Derogación tácita o inconstitucionalidad sobrevenida. Explorando la utilidad del argumento del derecho comparado
The problem of constitutional control of pre-constitutional legislation has been relevant in Chile from the moment a centralised model of constitutional control was established. The Supreme Court has declared the unconstitutionality of the said legislation by implied repeal, while the Constitutional...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
2019
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7179968 |
| Source: | Anuario iberoamericano de justicia constitucional, ISSN 1138-4824, Nº. 23, 2, 2019, pags. 369-399 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| id |
dialnet-ar-18-ART0001428101
|
|---|---|
| record_format |
dialnet
|
| spelling |
dialnet-ar-18-ART00014281012021-01-16Derogación tácita o inconstitucionalidad sobrevenida. Explorando la utilidad del argumento del derecho comparadoAgüero San Juan, Sebastían AlonsoParedes Paredes, FelipeDerogación tácitadeclaración de inconstitucionalidadcontrol concentrado de constitucionalidadinvalidez sobrevenidaderecho comparadoImplied repealdeclaration of unconstitutionalitycentralised model of constitutional controlsupervening invaliditycomparative lawThe problem of constitutional control of pre-constitutional legislation has been relevant in Chile from the moment a centralised model of constitutional control was established. The Supreme Court has declared the unconstitutionality of the said legislation by implied repeal, while the Constitutional Court has argued the opposite. Thus, nowadays, the debate is far from be resolved. Hence, firstly, this paper analyses the conceptual differences between repeal and unconstitutionality. Secondly, it tries to systematize the debate concluding that there is an equilibrium between both positions, with the exception of the use of comparative law. This argument has been frequently used by the Supreme Court; however, it has been not discussed in depth. For this reason, the last part of this work criticizes the way in which the Supreme Court uses comparative law on the basis of its limited methodological rigour. Finally, it is concluded that it is necessary to redirect this debate towards another kind of analysis.En Chile, el problema del control constitucional de la legislación preconstitucional ha sido relevante desde el momento en que se estableció un modelo concentrado. La Corte Suprema ha declarado la inconstitucionalidad de dicha legislación mediante su derogación tácita; mientras que el Tribunal Constitucional ha sostenido la tesis contraria. Así, actualmente, el debate está lejos de resolverse. Por ello, el artículo comienza analizando las diferencias conceptuales entre derogación e inconstitucionalidad. Luego, trata de sistematizar el debate, concluyendo que existe un equilibrio entre ambas posiciones, excepto respecto del argumento de derecho comparado. Este argumento ha sido utilizado frecuentemente por la Corte Suprema, pero aún no ha sido discutido en profundidad. Por lo cual, la última parte del trabajo critica la forma en que la Corte Suprema utiliza dicho argumento, en razón de su escaso rigor metodológico. Finalmente, se concluye que es necesario reorientar este debate hacia otro tipo de análisis.2019text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7179968(Revista) ISSN 1138-4824Anuario iberoamericano de justicia constitucional, ISSN 1138-4824, Nº. 23, 2, 2019, pags. 369-399spaLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI
|
| institution |
Dialnet
|
| collection |
Dialnet AR
|
| source |
Anuario iberoamericano de justicia constitucional, ISSN 1138-4824, Nº. 23, 2, 2019, pags. 369-399
|
| language |
Spanish
|
| topic |
Derogación tácita
declaración de inconstitucionalidad control concentrado de constitucionalidad invalidez sobrevenida derecho comparado Implied repeal declaration of unconstitutionality centralised model of constitutional control supervening invalidity comparative law |
| spellingShingle |
Derogación tácita
declaración de inconstitucionalidad control concentrado de constitucionalidad invalidez sobrevenida derecho comparado Implied repeal declaration of unconstitutionality centralised model of constitutional control supervening invalidity comparative law Agüero San Juan, Sebastían Alonso Paredes Paredes, Felipe Derogación tácita o inconstitucionalidad sobrevenida. Explorando la utilidad del argumento del derecho comparado |
| description |
The problem of constitutional control of pre-constitutional legislation has been relevant in Chile from the moment a centralised model of constitutional control was established. The Supreme Court has declared the unconstitutionality of the said legislation by implied repeal, while the Constitutional Court has argued the opposite. Thus, nowadays, the debate is far from be resolved. Hence, firstly, this paper analyses the conceptual differences between repeal and unconstitutionality. Secondly, it tries to systematize the debate concluding that there is an equilibrium between both positions, with the exception of the use of comparative law. This argument has been frequently used by the Supreme Court; however, it has been not discussed in depth. For this reason, the last part of this work criticizes the way in which the Supreme Court uses comparative law on the basis of its limited methodological rigour. Finally, it is concluded that it is necessary to redirect this debate towards another kind of analysis.
|
| format |
Article
|
| author |
Agüero San Juan, Sebastían Alonso
Paredes Paredes, Felipe |
| author_facet |
Agüero San Juan, Sebastían Alonso
Paredes Paredes, Felipe |
| author_sort |
Agüero San Juan, Sebastían Alonso
|
| title |
Derogación tácita o inconstitucionalidad sobrevenida. Explorando la utilidad del argumento del derecho comparado
|
| title_short |
Derogación tácita o inconstitucionalidad sobrevenida. Explorando la utilidad del argumento del derecho comparado
|
| title_full |
Derogación tácita o inconstitucionalidad sobrevenida. Explorando la utilidad del argumento del derecho comparado
|
| title_fullStr |
Derogación tácita o inconstitucionalidad sobrevenida. Explorando la utilidad del argumento del derecho comparado
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
Derogación tácita o inconstitucionalidad sobrevenida. Explorando la utilidad del argumento del derecho comparado
|
| title_sort |
derogación tácita o inconstitucionalidad sobrevenida. explorando la utilidad del argumento del derecho comparado
|
| publishDate |
2019
|
| url |
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7179968
|
| _version_ |
1709753344370671616
|