Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T07:26:31.203Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Alternative Approach to the Conventionality Control Doctrine

Part of: Constitutionalization of International Law in Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ariel E. Dulitzky
Ariel E. Dulitzky*
Affiliation:
Human Rights Clinic, University of Texas at Austin
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor presents a very clear and concise description of the main contours of the conventionality control theory articulated by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“Court,” “Tribunal,” or “Inter-American Court”). So, I will not repeat his masterful explanation, which states, in brief, that the conventionality control requires all State authorities, particularly judges, to apply the American Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) as interpreted by the Court.

Type
Symposium on the Constitutionalization of International Law in Latin America
Information
AJIL Unbound , Volume 109 , 2015 , pp. 100 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

References

1 Mac-Gregor, Eduardo Ferrer, Conventionality Control: The New Doctrine of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 109 AJIL Unbound 93 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 21, 1969, 1144 UNTS 143, preamble. Melish, Tara J., From Paradox to Subsidiarity: The United States and Human Rights Treaty Bodies, 34 Yale J. Int’l. L. 389, 438 (2009)Google Scholar.

3 See, e.g., International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC- 14/94, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) No. 14, para. 58 (Dec. 9, 1994).

4 Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 154, (Sep. 26, 2006).

5 E.g., Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2010 O.J. (C 83) 1, 343. See, e.g., Court of Justice of the European Union Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, 1970 E.C.R. 1125, 1146.

6 Dyevre, Arthur, European Integration and National Courts: Defending Sovereignty under Institutional Constraints?, 9 Eur. Const. L. Rev. 139, 140 (2013)Google Scholar.

7 U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. Similar provisions are found in article 33 of the Argentine Constitution and article 133 of the Mexican Constitution. Art. 33, Constitución Nacional [Const. Nac.] (Arg.); Constitución Política de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, CP, art. 133, Diario Oficial de la Federación [DOF], últimas reformas 10-02-2014 (Mex.).

8 See, e.g., Greer, Steven & Williams, Andrew, Human Rights in the Council of Europe and the EU: Towards ‘Individual’, ‘Constitutional’ or ‘Institutional’ Justice?, 15 Eur. L.J. 462, 466 (2009)Google Scholar.

9 Loizidou v. Turkey, 310 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) at 22 (1995).

10 Barrios Altos v. Peru, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 75, para. 51 (Mar. 14, 2001).

11 Barrios Altos v. Peru, Interpretation of the Judgment of the Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 83, Sec. VII, para. 2 (Sept. 3, 2001).

12 For example, Colombia, Peru, Costa Rica, and Guatemala, to name a few.

13 E.g., Constitución de 2009 del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, art. 202.9; Constitución Política de la República de Chile [C.P.] art. 82; Constitución Política de Colombia [C.P.] art. 241.10; Constitución Política de la República de Guatemala art. 272.e.

14 E.g., Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación [CSJN] [National Supreme Court of Justice], 21/12/1989, “Microómnibus Barrancas de Belgrano S. A.”, impugnacíon, Colección Oficial de Fallos de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación [Fallos] (1989-312-2490) (Arg.).

15 For instance, in Sarayaku, the Court cites national legislation and case law relating to prior, free, and informed consent by indigenous peoples from countries that had ratified the Convention (Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela), countries that had not ratified the Convention (Belize, Canada, and the United States), and even countries outside the region (New Zealand). The Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarazaku v. Ecuador, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 245, para. 164 (June 27, 2012).

16 Cf.Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A New World Order 66, 70 (2004)Google Scholar.

17 Jackson, Vicki C., Constitutional Engagement in a Transnational ERA 71 (2010)Google Scholar.

18 The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) No. 16, para. 114 (Oct. 1, 1999).

19 As the Inter-American Court has said, independence of judges means that “they should not feel compelled to avoid dissenting with the reviewing body which, basically, only plays a distinct judicial role that is limited to dealing with the issues raised on appeal by a party who is dissatisfied with the original decision.” Apitz Barbera v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 182, para. 84 (Aug. 5, 2008).

20 See, e.g., Helfer, Laurence R., Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime, 19 Eur. J. Int’l L. 125, 136–137 (2008)Google Scholar.

21 See the Constitutions of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela.

22 E.g., Goodman, Ryan & Jinks, Derek, How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law, 54 Duke L.J. 621, 635– 638 (2004)Google Scholar.

23 Koh, Harold Hongju, Review Essay, Why Do Nations Obey International Law? 106 Yale L.J. 2599, 2656 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 See, e.g. Cavallaro, James L. & Brewer, Stephanie Erin, Reevaluating Regional Human Rights Litigation in the Twenty-First Century: The Case of the Inter American Court 102 AJIL 768, 775 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 E.g., Helfer, Laurence R. & Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication, 107 Yale L.J. 273, 306-307 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 See, e.g., Engstrom, Par & Hurrell, Andrew, Why the Human Rights Regime in the Americas Matters, in Human Rights Regimes in the Americas 29, 39 (Serrano, Mónica & Popovski, Vesselin eds., 2010)Google Scholar.

27 For instance, there are no cases on the nonimposition of the death penalty on pregnant women, American Convention, art. 4.5; the right to compensation, art. 10; the right to assembly, art. 15; or most aspects of freedom of religion, art. 12.

28 For instance, a search of the case law of the Peruvian Constitutional Court referring to the American Convention recovers over 250 decisions; and over 400 decisions for the Mexican Supreme Court and 495 for only 2013 by the Costa Rican Constitutional Chamber.

29 E.g., Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación [CSJN] [National Supreme Court of Justice], 31/8/2010, “Videla, Jorge Rafael y Massera, Emilio Eduardo s/recurso de casación”, Colección Oficial de Fallos de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación [Fallos] (2010-333-1657) (Arg.); Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional de Bolivia [Plurionational Constitutional Tribunal of Bolivia], noviembre 7, 2011, Sentencia Constitucional 1888/2011-R; Corte Constitutional [CC] [Constitutional Court], agosto 23, 2012, M.P Jorge Iván Palacio, Sentencia T-653/12 (Colom.); Corte de Consitucionalidad [Constitutional Court], febrero 14, 2012, Expediente 3334-2011 (Guat); Resolución dictada por el Tribunal Pleno en el expediente varios 912/2010 y Votos Particulares formulados por los Ministros Margarita Beatriz Luna Ramos, Sergio Salvador Aguirre Anguiano y Luis María Aguilar Morales; así como Votos Particulares y Concurrentes de los Ministros Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea y Jorge Mario Pardo Rebolledo, Pleno de la Suprema Corte de Justicia [SCJN] (Mex.); Tribunal Constitucional de Peru [Constitutional Court of Peru], augosto 8, 2012, M.P: César Hum berto Tineo Cabrera, Expediente 00156-2012-PHC/TC.

30 See Tribunal Supremo de Justicia [T.S.J.] [Supreme Tribunal of Justice], Sala Constitucional deciembre 18, 2008, M.P: Arcadio Delgado Rosales, Expediente No. 08-1572, (Vene.); Suprema Corte de Justicia [Supreme Court], M. L., J. F. F. O.—Denuncia—Excepción de inconstitucionalidad arts. 1, 2 y 3 de la Ley no. 18.831, 22 febrero 2013, M.R: Jorge O. Chediak González, IUE 2–109971/2011, Sentencia No. 20 (Uru.); Tribunal Constitucional [Constitutional Court], 23 septiembre 2013, Expediente TC-05-2012- 0077, Sentencia TC/0168/13 (Dom. Rep.), and S.T.F, 2008/148623, Relator: Min. Eros Grau, 29.4.2010, 180, DIÁRIO DO JUDICIÁRO [D.J.e.], 19.09.2011, para. 42 (Braz.).

31 See Knop, Karen, Here and There: International Law in Domestic Courts, 32 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 501, 502-03 (2000)Google Scholar.

32 See Ress, Georg, The Effect of Decisions and Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Domestic Legal Order, 40 Tex. Int’l L.J. 359, 376 (2005)Google Scholar (discussing integration in the context of Europe).

33 Helfer, supra note 20, at 137.

34 Bulacio v. Argentina, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 100, paras. 116-121 (Sep. 18, 2003).

35 Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación [CSJN] [National Supreme Court of Justice], 23/12/2004, “Espósito, Miguel Angel s/ incidente de prescripción de la acción penal promovido por su defense”, Voto de Jueces Maqueda y Zaffaroni, considerando (Arg.)

36 Bulacio v. Argentina, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R, Paras. 10 and 12 (Nov. 26, 2008).

37 Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R (ser. C) No. 171, para. 111 (Nov. 22, 2007).

38 Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Opinion Judge Garcia Ramirez, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R (ser. C) No. 171, para. 25 (Nov. 22, 2007).

39 Id. at para. 26.

40 Id. at para. 31.

41 See Corte Suprema de Justicia de Paraguay, Seminario “Justicia Interamericana y Diálogo Jurisprudencial”.

42 See International Justice Resource Center, Inter-American Court of Human Rights holds 53rd Extraordinary Session (Sep. 1, 2015).