¿Por qué comparar? Propósitos y desafíos del derecho constitucional comparado en el siglo XXI

  • María Dolores Collazos Escuela de Altos Estudios en Ciencias Sociales, Paris
Palabras clave: Derecho constitucional comparado, constitucionalismo global, metodología de las ciencias sociales

Resumen

El constitucionalismo comparado ha surgido después de la Guerra Fría como una herramienta importante para las transiciones democráticas y la consolidación de la paz. Sin embargo, los enfoques tradicionales no proporcionan explicaciones plausibles para nuevos fenómenos como la globalización y el diálogo entre tribunales. A pesar del resurgimiento del campo, el constitucionalismo comparado enfrenta desafíos relacionados con la selección de casos y la ambivalencia hacia las ciencias sociales. Este artículo hace referencia al debate básico sobre los propósitos y desafíos del derecho constitucional comparado moderno. La idea principal es que el estudio del constitucionalismo debe estrechar lazos con las ciencias sociales para construir un derecho constitucional comparado pluralista.

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Biografía del autor/a

María Dolores Collazos, Escuela de Altos Estudios en Ciencias Sociales, Paris

Investigadora asociada, Centro de Estudios Sociológicos y Políticos Raymond Aron (CESPRA) – EHESS (Paris). Doctor en Derecho y Sociedad, EHESS (Paris).

Citas

Alford, W. P. (1986). On the Limits of Grand Theory in Comparative Law. Washington Law Review, 61(3), 945–956.

Annus, T. (2004). Comparative Constitutional Reasoning: the Law and Strategy of Selecting the Right Arguments. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, 14, 301-349.

Baraggia, A. (2017). Challenges in Comparative Constitutional Law Studies: Between Globalization and Constitutional Tradition. Law and Method, Special Issue, Comparative Law, 10, 1–13.

Blum, B. (2008). Doctrines Without Borders: The New Israeli Exclusionary Rule and the Dangers of Legal Transplantation. Stanford Law Review, 60, 2131–2172.

Brennan, K. (1988). The Influence of Cultural Relativism on International Human Rights Law: Female Circumcision as a Case Study. Law & Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 7(3), 367–398.

Burnham, M. A. (1997). Cultivating a Seedling Charter: South Africa’s Court Grows Its Constitution. Michigan Journal of Race & Law, 3, 29–58.

Carmi, G. (2012). “Dignitizing” Free Speech in Israel: The Impact of the Constitutional Revolution on Free Speech Protection. McGill Law Journal/Revue de droit de McGill, 57(4), 791-856.

Cheibub, J. A., Elkins, Z. y Ginsburg, T. (2010). Latin American Presidentialism in Comparative and Historical Perspective. Texas Law Review, 89, 1707–1739.

Choudhry, S. (1998). Globalization in Search of Justification: Toward a Theory of Comparative Constitutional Interpretation. Indiana Law Journal, 74(3), 819–892.

Dann, P. (14 de julio de 2017). The Global South in Comparative Constitutional Law. VerfBlog. https://verfassungsblog.de/the-global-south-in-comparative-constitutional-law/

De Visser, M. y Son Bui, N. (2019). Glocalised constitution-making in the twenty-first century: Evidence from Asia. Global Constitutionalism, 8(2), 297–331.

Di Robilant, A. (2016). Big Questions Comparative Law. Boston University Law Review, 96, 1325–1345.

Frankenberg, G. (1985). Critical Comparisons: Re-thinking Comparative Law. Harvard International Law Journal, 26(2), 411–455.

Frankenberg, G. (1997). Stranger than Paradise: Identity & Politics in Comparative Law. Utah Law Review, (2), 259–274.

Ginsburg, T. (2016). How to Study Constitution-Making: Hirschl, Elster, and the Seventh Inning Problem. Boston University Law Review, 96, 1347–1358.

Graziadei, M. (2006). Comparative Law as the Study of Transplants and Receptions. En M. Reimann y R. Zimmermann (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law (pp. 442–461). Oxford University Press.

Harding, S. K. (2003). Comparative Reasoning and Judicial Review. Yale Journal of International Law, 28(2), 409–464.

Hirschl, R. (2005). The Question of Case Selection in Comparative Constitutional Law. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 53(1), 125-156.

Hirschl, R. (2013). From Comparative Constitutional Law to Comparative Constitutional Studies. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(1), 1–12.

Hirschl, R. (2014). Comparative Matters: The Renaissance of Comparative Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press.

Hirschl. R. (2016). Comparative Matters: Response to Interlocutors. Boston University Law Review, 96(4), 1393-1424.

Jackson, V. C. (2010). Methodological Challenges in Comparative Constitutional Law. Penn State International Law Review, 28(3), 319–326.

Jackson, V. C. (2016). Comparative Constitutional Law, Legal Realism, and Empirical Legal Science. Boston University Law Review, 96, 1359–1354.

Jellinek, G. (2000). La Declaracion de los Derechos del Hombre y del Ciudadano (A. Posada, trad.). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Kende, M. S. (2015). Comparative Constitutional Law: South African Cases and Materials in a Global Context (Preface). Carolina Academic Press.

Klatt, M. y Meister, M. (2012). Proportionality–a benefit to human rights? Remarks on the I· CON controversy. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10(3), 687-708.

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

Kumm, M. (2004). The Legitimacy of International Law: A Constitutionalist Framework of Analysis. European Journal of International Law, 15(5), 907-931.

Kumm, M. (2013). Constitutionalism and the Cosmopolitan State. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 20(2), 13-68. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2338547

Legrand, P. (1996). European Legal Systems are not Converging. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 45(1), 52-81.

Peters, A. (2009). The Merits of Global Constitutionalism. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 16(2), 397-411.

Petersen, N. (2009). The Reception of International Law by Constitutional Courts through the Prism of Legitimacy. Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, (39). https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2009_39

Reimann, M. (2002). Introduction: The Yahoo Case and Conflict of Laws in the Cyberage. Michigan Journal of International Law, 24(3), 663–672.

Rosenfeld, M. (2012). Comparative Constitutional Analysis in United States Adjudication and Scholarship. En M. Rosenfeld y A. Sajó (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (pp. 38–53). Oxford University Press.

Rosenfeld, M. y Sajó, A. (2012). Introduction. En M. Rosenfeld y A. Sajó (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (pp. 1–21). Oxford University Press.

Rosenn, K. S. (2009). Separation of Powers in Brazil. Duquesne Law Review, 47, 839–870.

Schlesinger, R. B. y Bonassies, P. (1963). Le fonds commun des systèmes juridiques. Observations sur un nouveau projet de recherches. Revue internationale de droit comparé, 15(3), 501-540.

Schwöbel, C. E. (2010). Situating the debate on global constitutionalism. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 8(3), 611-635.

Segado, F. F. (2004). Du contrôle politique au controle juridictionnel. Évolution et apports de la justice constitutionnelle ibérico-américaine. Annuaire international de justice constitutionnelle, (20), 11-53.

Spielmann, D. (2012). Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Systems of Europe. En M. Rosenfeld y A. Sajó (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (pp. 1231–1252). Oxford University Press.

Tunc. A. (1964). La contribution possible des études juridiques comparatives à une meilleure compréhension entre nations. Revue internationale de droit comparé, 16(1), 47-67. https://doi.org/10.3406/ridc.1964.13858

Tushnet, M. (1980). Legal Scholarship: Its Causes and Cure. Yale Law Journal, 90, 1205-1223.

Tushnet, M. (2006). Referring to Foreign Law in Constitutional Interpretation: An Episode in the Culture Wars. University of Baltimore Law Review, 35, 299–312.

van Hoecke, M. (2015). Methodology of Comparative Legal Research. Law and Method, 12, 1-35.

van Toor, D. A. G. (2017). Case Selection in Comparative Law Based on Hofstede’s Cultural Psychology Theory. Law and Method (Special Issue - Comparative Law), 10, 1–14.

Volio, L. G. (2009). Los ombudsman en América Latina y su incidencia política. IIDH Magazine, (49), 157–202.

Watson, A. (1993). Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative Law. University of Georgia Press.

Webb, H. (1998). The Constitutional Court of South Africa: Rights Interpretation and Comparative Constitutional Law. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 1(2), 205–283.

World Bank Group. (2016). Conflict and Violence in the 21st Century Current Trends as Observed in Empirical Research and Statistics. https://www.un.org/pga/70/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/01/Conflict-and-violence-in-the-21st-century-Current-trends-as-observed-in-empirical-research-and-statistics-Mr.-Alexandre-Marc-Chief-Specialist-Fragility-Conflict-and-Violence-World-Bank-Group.pdf

Zongling, S. (1999). Legal Transplant and Comparative Law. Revue internationale de droit comparé, 51(4), 853-857. https://doi.org/10.3406/ridc.1999.18184

Zumbansen, P. (2005). Comparative Law’s Coming of Age? Twenty Years after Critical Comparisons. German Law Journal, 6(7), 1073-1084.

Publicado
2021-01-13
Cómo citar
Collazos, M. D. (2021). ¿Por qué comparar? Propósitos y desafíos del derecho constitucional comparado en el siglo XXI. Precedente. Revista Jurídica, 18, 11 - 39. https://doi.org/10.18046/prec.v18.4568