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