THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND REGIONAL CONSENSUS

A SYSTEMIC APPROACH

  • Thomaz Fiterman Tedesco, Sr Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
Palavras-chave: Regional consensus, Conventionality control, General System The, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Human Rights International Law

Resumo

This article examines the Inter-American System of Human Rights (especially the Inter-American Court of Human Rights – IACHR) and the Latin-American national legal systems as open legal sets that can interact by using the regional consensus. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, however, tends to rely uniquely on the conventionality control on this inter-relationship, imposing itself as the “final interpreter” of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). This essay argues that this interpretation considers the Latin-American national legal systems as subsystems of a unique one, whereas use of consensus implies that every national legal set is an autonomous system, and this method can function as a meta-system between the two sets (international and national), with the potential to enhance the legitimacy of the IACHR

Biografia do Autor

Thomaz Fiterman Tedesco, Sr, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo

Public Defender of the State of São Paulo. Master student of Constitutional Law at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo

Referências

ABRAMOVICH, Víctor. From massive violations to structural patterns: new approaches and classic tensions in the inter-american human rights system. Sur, Rev. int. direitos human., São Paulo, v. 6, n. 11, p. 639, pp. 6-39 Dec. 2009. Available from <http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S180664452009000200002&lng=en&nrm=iso>. Access on: 19 Nov. 2017

ANTKOWIAK, Thomas; GONZA, Alejandra. The American Convention on Human Rights: essential rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

BERTALANFFY, Ludwig von. General system theory: foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller, 1969.

BINDER, Christina. The Prohibition of Amnesties by the Inter‐American Court of Human Rights. German Law Journal. v. 12, n. 05, pp. 1203-1230, 2011. Available from: <http://www.germanlawjournal.com/volume-12-no-05/>. Acess on: 22 sep. 2017.

BRAUCH, Jeffrey A. 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, Vol. 11, pp. 113-150, 2005.

CONTESSE, Jorge. ¿La última palabra? Control de convencionalidad y posibilidades de diálogo con la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, in SELA, Yale Law School, Available at: https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/sela/SELA13_Contesse_CV_Sp_20130401.pdf. Acess on: 25 apr. 2017.

____. Contestation and Deference in the Inter-American Human Rights System. in: Law and Contemporary Problems, v. 79, 2016.
Available from: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol79/iss2/6. Acess on: 08 apr 2017.

DULITZKY, ARIEL. An Inter-American Constitutional Court? The Invention of the Conventionality Control by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Texas International Law Journal. v. 50, n. 01, pp. 45-93, 2015. Available from: <https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/adulitzky/69-inter-amer-constitutional-court.pdf>. Acess: 09 oct. 2017.

DZEHTSIAROU, Kanstantsin. European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015

GARGARELLA, Roberto. No Place for Popular Sovereignty? Democracy, Rights, and Punishment in Gelman v. Uruguay. Available from https://law.yale.edu/system/files/documents/pdf/sela/SELA13_Gargarella_CV_Eng_20121130.pdf. Acess on: 19 aug. 2017.

HUNEEUS, Alexandra. Courts Resisting Courts: Lessons from the Inter-American Court’s Struggle to Enforce Human Rights. Cornell International Law Journal. v. 44, n. 3, pp. 494-533, 2011.

HILLEBRECHT, Courtney. Domestic politics and international human rights tribunals: the problem of compliance. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

LEGG, Andrew. The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012

LIXINSKI, Lucas. The Consensus Method of Interpretation by the Inter- American Court of Human Rights. Canadian Journal of comparative and contemporary law. V. 03, n. 01, pp. 65-95, 2017.

MAC-GREGOR, Eduardo Ferrer. Conventionality Control: the New Doctrine of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Available: <https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge core/content/view/CC71A5517CAF78AA4F73FECEC1A041EC/S2398772300001240a.pdf/conventionality_control_the_new_doctrine_of_the_interamerican_court_of_human_rights.pdf>. Acess on: 18 out. 2017.

MALARINO, Ezequiel. Activismo judicial, punitivización y nacionalización: tendencias antidemocráticas y antiliberales de la corte interamericana de derechos humanos. in: Sistema interamericano de protección de los derechos humanos y derecho penal internacional. Montevideo: Konrad Adenauer, 2010.

MORIN, Edgard. Introdução ao pensamento complexo. 5. ed. Porto Alegre: Sulina, 2015.

PIOVESAN, Flavia. Direitos humanos e justiça internacional: um estudo comparativo dos sistemas regionais europeu, interamericano e africano. 7. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2017.

PUGLIESI, Marcio. Teoria do direito. 2. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2009.

RAMOS, André de Carvalho. Teoria geral dos direitos humanos na ordem internacional. 5. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2015.
SHELTON, Dinah; CAROZZA, Paolo. Regional protection of human rights. 2. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
TORELLY, Marcelo. Governança transversal dos direitos fundamentais. Rio de Janeiro: Lumen Juris, 2016.
WALDRON, Jeremy. Law and disagreement. New York, Oxford University Press, 2004.
Publicado
09-09-2018