTERPRETATIVE A PPRO ACHES ................................................................... 278 1. Customary Law Without Consuetudo ......................... 280 2. Sliding Scale Approaches ........................................... 283 3. From Legal Methodology to Equity ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • ARGUING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS Law and Philosophy Library
    ARGUING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS Law and Philosophy Library VOLUME 77 Managing Editors FRANCISCO J. LAPORTA, Department of Law, Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain ALEKSANDER PECZENIK†, Department of Law, University of Lund, Sweden FREDERICK SCHAUER, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. Former Managing Editors AULIS AARNIO, MICHAEL D. BAYLES†, CONRAD D. JOHNSON†, ALAN MABE Editorial Advisory Board AULIS AARNIO, Research Institute for Social Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland ZENON BANKOWSKI,´ Centre for Law and Society, University of Edinburgh PAOLO COMANDUCCI, University of Genoa, Italy ERNESTO GARZÓN VALDÉS, Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz JOHN KLEINIG, Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal Justice Administration, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York NEIL MacCORMICK, European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium WOJCIECH SADURSKI, European University Institute, Department of Law, Florence, Italy ROBERT S. SUMMERS, School of Law, Cornell University CARL WELLMAN, Department of Philosophy, Washington University ARGUING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS Edited by AGUSTÍN JOSÉ MENÉNDEZ University of León, Spain and University of Oslo, Norway ERIK ODDVAR ERIKSEN University of Oslo, Norway A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN-10: 1-4020-4918-8 (HB) ISBN-13: 978-1-4020-4918-7 (HB) ISBN-10: 1-4020-4919-4 (e-book) ISBN-13: 978-1-4020-4919-6 (e-book) Published by Springer, P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. www.springer.com Printed on acid-free paper All Rights Reserved © 2006 Springer No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
    [Show full text]
  • Cosmopolitanism in Constitutional Law Vlad F
    Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School Boston College Law School Faculty Papers 12-1-2013 Cosmopolitanism in Constitutional Law Vlad F. Perju Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Vlad F. Perju. "Cosmopolitanism in Constitutional Law." Cardozo Law Review 35, no.2 (2013): 711-768. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PERJU.35.2 (Do Not Delete) 12/4/2013 4:21 PM COSMOPOLITANISM IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Vlad Perju† TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................711 I. IUS CIVITATIS: REPUBLICAN CONSTITUTIONS .........................................................720 II. THE GLOBAL TRANSFORMATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ...............................726 A. Integration of Constitutional Spaces ...........................................................726 B. The Limitations of Constitutional Causality .............................................731 C. Locating the Sites of Constitutional Convergence......................................735
    [Show full text]
  • Foxy Freedom?
    FOXY FREEDOM? * FRANK I. MICHELMAN I. FREEDOM AND VALUE ......................................................................... 949 A. Introduction ................................................................................. 949 B. “Total Freedom”: A Closer Look ............................................... 951 C. No Regrets? ................................................................................. 954 D. Rights, Wrongs, Principles, Values, Regrets, and Balancing ..................................................................................... 956 E. No Regret, No Value? .................................................................. 957 F. How Dworkin Values Descriptive Freedom ................................ 958 G. A Possible Rejoinder: Freedom from Harm, Not Freedom of Choice and Action ................................................................... 959 II. “TIERS OF SCRUTINY” ......................................................................... 961 A. Detour with a Purpose ................................................................. 961 B. The Language and Culture of “Tiers” ........................................ 962 C. Discrepancies of Doctrinal Content and Structure ..................... 965 D. “Fit” ............................................................................................ 968 E. Recapitulation of “Tiers” ............................................................ 970 III. TAKING STOCK ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Normative Exploration of the Militant Democracy Principle
    ‘Fighting Fire with Fire’: A Normative Exploration of the Militant Democracy Principle By Miles Roger Maftean Submitted to Central European University Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Supervisor: Nenad Dimitrijevic CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2018 Copyright Notice This dissertation contains no material accepted for any other degree(s) at any other institution(s). This dissertation contains no material written and/or published by any other person, except for where appropriate acknowledgment has been made in the form of bibliographical reference. CEU eTD Collection i Abstract The concept of militant democracy – a democratic regime that institutionalizes mechanisms and is authorized to protect civil and political freedom by preemptively restricting antidemocratic action – has seen a resurgence in the last years, as a response to the rise of extremist political action and the backsliding of democracies into more authoritarian regimes. The goal of a militant democracy has been to oppose anti-democratic attempts at dismantling democratic institutions through fundamental rights restrictions (e.g. freedom of speech, freedom of assembly). While much of the literature has been descriptive analysis by comparative constitutional lawyers and political scientists, others have approached the question in a more philosophical way. Contemporary political theorists ask whether the anti- democratic, illiberal nature of militant democracy can be reconciled with democracy. Theorists believe that democratic states do have a right to defend themselves from internal threats which seek to dismantle a democratic way of life, however, they often point to militant democracy’s paradoxical nature and attempt to limit the costs associated with rights restrictions.
    [Show full text]