¿Conduce el constitucionalismo dialógico a cuestionar el fallo de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en el caso Gelman?

The paper examines the dialogic constitutionalism proposed by Robert Gargarella in his criticism to the holding of the the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Gelman case. After introducing its main traits, I say that a dialogic model of a democratic nature should be more demanding with the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Iglesias Vila, Marisa
Format: Article
Language:Spanish
Published: 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7907485
Source:Revista Derecho del Estado, ISSN 0122-9893, Nº. 49, 2021 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Mayo – Agosto), pags. 91-110
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
Summary: The paper examines the dialogic constitutionalism proposed by Robert Gargarella in his criticism to the holding of the the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Gelman case. After introducing its main traits, I say that a dialogic model of a democratic nature should be more demanding with the demand of deliberative deepness and that democratic legitimacy is not the core parameter of political morality to assess the functioning of a regional system of human rights. I propose that the dialogic role of the Inter-American Court has to measured in terms of ecological legitimacy and cooperative subsidiarity, whose axes are protective efficacy and mutual recognition. The justification of deference to the national criterion is then subject to the State’s reliability that comes from the satisfaction of three cooperative responsibilities: impartiality, democratic culture of justification and conventional perspective. I use these responsibilities to compare the Uruguayan Expiry Law with the special criminal system provided by the Colombian Peace Agreement.