Roberto Gargarella – författare

Constitutional law in Latin America embodies a mosaic of national histories, political experiments, and institutional transitions. No matter how distinctive these histories and transitions might be, there are still commonalities that transcend the mere geographical contiguity of these countries.This Handbook depicts the constitutional landscape of Latin America by shedding light on its most important differences and affinities, qualities and drawbacks, and by assessing its overall standing in the global enterprise of democratic constitutionalism. It engages with substantive and methodological conundrums of comparative constitutional law in the region, drawing meaningful comparisons between constitutional traditions. The volume is divided into two main parts. Part I focuseson exploring the constitutions for seventeen jurisdictions, offering a comprehensive country-by-country critique of the historical foundations, institutional architecture, and rights-based substantive identity of each constitution. Part II presents comparative analyses on the most controversialconstitutional topics of the region, exploring central concepts in institutions and rights.The Oxford Handbook of Constitutional Law in Latin America is an essential resource for scholars and students of comparative constitutional law, and Latin American politics and history Written by leading experts, it comprehensively examines constitutions, controversies, institutions, and constitutional rights in Latin America.

Constitutional law in Latin America embodies a mosaic of national histories, political experiments, and institutional transitions. No matter how distinctive these histories and transitions might be, there are still commonalities that transcend the mere geographical contiguity of these countries.This Handbook depicts the constitutional landscape of Latin America by shedding light on its most important differences and affinities, qualities and drawbacks, and by assessing its overall standing in the global enterprise of democratic constitutionalism. It engages with substantive and methodological conundrums of comparative constitutional law in the region, drawing meaningful comparisons between constitutional traditions. The volume is divided into two main parts. Part I focuseson exploring the constitutions for seventeen jurisdictions, offering a comprehensive country-by-country critique of the historical foundations, institutional architecture, and rights-based substantive identity of each constitution. Part II presents comparative analyses on the most controversialconstitutional topics of the region, exploring central concepts in institutions and rights.The Oxford Handbook of Constitutional Law in Latin America is an essential resource for scholars and students of comparative constitutional law, and Latin American politics and history Written by leading experts, it comprehensively examines constitutions, controversies, institutions, and constitutional rights in Latin America.

Constitutional law in Latin America embodies a mosaic of national histories, political experiments, and institutional transitions. No matter how distinctive these histories and transitions might be, there are still commonalities that transcend the mere geographical contiguity of these countries. This Handbook depicts the constitutional landscape of Latin America by shedding light on its most important differences and affinities, qualities and drawbacks, and by assessing its overall standing in the global enterprise of democratic constitutionalism. It engages with substantive and methodological conundrums of comparative constitutional law in the region, drawing meaningful comparisons between constitutional traditions. The volume is divided into two main parts. Part I focuses on exploring the constitutions for seventeen jurisdictions, offering a comprehensive country-by-country critique of the historical foundations, institutional architecture, and rights-based substantive identity of each constitution. Part II presents comparative analyses on the most controversial constitutional topics of the region, exploring central concepts in institutions and rights.The Oxford Handbook of Constitutional Law in Latin America is an essential resource for scholars and students of comparative constitutional law, and Latin American politics and history Written by leading experts, it comprehensively examines constitutions, controversies, institutions, and constitutional rights in Latin America.

Latin America possesses an enormously rich constitutional history, but this legal history has only recently begun to be subjected to scholarly inquiry. As Roberto Gargarella contends, contemporary constitutional and political theory has a great deal to learn from this history, as Latin American constitutionalism has endured unique challenges that have not appeared in other regions. Such challenges include the emergence of egalitarian constitutions in inegalitarian contexts; deliberation over the value of "importing" foreign legal instruments; a long-standing exercise of socio-economic rights (which is only just starting in other areas of the world); issues of multiculturalism and indigenous rights; substantial experience with "unbalanced" versions of the system of "checks and balances" (due to the presence of so-called hyper-presidentialist regimes); and the succession of numerous and frequentconstitutional changes. In this landmark book, Gargarella provides a broadly comparative history of Latin American constitutionalism, informed by constitutional theory. He organizes the book across four major historical periods of Latin American legal history, infusing this history with a discussion of the ideas of thinkers including Juan Bautista Alberdi, Francisco Bilbao, Simón Bolívar; Juan Egaña, José González Vigil, Victorino Lastarria, Juan Carlos Mariátegui, Juan Montalvo, José María Mora, Mariano Otero, Manuel Murillo Toro, José María Samper and Domingo Sarmiento.

Latin America possesses an enormously rich constitutional history, one that has only recently become the subject of scholarly inquiry. As noted legal theorist Roberto Gargarella contends, contemporary constitutional and political theory has a great deal to learn from this history, as Latin American constitutionalism has endured unique challenges that have not appeared in other regions. Such challenges include the emergence of egalitarian constitutions in inegalitarian contexts; deliberation over the value of "importing" foreign legal instruments; a long-standing exercise of socio-economic rights; issues of multiculturalism and indigenous rights; and substantial experience with "unbalanced" versions of the system of "checks and balances." Moreover, Latin American nations have endured numerous and frequent constitutional changes over the past two centuries. In this landmark book, Gargarella provides a broadly comparative history of Latin American constitutionalism, informed by constitutional theory. He organizes the book across four major historical periods of Latin American legal history, infusing this history with a discussion of the ideas of thinkers including Juan Bautista Alberdi, Francisco Bilbao, Sim?n Bol?var; Juan Ega?a, Jos? Gonz?lez Vigil, Victorino Lastarria, Juan Carlos Mari?tegui, Juan Montalvo, Jos? Mar?a Mora, Mariano Otero, Manuel Murillo Toro, Jos? Mar?a Samper and Domingo Sarmiento. Written by one of the leading scholars in the field, this book is truly a milestone in the study of Latin American constitutionalism.

The long revolutionary movements that gave birth to constitutional democracies in the Americas were founded on egalitarian constitutional ideals. They claimed that all men were created equal with similar capacities and also that the community should become self-governing. Following the first constitutional debates that took place in the region, these promising egalitarian claims, which gave legitimacy to the revolutions, soon fell out of favor. Advocates of a conservative order challenged both ideals and favored constitutions that established religion and created an exclusionary political structure. Liberals proposed constitutions that protected individual autonomy and rights but established severe restrictions on the principle of majority rule. Radicals favored an openly majoritarian constitutional organization that, according to many, directly threatened the protection of individual rights. This book examines the influence of these opposite views during the 'founding period' of constitutionalism in countries including the United States, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela.

This title examines the political role of courts in new democracies in Latin America and Africa, focusing on their ability to hold political power-holders accountable when they act outside their constitutionally defined powers. The book also issues a warning: there are problems inherent in the current global move towards strong constitutional government, where increasingly strong powers are placed in the hands of judges who themselves are not made accountable.

Using case studies drawn from Latin America, Africa, India and Eastern Europe, this volume examines the role of courts as a channel for social transformation for excluded sectors of society in contemporary democracies. With a focus on social rights litigation in post-authoritarian regimes or in the context of fragile state control, the authors assess the role of judicial processes in altering (or perpetuating) social and economic inequalities and power relations in society. Drawing on interdisciplinary expertise in the fields of law, political theory, and political science, the chapters address theoretical debates and present empirical case studies to examine recent trends in social rights litigation.

In a time of disenchantment with democracy, massive social protests and the 'erosion' of the system of checks and balances, this book proposes to reflect upon the main problems of our constitutional democracies from a particular regulative ideal: that of the conversation among equals. It examines the structural character of the current democratic crisis, and the way in which, from its origins, constitutions were built around a 'discomfort with democracy'. In this sense, the book critically explores the creation of different restraints upon majority rule and collective debate: constitutional rights that are presented as limits to (and not, fundamentally, as a product of) democratic debate; an elitist system of judicial review; a checks and balances scheme that discourages, rather than promotes, dialogue between the different branches of power; etc. Finally, the book proposes a dignified constitutional democracy aimed at enabling fraternal conversation within the framework of a community of equals.

In a time of disenchantment with democracy, massive social protests and the 'erosion' of the system of checks and balances, this book proposes to reflect upon the main problems of our constitutional democracies from a particular regulative ideal: that of the conversation among equals. It examines the structural character of the current democratic crisis, and the way in which, from its origins, constitutions were built around a 'discomfort with democracy'. In this sense, the book critically explores the creation of different restraints upon majority rule and collective debate: constitutional rights that are presented as limits to (and not, fundamentally, as a product of) democratic debate; an elitist system of judicial review; a checks and balances scheme that discourages, rather than promotes, dialogue between the different branches of power; etc. Finally, the book proposes a dignified constitutional democracy aimed at enabling fraternal conversation within the framework of a community of equals.

In a time of disenchantment with democracy, massive social protests and the ''erosion'' of the system of checks and balances, this book proposes to reflect upon the main problems of our constitutional democracies from a particular regulative ideal: that of the conversation among equals. It examines the structural character of the current democratic crisis, and the way in which, from its origins, constitutions were built around a ''discomfort with democracy''. In this sense, the book critically explores the creation of different restraints upon majority rule and collective debate: constitutional rights that are presented as limits to (and not, fundamentally, as a product of) democratic debate; an elitist system of judicial review; a checks and balances scheme that discourages, rather than promotes, dialogue between the different branches of power; etc. Finally, the book proposes a dignified constitutional democracy aimed at enabling fraternal conversation within the framework of a community of equals.

In a time of disenchantment with democracy, massive social protests and the ''erosion'' of the system of checks and balances, this book proposes to reflect upon the main problems of our constitutional democracies from a particular regulative ideal: that of the conversation among equals. It examines the structural character of the current democratic crisis, and the way in which, from its origins, constitutions were built around a ''discomfort with democracy''. In this sense, the book critically explores the creation of different restraints upon majority rule and collective debate: constitutional rights that are presented as limits to (and not, fundamentally, as a product of) democratic debate; an elitist system of judicial review; a checks and balances scheme that discourages, rather than promotes, dialogue between the different branches of power; etc. Finally, the book proposes a dignified constitutional democracy aimed at enabling fraternal conversation within the framework of a community of equals.

The long revolutionary movements that gave birth to constitutional democracies in the Americas were founded on egalitarian constitutional ideals. They claimed that all men were created equal with similar capacities and also that the community should become self-governing. Following the first constitutional debates that took place in the region, these promising egalitarian claims, which gave legitimacy to the revolutions, soon fell out of favor. Advocates of a conservative order challenged both ideals and favored constitutions that established religion and created an exclusionary political structure. Liberals proposed constitutions that protected individual autonomy and rights but established severe restrictions on the principle of majority rule. Radicals favored an openly majoritarian constitutional organization that, according to many, directly threatened the protection of individual rights. This book examines the influence of these opposite views during the 'founding period' of constitutionalism in countries including the United States, Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela.

Comparative constitutional law has a long pedigree, but the comparative study of constitution-making has emerged and taken form only in the last quarter-century. While much of the initial impetus came from the study of the American and French constituent assemblies in the late eighteenth century, this volume exemplifies the large comparative scope of current research. The contributors discuss constituent assemblies in South East Asia, North Africa and the Middle East, Latin America, and in Nordic countries. Among the new insights they provide is a better understanding of how constituent assemblies may fail, either by not producing a document at all or by adopting a constitution that fails to serve as a neutral framework for ordinary politics. In a theoretical afterword, Jon Elster, an inspirational thinker on the current topic, offers an analysis of the micro-foundations of constitution-making, with special emphasis on the role of crises-generated passions.

Comparative constitutional law has a long pedigree, but the comparative study of constitution-making has emerged and taken form only in the last quarter-century. While much of the initial impetus came from the study of the American and French constituent assemblies in the late eighteenth century, this volume exemplifies the large comparative scope of current research. The contributors discuss constituent assemblies in South East Asia, North Africa and the Middle East, Latin America, and in Nordic countries. Among the new insights they provide is a better understanding of how constituent assemblies may fail, either by not producing a document at all or by adopting a constitution that fails to serve as a neutral framework for ordinary politics. In a theoretical afterword, Jon Elster, an inspirational thinker on the current topic, offers an analysis of the micro-foundations of constitution-making, with special emphasis on the role of crises-generated passions.

This title examines the political role of courts in new democracies in Latin America and Africa, focusing on their ability to hold political power-holders accountable when they act outside their constitutionally defined powers. The book also issues a warning: there are problems inherent in the current global move towards strong constitutional government, where increasingly strong powers are placed in the hands of judges who themselves are not made accountable.

This title examines the political role of courts in new democracies in Latin America and Africa, focusing on their ability to hold political power-holders accountable when they act outside their constitutionally defined powers. The book also issues a warning: there are problems inherent in the current global move towards strong constitutional government, where increasingly strong powers are placed in the hands of judges who themselves are not made accountable.

Using case studies drawn from Latin America, Africa, India and Eastern Europe, this volume examines the role of courts as a channel for social transformation for excluded sectors of society in contemporary democracies. With a focus on social rights litigation in post-authoritarian regimes or in the context of fragile state control, the authors assess the role of judicial processes in altering (or perpetuating) social and economic inequalities and power relations in society. Drawing on interdisciplinary expertise in the fields of law, political theory, and political science, the chapters address theoretical debates and present empirical case studies to examine recent trends in social rights litigation.

Traditionally relegated because of political pressure and public expectations, courts in Latin America are increasingly asserting a stronger role in public and political discussions. This casebook takes account of this phenomenon, by offering a rigorous and up-to-date discussion of constitutional adjudication in Latin America in recent decades. Bringing to the forefront the development of constitutional law by Latin American courts in various subject matters, the volume aims to highlight a host of creative arguments and solutions that judges in the region have offered.The authors review and discuss innovative case law in light of the countries’ social, political and legal context. Each chapter is devoted to a discussion of a particular area of judicial review, from freedom of expression to social and economic rights, from the internalization of human rights law to judicial checks on the economy, from gender and reproductive rights to transitional justice. The book thus provides a very useful tool to scholars, students and litigants alike.

Using case studies drawn from Latin America, Africa, India and Eastern Europe, this volume examines the role of courts as a channel for social transformation for excluded sectors of society in contemporary democracies. With a focus on social rights litigation in post-authoritarian regimes or in the context of fragile state control, the authors assess the role of judicial processes in altering (or perpetuating) social and economic inequalities and power relations in society. Drawing on interdisciplinary expertise in the fields of law, political theory, and political science, the chapters address theoretical debates and present empirical case studies to examine recent trends in social rights litigation.

Using case studies drawn from Latin America, Africa, India and Eastern Europe, this volume examines the role of courts as a channel for social transformation for excluded sectors of society in contemporary democracies. With a focus on social rights litigation in post-authoritarian regimes or in the context of fragile state control, the authors assess the role of judicial processes in altering (or perpetuating) social and economic inequalities and power relations in society. Drawing on interdisciplinary expertise in the fields of law, political theory, and political science, the chapters address theoretical debates and present empirical case studies to examine recent trends in social rights litigation.

Traditionally relegated because of political pressure and public expectations, courts in Latin America are increasingly asserting a stronger role in public and political discussions. This casebook takes account of this phenomenon, by offering a rigorous and up-to-date discussion of constitutional adjudication in Latin America in recent decades. Bringing to the forefront the development of constitutional law by Latin American courts in various subject matters, the volume aims to highlight a host of creative arguments and solutions that judges in the region have offered.The authors review and discuss innovative case law in light of the countries’ social, political and legal context. Each chapter is devoted to a discussion of a particular area of judicial review, from freedom of expression to social and economic rights, from the internalization of human rights law to judicial checks on the economy, from gender and reproductive rights to transitional justice. The book thus provides a very useful tool to scholars, students and litigants alike.

El impacto que Teoría de la justicia ha tenido en el mundo académico queda de manifiesto en las colaboraciones que aquí se recogen, donde profesores de Argentina (Roberto Gargarella), Chile (Juan Ormeño Karzulovic), España (Emilio Martínez Navarro), Estados Unidos (Thomas Pogge) y México (Paulette Dieterlen Struck) reflexionan en torno a la obra tomando como punto de partida las siguientes dos preguntas que les hemos hecho llegar: "1) ¿Qué balance hace usted del impacto que Teoría de la justicia ha tenido en el desarrollo de la filosofía moral y política de nuestro tiempo?, y 2) ¿Qué evaluación hace usted de los dos principios de la justicia, con la prioridad de las libertades, como contenido central de una sociedad bien ordenada?" Pero como queremos dialogar con Rawls tomando en serio su propuesta de pensar el problema de la justicia en las sociedades contemporáneas, las colaboraciones aquí reunidas van más allá para proponer temas puntuales de los que una teoría de la justicia debiera hacerse cargo hoy en día. De aquí la tercera pregunta que les planteamos: "3) Más allá de Rawls, ¿qué otros temas y problemas considera usted que tendría que abordar una teoría de la justicia para las sociedades actuales?" En su respuesta, Dieterlen Struck señala la pobreza y exclusión como temas propios de una teoría actual de la justicia, mientras que Martínez Navarro menciona la necesidad de conciliar libertad, seguridad, privacidad e igualdad. Pogge, por su parte, nos alerta sobre la urgencia de llevar el análisis moral institucional a nivel supranacional y, finalmente, Ormeño Karzulovic propone la desafección ciudadana con respecto a las instituciones democráticas como tema que debe abordar la filosofía política hoy. Resulta claro que los aquí enlistados, así como otros que se especifican en cada una de las colaboraciones, son problemas ingentes de nuestro tiempo cuya dolorosa realidad no ha hecho más que acentuarse en los años recientes. Con sus reflexiones al respecto, nuestros autores invitados siguen la enseñanza de Rawls en torno a la "tarea práctica" que corresponde a la filosofía. No es este un libro de homenaje, sino más bien un esfuerzo reflexivo para pensar la teoría de la justicia ralwsiana y, con y desde ella, los retos actuales que enfrentamos para conseguir formas de vida en condiciones de libertad e igualdad para todos, formas de vida justa. Esta discusión en torno a Teoría de la justicia es el tema de la segunda parte de este libro, mientras que en la primera abrimos con una entrevista que Rawls concedió a The Harvard Review of Philosophy en 1991. El documento es un testimonio interesante pues allí el Profesor aborda aspectos de su vida, así como las lecturas, intereses y preocupaciones que fueron perfilando su idea de la justicia. Rawls habla incluso de su labor como docente y del papel que —desde su punto de vista— tiene la filosofía en la sociedad. La entrevista, junto con la colaboración de Roberto Gargarella incluida también en esta primera parte, resultan aleccionadoras en la medida en que nos acercan al espíritu rawlsiano: sus motivaciones, su proyecto intelectual, sus semillas y sus líneas generales de desarrollo. El libro que aquí presentamos habrá de resultar de interés tanto al especialista en la obra de Rawls que busca reflexionar e informarse en torno al estado de la discusión actual, como a quien quiere acercarse por vez primera a la filosofía de quien es ya considerado un clásico del siglo XX.

Los derechos humanos representan, hoy más que nunca, una moral compartida que nos orienta hacia la subsistencia como comunidades cohesionadas. Desde esta óptica se comprende el valor de la práctica constitucional que se vale del litigio como motor para lograr el cambio social y la vigencia de tales derechos.La misma cobró forma en la mayoría de los países del denominado Sur Global a partir de las últimas reformas constitucionales. Allí se vio emerger un cuerpo de litigios orientados por el Interés Público y tendentes a dar vigencia a los derechos sociales prometidos en las constituciones, pero vulnerados en la práctica. Sin embargo, el fenómeno no es privativo de dichos países y comenzamos a ver indicios de esto en el denominado litigio por el cambio climático.Los primeros debates se vincularon con la posibilidad de asegurar la exigibilidad judicial de estos derechos y con el rol de las cortes en este nuevo escenario. La dialéctica se orientó hacia la demostración de las analogías que existen entre los derechos civiles y políticos, de un lado, y los sociales, de otro. En la práctica, a su vez, la falta de regulaciones específicas replicó dicha equiparación y condujo a una sobreutilización de los instrumentos procesales propios de los derechos individuales.Juicio a la desigualdad propone una mirada alternativa, que a la vez sirva de guía para las nuevas formas de litigio nacientes. Para ello, la autora analiza las dificultades teóricas e institucionales derivadas de los derechos sociales y sugiere la elaboración de categorías acordes a su especialidad. Desenvuelve su argumento en dos partes. En la primera se precisan las razones por las cuales los derechos sociales no deben ser totalmente equiparados con los civiles y políticos mostrando, en cambio, la conveniencia de un tratamiento teórico y procesal específico. En la segunda parte, se apoya en la experiencia del Litigio de Interés Público y expone los lineamientos que habrán de servir para la elaboración de un paradigma procesal -con bases participativas y deliberativas- que permita asegurar la tutela efectiva de estos derechos.

El derecho constitucional latinoamericano ha vivido una profunda transformación durante los últimos veinticinco años. Por un lado, un número importante de países de la región reformaron o promulgaron nuevas constituciones, con el fin de consolidar o ampliar sus democracias liberales.1 Las transformaciones constitucionales realizadas en Brasil (1988), Colombia (1991), Paraguay (1992), Perú (1993), Argentina (1995), Ecuador (1998) y Chile (2005) tuvieron como objetivos, entre otros, relegitimar sus sistemas políticos, plantear un nuevo balance entre las ramas del poder público, ampliar sus cartas de derechos o modernizar sus instituciones políticas y jurídicas.Por otro lado, las nuevas constituciones de Venezuela (1999), Ecuador (2008) y Bolivia (2009) tuvieron como objetivo alejarse del modelo liberal que ha sido, históricamente, el horizonte político normativo de la mayoría de los Estados de la región.3 Las constituciones de estos tres países fueron expedidas con el fin de materializar un nuevo modelo político que permitiera atacar de manera eficiente los problemas de pobreza, desigualdad y exclusión que afectan a la mayoría de sus ciudadanos.4 Inspiradas, por lo menos parcialmente, en lo que ha sido llamado el socialismo del siglo XXI, estas constituciones han buscado erigir una democracia radical en estos tres países suramericanos.5 Para alcanzar este objetivo, tales cartas políticas, entre otras cosas, otorgaron poderes extensos a la rama ejecutiva, debilitaron las facultades de control de la rama judicial, promulgaron un número notable de derechos sociales y económicos, reconocieron una gama amplia de derechos a las minorías culturales y transformaron algunas de sus instituciones políticas y jurídicas para hacerlas compatibles con el principio de diversidad cultural.