Subsidiariedad y tribunales internacionales de derechos humanos: ¿deferencia hacia los estados o división cooperativa del trabajo?

Marisa Iglesias Vila

Resumen


En este trabajo desarrollo una teoría normativa del principio de subsidiariedad en la adjudicación internacional que pretende ofrecer una respuesta equilibrada a la pregunta de hasta qué punto es legítimo para un órgano como el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos interferir en el criterio estatal cuando valora una denuncia por violación de derechos convencionales. Frente a las demandas de una mayor deferencia hacia los Estados que encontramos tanto en Europa como en Latinoamérica, basadas en una idea estatista de la subsidiariedad, articulo una concepción «cooperativa» de los derechos humanos y del principio de subsidiariedad, uniéndolas a la idea de legitimidad ecológica sugerida por Buchanan. La propuesta que defiendo conduce a una división del trabajo institucional dentro de los sistemas regionales de derechos humanos que aumenta la legitimidad de todas las instituciones involucradas. Al mismo tiempo, desarrollo una forma de implementar esta concepción cooperativa, por una parte, mostrando la importancia de una lógica incremental en la protección efectiva de derechos humanos y, por otra parte, ofreciendo una versión racionalizada de la doctrina del margen de apreciación estatal.


Palabras clave


derechos humanos; Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos; Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos; subsidiariedad; legitimidad ecológica; incrementalismo; doctrina del margen de apreciación

Texto completo:

PDF

Referencias


Alexy, R. (1993). Teoría de los derechos fundamentales (E. Garzón Valdés, trad.). Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.

Andreescu, G. & Andreescu, L. (2010). Taking Back Lautsi: Towards a «Theory of Neutralisation»? Religion and Human Rights, 6(3), 207-212. doi: 10.1163/187103211X599355

Animal Defenders International v. The United Kingdom, 2013 Eur. Ct. H.R.

B. v. France, 232-C Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1992).

Arai-Takahashi, Y. (2002). The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR. Oxford: Intersetia.

Arendt, H. (1951). The Origins of Totalitarism. Nueva York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Arnardóttir, O.M. (2017). The «Procedural Turn» under the European Convention on Human Rights and Presumptions of Convention Compliance. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15(1), 9-35. doi: 10.1093/icon/mox008

Baynes, K. (2009). Toward a Political Conception of Human Rights. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 35, 371-390. doi: 10.1177/0191453708102091

Beitz, C. (1979). Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Benhabib, S (2007). Another Universalism: On the Unity and Diversity of Human Rights. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 81(2), 7-32. Recuperado de http://www.jstor.org/stable/27653991

Besson, S. (2011). Human Rights: Ethical, Political…or Legal? First Steps in a Legal Theory of Human Rights. En D. Childress III (Ed.), The Role of Ethics in International Law (pp. 211-245). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Besson, S. (2016). Subsidiarity in International Human Rights Law — What is Subsidiarity about Human Rights? The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 61(1), 69-107. doi: 10.1093/ajj/auw009

Brauch, J. (2005). The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the Rule of Law. Columbia Journal of European Law, 11(1), 113-150. Recuperado de https://ssrn.com/abstract=2094565

Brems, E. (2009). Human Rights: Minimum and Maximum Perspectives. Human Rights Law Review, 9(3), 349-372. doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngp016

Brems, E. (2016). SAS v. France: A Reality Check. Nottingham Law Journal, 25, 58-72. Recuperado de https://www4.ntu.ac.uk/nls/document_uploads/188672.pdf

Buchanan, A. (2013). The Heart of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carozza, P.G. (2003). Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law. The American Journal of International Law, 97(1), 38-79. doi: 10.2307/3087103

Cassese, S. (2015). Ruling Indirectly. Judicial Subsidiarity in the ECtHR. En «Subsidiarity: a Two-Sided Coin?»: Dialogue Between Judges, European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, 2015 (pp. 11-18). Estrasburgo: ECHR.

Castilla, K. (2013). ¿Control interno o difuso de convencionalidad? Una mejor idea: La garantía de los Tratados. Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, 13, 51-97.

Christoffersen, J. (2009). Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.

Cohen, J. (2004). Minimalism About Human Rights: The Most We Can Hope For?. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(2), 190-213. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00197.x

Cohen, J. (2006). Is There a Human Right to Democracy?. En C. Sypnowich (Ed.), The Egalitarian Conscience: Essays in Honour of G. A. Cohen (pp. 226-248). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, J.L. (2008). Rethinking Human Rights, Democracy, and Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization. Political Theory, 36(4), 578-606. doi: 10.1177/0090591708317901

Cohen, J. & Sabel, C. (2006). Extra Rempublicam Nulla Justitia?. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 34(2), 147-175. doi: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2006.00060.x

Cohen-Eliya, M. & Porat, I. (2011). Proportionality and the Culture of Justification. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 59(2), 463-490. doi: 10.5131/AJCL.2010.0018

Contesse, J. (2016). Contestation and Deference in the Inter-American Human Rights System. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79(2), 124-145. Recuperado de http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol79/iss2/6

Christine Goodwin v. The United Kingdom, 2002-VI Eur. Ct. H.R.

Dudgeon v. The United Kingdom, 45 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1981).

Dyzenhaus, D. (2015). What is a «Democratic Culture of Justification»? En M. Hunt, H. Cooper y P. Yowell (Eds.), Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit (pp. 425-446). Oxford: Hart.

Dzehtsiarou, K. (2011). European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. German Law Journal, 12(10), 1730-1745. Recuperado de https://ssrn.com/abstract=1951371

E.B. v. France, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2008), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-84571

Endo, K. (1994). The Principle of Subsidiarity: From Johannes Althusius to Jacques Delors. Hokkaido Law Review, 46(6), 553-652. Recuperado de http://hdl.handle.net/2115/15558

Fabris v. France, 2013 Eur. Ct. H.R.

Føllesdal, A. (2013). The Principle of Subsidiarity as a Constitutional Principle in International Law. Global Constitutionalism, 2(1), 37-62. doi: 10.1017/S2045381712000123

Føllesdal, A. (2014). Much Ado about Nothing? International Judicial Review of Human Rights in Well Functioning Democracies. En A. Føllesdal, J. Schaffer y G. Ulfstein (Eds.), The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Regimes (pp. 272-299). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Føllesdal, A. (2016). Subsidiarity and International Human-Rights Courts: Respecting Self-Governance and Protecting Human Rights-Or Neither? Law and Contemporary Problems, 79(2), 147-163. Recuperado de http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol79/iss2/7

Gargarella, R. (2016). Tribunales internacionales y democracia: enfoques deferentes o de interferencia. Revista Latinoamericana de Derecho Internacional, 4. Recuperado de http://www.revistaladi.com.ar/numero4-gargarella/?output=pdf

Gelman c. Uruguay, Fondo y reparaciones, Sentencia, Corte IDH (Serie C) nro. 221 (24 de febrero de 2011).

Gerards, J. (2011). Pluralism, Deference and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine. European Law Journal, 17(1), 80-120. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00540.x

Gerards, J. (2013). Diverging Fundamental Rights Standards and the Role of the European Court of Human Rights. En M. Claes y M. de Visser (Eds.), Constructing European Constitutional Law. Oxford: Hart (en prensa). Versión preliminar en línea. Recuperado de https://ssrn.com/abstract=2344626

Greer, S. (2003). Constitutionalizing Adjudication under the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 23(3), 405-433. doi: 10.1093/ojls/23.3.405

Handyside v. The United Kingdom, 24 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1976).

Helfer, L.R. & Slaughter, A.-M. (1997). Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication. Yale Law Journal, 107(2), 273-391. Recuperado de https://ssrn.com/abstract=131409

Hirst v. The United Kingdom (No. 2), 2005-IX Eur. Ct. H.R.

Hunt, M., Hooper, H. & Yowell, P. (Eds.). (2015). Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit. Oxford: Hart.

Hutchinson, M. (1999). The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 48(3), 638-650. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589300063478

Identoba and others v. Georgia, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2015), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-154400

Iglesias Vila, M. (2014). Una doctrina del margen de apreciación para el CEDH: En busca de un equilibrio entre democracia y derechos en la esfera internacional. En J. Contesse et al., Derechos humanos: posibilidades teóricas y desafíos prácticos (pp. 14-39). Buenos Aires: Libraria.

Iglesias Vila, M. (2016). ¿Los derechos humanos como derechos especiales?: Algunas ventajas de una concepción cooperativa de los derechos humanos. Anuario de Filosofía del Derecho, 32, 119-144. Recuperado de https://www.boe.es/publicaciones/anuarios_derecho/abrir_pdf.php?id=ANU-F-2016-10011900144

Jachtenfuchs, M. & Krisch, N. (2016). Subsidiarity in Global Governance. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79(2), 1-26. Recuperado de http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol79/iss2/1

Joint NGO Statement, Protocol 15 to the European Convention on Human Rights Must not Result in a weakening of Human Rights Protection, 24 de junio de 2013. Recuperado de https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/echr-protocol15-joint-statement-06272013.pdf

Karner v. Austria, 2003-IX Eur. Ct. H.R.

Kratochvíl, J. (2011). The Inflation of the Margin of Appreciation by the European Court of Humans Rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 29(3), 324-357. doi: 10.1177/016934411102900304

Krisch, N. (2010). Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lafont, C. (2012). Global Governance and Human Rights, Spinoza Lectures. Ámsterdam: Van Gorcum.

Lautsi and others v. Italy, 2011 Eur. Ct. H.R.

Lautsi v. Italy, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2009), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-95589

Lazarus, L. & Simonsen, N. (2013). Judicial Review and Parliamentary Debate: Enriching the Doctrine of Due Deference. Versión preliminar en línea. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2365844 [Versión final publicada en M. Hunt, H. Hooper y P. Yowell (Eds.), Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit. Oxford: Hart, 2015].

Legg, A. (2012). The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Letsas, G. (2004). The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the ECHR. European Journal of International Law, 15(2), 279-305. doi: 10.1093/ejil/15.2.279

Letsas, G. (2006). Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(4), 705-732. doi: 10.1093/ojls/gql030

Letsas, G. (2013). The ECHR as a Living Instrument: Its Meaning and its Legitimacy. En A. Føllesdal, B. Peters y G. Ulfstein (Eds.), Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context (pp. 106-141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, 2005-IX Eur. Ct. H.R.

Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. The United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R. (1999), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58407

Mahoney, P. (1998). Marvelous Richness of Diversity or Invidious Cultural Relativism? Human Rights Law Journal, 19, 1-6.

Martínez-Torrón, J. (2012). The (Un)protection of Individual Religious Identity in the Strasbourg Case Law. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 1(2), 363-385. doi: 10.1093/ojlr/rwr021

McGoldrick, D. (2011). Religion in the European Public Square and in European Public Life — Crucifixes in the Classroom? Human Rights Law Review, 11(3), 451-502. doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngr024

McGoldrick, D. (2016). A Defence of the Margin of Appreciation and an Argument for its Application by the Human Rights Committee. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(1), 21-60. doi: 10.1017/S0020589315000457

McHarg, A. (1999). Reconciling Human Rights and the Public Interest: Conceptual Problems and Doctrinal Uncertainty in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The Modern Law Review, 62, 671-696. doi: 10.1111/1468-2230.00231

Montero, J. (2013). Derechos humanos: estatistas, no cosmopolitas. Isegoría, 49, 459-480. doi: 10.3989/isegoria.2013.049.06

Mowbray, A. (2015). Subsidiarity and the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Law Review, 15, 313-341.

Pogge, T. (2002). World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Protocol No. 15 amending the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 24 de junio de 2013, C.E.T.S. 213.

Rawls, J. (1999). The Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Raz, J. (2010). Human Rights Without Foundations. En S. Besson y J. Tasioulas (Eds.), The Philosophy of International Law (pp. 321-337). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Risse, M. (2008). What are Human Rights? Human Rights as Membership Rights in the Global Order (February 2008). KSG Working Paper RWP08-006. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1083719

Risse, M. (2012). On Global Justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Salomon, M.E. (2007). Global Responsibility for Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, 1999-IX Eur. Ct. H.R.

S.A.S. v. France, 2014 Eur. Ct. H.R.

Saul, M. (2015). The European Court of Human Rights’ Margin of Appreciation and the Processes of National Parliaments. Human Rights Law Review, 15(4), 745-774.

Sauvé, J.-M. (2015). Statement. En «Subsidiarity: a Two-Sided Coin?»: Dialogue Between Judges, European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, 2015 (pp. 23-32). Estrasburgo: ECHR.

Schlumpf v. Switzerland, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2009), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-90476

Solar, J.I. (2009). Cautelas y excesos en el tratamiento del factor religioso en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Derechos y Libertades, 20, 117-161. doi: 10902/718

Spano, R. (2014). Universality or Diversity of Human Rights?: Strasbourg in the Age of Subsidiarity. Human Rights Law Review, 14(3), 487-502. doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngu021

Spano, R. (2015). The European Court of Human Rights and National Courts: A Constructive Conversation or a Dialogue of Disrespect? Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 33(1), 1-10. doi: 10.1080/18918131.2015.1002063

Spielmann, D. (2012). Allowing the Right Margin: The European Court of Human Rights and the National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review? Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 14, 381-418. doi:10.1017/S1528887000002317

«Subsidiarity: a Two-Sided Coin?»: Dialogue Between Judges, European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, 2015. Estrasburgo: ECHR.

Tyrer v. The United Kingdom, 26 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1978).

Vallianatos and others v. Greece, 2013 Eur. Ct. H.R.

Waldron, J. (2013). Human Rights: A Critique of the Raz/Rawls Approach. New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, 13-32. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2272745

X and others v. Austria, 2013 Eur. Ct. H.R.

Young, I.M. (2006). Responsibility and Global Justice: A Social Connection Model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23(1), 102-130. doi: 10.1017/S0265052506060043




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.201702.009

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.