El argumento de la falta de consenso regional en derechos humanos: Divergencia entre el TEDH y la Corte IDH

This work analyzes a central argument in the ECTHR that combines the absence of a European consensus with a wide margin of appreciation for the State. The complexities of this constellation are usually obscured when some Sta­tes of the Inter-American region advocate its importation. To this end, it...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Clérico, Laura
Format: Article
Language:Spanish
Published: 2020
Subjects:
Lack of European consensus
Lack of Inter-American consensus
Argumentative approach of the ECHTR and the IACTHR
Divergences
Discrimination based on sexual orientation
Falta de consenso europeo
falta de consenso interamericano
enfoque argumentativo del TEDH y de la Corte IDH
divergencias
discriminación basada en la orientación sexual
Online Access:https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7360120
Source:Revista Derecho del Estado, ISSN 0122-9893, Nº. 46 (Mayo – Agosto), 2020, pags. 57-83
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
El argumento de la falta de consenso regional en derechos humanos: Divergencia entre el TEDH y la Corte IDH
Summary: This work analyzes a central argument in the ECTHR that combines the absence of a European consensus with a wide margin of appreciation for the State. The complexities of this constellation are usually obscured when some Sta­tes of the Inter-American region advocate its importation. To this end, it is proposed to distinguish different uses of consensus, as well as the descrip­tive and normative function of the argument, and the relationship between the existence or absence of the European consensus and the determination of the margin of appreciation of the State. These complexities allow to ac­curately determine the divergence between the ECTHR and the IACTHR in the use of the lack of regional consensus in the constellation of cases related to discrimination based on sexual orientation, as well as to propose various hypotheses that explore the divergence. All this argumentative path allows to continue supporting the thesis about the divergent argumentative profiles of the regional courts that is determined by their audiences: the ECTHR, as a court concerned by the interlocutors, the States of the region, in front of the IACTHR as a court concerned with evaluating the (un)reasons for the restrictions on rights, beyond the (un) pleasure of the States of the region.

Similar Items