El blog "Derecho Global" cambia de dirección: a partir de hoy, publicaremos las actualizaciones en la nueva página www.derechoglobalizado.wordpress.com.
21 ago 2012
14 ago 2012
CIDH anuncia Primer Foro sobre el Fortalecimiento del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos
Washington, D.C. - La Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) anuncia la realización del Primer Foro sobre el Fortalecimiento del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, el 22 de agosto de 2012 en la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia. Este foro es co-organizado por la CIDH con la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana y la Agencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado de Colombia.
El Foro de Bogotá será instalado por el presidente de Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos Calderón, y contará con la participación del Presidente de la CIDH, José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez.
Entre los panelistas estarán el Comisionado de la CIDH y ex Presidente de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Rodrigo Escobar Gil, el Vicepresidente de la CorteIDH, Manuel Ventura-Robles, y el ex Presidente de la CorteIDH Pedro Nikken. Participarán también el director de la Comisión Colombiana de Juristas, Gustavo Gallón, el magistrado del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos Luis López Guerra, y el director de posgrados de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas de la Universidad Javeriana, Luis Fernando Alvarez Londoño. Los panelistas debatirán el tema “El futuro del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos”, en dos módulos separados, los cuales serán coordinados por el Director de la Agencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado, Fernando Carrillo Flórez, y por el magistrado de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia y juez electo de la CorteIDH, Humberto Sierra Porto. El evento será clausurado por la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores de Colombia, María Ángela Holguín, y por la Ministra de Justicia y del Derecho, Ruth Stella Correa.
El Foro de Bogotá será instalado por el presidente de Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos Calderón, y contará con la participación del Presidente de la CIDH, José de Jesús Orozco Henríquez.
Entre los panelistas estarán el Comisionado de la CIDH y ex Presidente de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Rodrigo Escobar Gil, el Vicepresidente de la CorteIDH, Manuel Ventura-Robles, y el ex Presidente de la CorteIDH Pedro Nikken. Participarán también el director de la Comisión Colombiana de Juristas, Gustavo Gallón, el magistrado del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos Luis López Guerra, y el director de posgrados de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas de la Universidad Javeriana, Luis Fernando Alvarez Londoño. Los panelistas debatirán el tema “El futuro del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos”, en dos módulos separados, los cuales serán coordinados por el Director de la Agencia Nacional de Defensa Jurídica del Estado, Fernando Carrillo Flórez, y por el magistrado de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia y juez electo de la CorteIDH, Humberto Sierra Porto. El evento será clausurado por la Ministra de Relaciones Exteriores de Colombia, María Ángela Holguín, y por la Ministra de Justicia y del Derecho, Ruth Stella Correa.
El actual proceso de reforma de la CIDH: nuevas formas para viejos intentos
Autor(a): David Lovatón Palacios
Una vez más la reforma de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (en adelante CIDH), ha sido y sigue siendo objeto de debate en el seno de la Organización de Estados Americanos (en adelante OEA) por parte de los Estados miembros. En el año 2011 ello se concretó en la conformación del “Grupo de Trabajo especial de reflexión sobre el funcionamiento de la Comisión interamericana de derechos humanos para el fortalecimiento del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos”, creado por el Consejo permanente de la OEA en su sesión ordinaria del 29 de junio del 2011, a partir, por un lado, de una sugerencia formulada por el Ministro de relaciones exteriores de El Salvador y Presidente del Cuadragésimo Primer Periodo Ordinario de Sesiones de la Asamblea General de la OEA llevada a cabo en San Salvador en junio del 2011.
Por otro lado, la otra razón –o la razón de fondo– que gatilló la conformación de este Grupo de Trabajo especial (en adelante GT), fue la presentación en marzo del 2011, por parte de la CIDH, de una propuesta de reforma del artículo 11° de su Reglamento, referido al procedimiento de selección y designación del Secretario Ejecutivo de la CIDH y que, inicialmente, no fue bien recibida por la Secretaría General de la OEA ni por algunos Estados miembros. El 13 de Diciembre del 2011, el GT aprobó un Informe final que puso a consideración del Consejo permanente de la OEA, el cual lo debatió y aprobó en su sesión del 25 de Enero del 2012.
Una vez más la reforma de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (en adelante CIDH), ha sido y sigue siendo objeto de debate en el seno de la Organización de Estados Americanos (en adelante OEA) por parte de los Estados miembros. En el año 2011 ello se concretó en la conformación del “Grupo de Trabajo especial de reflexión sobre el funcionamiento de la Comisión interamericana de derechos humanos para el fortalecimiento del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos”, creado por el Consejo permanente de la OEA en su sesión ordinaria del 29 de junio del 2011, a partir, por un lado, de una sugerencia formulada por el Ministro de relaciones exteriores de El Salvador y Presidente del Cuadragésimo Primer Periodo Ordinario de Sesiones de la Asamblea General de la OEA llevada a cabo en San Salvador en junio del 2011.
Por otro lado, la otra razón –o la razón de fondo– que gatilló la conformación de este Grupo de Trabajo especial (en adelante GT), fue la presentación en marzo del 2011, por parte de la CIDH, de una propuesta de reforma del artículo 11° de su Reglamento, referido al procedimiento de selección y designación del Secretario Ejecutivo de la CIDH y que, inicialmente, no fue bien recibida por la Secretaría General de la OEA ni por algunos Estados miembros. El 13 de Diciembre del 2011, el GT aprobó un Informe final que puso a consideración del Consejo permanente de la OEA, el cual lo debatió y aprobó en su sesión del 25 de Enero del 2012.
José Ovalle Favela: La influencia de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos: En el derecho interno de los estados latinoamericanos
Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado, nueva serie, año XLV, núm. 134, mayo agosto de 2012, pp. 595-623.
Resumen: En este trabajo el autor analiza la influencia de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en la evolución reciente del derecho interno de los Estados latinoamericanos. Para este fin se ocupa de la creación y funciones de la Comisión Interamericana y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. De esta última, estudia su integración y su competencia, tanto consultiva como contenciosa, así como las características de su jurisprudencia. También aborda el tema del control de la convencionalidad tanto en sede internacional, que ejerce la Corte Interamericana, cuanto a la que en sede nacional o interna compete a los poderes internos de cada Estado, particularmente a los jueces. Por último, el autor analiza cinco casos específicos.
Fuente: Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual
Resumen: En este trabajo el autor analiza la influencia de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos en la evolución reciente del derecho interno de los Estados latinoamericanos. Para este fin se ocupa de la creación y funciones de la Comisión Interamericana y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. De esta última, estudia su integración y su competencia, tanto consultiva como contenciosa, así como las características de su jurisprudencia. También aborda el tema del control de la convencionalidad tanto en sede internacional, que ejerce la Corte Interamericana, cuanto a la que en sede nacional o interna compete a los poderes internos de cada Estado, particularmente a los jueces. Por último, el autor analiza cinco casos específicos.
Fuente: Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual
Gaines, Olsen, & Sørensen: Liberalising Trade in the EU and the WTO: A Legal Comparison
Sanford E. Gaines (Aarhus Universitet), Birgitte Egelund Olsen (Aarhus Universitet), & Karsten Engsig Sørensen (Aarhus Universitet) have published Liberalising Trade in the EU and the WTO: A Legal Comparison (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:
This comparison of EU and WTO approaches to common trade-liberalisation challenges brings together eighteen authors from Europe and America. Together they explore fundamental legal issues, such as the role of general principles of law, the role of the judiciary in the development of law, the effect of the principle of non-discrimination and the elimination of non-discriminatory barriers to trade. The contributions also examine the most recent developments in trade law across a full range of trade issues, including TBT and SPS, services, intellectual property, customs rules, safeguards, anti-dumping and government procurement. Adopting a comparative perspective throughout, this volume sheds light on today's trade law and suggests paths forward for each system through the perennial tensions between open, non-discriminatory trade and strongly held national values and objectives.
Source: International Law Reporter
This comparison of EU and WTO approaches to common trade-liberalisation challenges brings together eighteen authors from Europe and America. Together they explore fundamental legal issues, such as the role of general principles of law, the role of the judiciary in the development of law, the effect of the principle of non-discrimination and the elimination of non-discriminatory barriers to trade. The contributions also examine the most recent developments in trade law across a full range of trade issues, including TBT and SPS, services, intellectual property, customs rules, safeguards, anti-dumping and government procurement. Adopting a comparative perspective throughout, this volume sheds light on today's trade law and suggests paths forward for each system through the perennial tensions between open, non-discriminatory trade and strongly held national values and objectives.
Source: International Law Reporter
Cohen: Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking Legality, Legitimacy, and Constitutionalism
Jean L. Cohen (Columbia Univ. - Political Science) has published Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking Legality, Legitimacy, and Constitutionalism (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012). Here's the abstract:
Sovereignty and the sovereign state are often seen as anachronisms; Globalization and Sovereignty challenges this view. Jean L. Cohen analyzes the new sovereignty regime emergent since the 1990s evidenced by the discourses and practice of human rights, humanitarian intervention, transformative occupation, and the UN targeted sanctions regime that blacklists alleged terrorists. Presenting a systematic theory of sovereignty and its transformation in international law and politics, Cohen argues for the continued importance of sovereign equality. She offers a theory of a dualistic world order comprised of an international society of states, and a global political community in which human rights and global governance institutions affect the law, policies, and political culture of sovereign states. She advocates the constitutionalization of these institutions, within the framework of constitutional pluralism. This book will appeal to students of international political theory and law, political scientists, sociologists, legal historians, and theorists of constitutionalism.
Source: International Law Reporter
Sovereignty and the sovereign state are often seen as anachronisms; Globalization and Sovereignty challenges this view. Jean L. Cohen analyzes the new sovereignty regime emergent since the 1990s evidenced by the discourses and practice of human rights, humanitarian intervention, transformative occupation, and the UN targeted sanctions regime that blacklists alleged terrorists. Presenting a systematic theory of sovereignty and its transformation in international law and politics, Cohen argues for the continued importance of sovereign equality. She offers a theory of a dualistic world order comprised of an international society of states, and a global political community in which human rights and global governance institutions affect the law, policies, and political culture of sovereign states. She advocates the constitutionalization of these institutions, within the framework of constitutional pluralism. This book will appeal to students of international political theory and law, political scientists, sociologists, legal historians, and theorists of constitutionalism.
Source: International Law Reporter
Evans: The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict
Christine Evans (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) has published The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict (Cambridge Univ. Press 2012).
Here's the abstract:
In this evaluation of the international legal standing of the right to reparation and its practical implementation at the national level, Christine Evans outlines State responsibility and examines the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, the Articles on State Responsibility of the International Law Commission and the convergence of norms in different branches of international law, notably human rights law, humanitarian law and international criminal law. Case studies of countries in which the United Nations has played a significant role in peace negotiations and post-conflict processes allow her to analyse to what extent transitional justice measures have promoted State responsibility for reparations, interacted with human rights mechanisms and prompted subsequent elaboration of domestic legislation and reparations policies. In conclusion, she argues for an emerging customary right for individuals to receive reparations for serious violations of human rights and a corresponding responsibility of States.
Source: International Law Reporter
Here's the abstract:
In this evaluation of the international legal standing of the right to reparation and its practical implementation at the national level, Christine Evans outlines State responsibility and examines the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, the Articles on State Responsibility of the International Law Commission and the convergence of norms in different branches of international law, notably human rights law, humanitarian law and international criminal law. Case studies of countries in which the United Nations has played a significant role in peace negotiations and post-conflict processes allow her to analyse to what extent transitional justice measures have promoted State responsibility for reparations, interacted with human rights mechanisms and prompted subsequent elaboration of domestic legislation and reparations policies. In conclusion, she argues for an emerging customary right for individuals to receive reparations for serious violations of human rights and a corresponding responsibility of States.
Source: International Law Reporter
Benvenisti & Downs: Prospects for the Increased Independence of International Tribunals
Eyal Benvenisti (Tel Aviv Univ. - Law) & George W. Downs (New York Univ. - Politics) have posted Prospects for the Increased Independence of International Tribunals (German Law Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, 2011). Here's the abstract:
In this essay we draw upon the theoretical and empirical literatures on the evolution of court independence within modern democratic states to identify aspects of their political environments that have fostered judicial independence at the domestic level. We then extend that analysis to examine the role that these or similar factors are likely to play in facilitating the independence and legitimacy of international tribunals at the global level. We focus on two such broad aspects of the global environment not normally associated with the independence of international tribunals: the extent of political division between states that are parties to an international tribunal (interstate competition), and the extent of political division within states between state executives and national courts (inter-branch competition). We suggest further that the conditions that facilitate independence have increased in recent years and are likely to continue to do so.
Source: International Law Reporter
In this essay we draw upon the theoretical and empirical literatures on the evolution of court independence within modern democratic states to identify aspects of their political environments that have fostered judicial independence at the domestic level. We then extend that analysis to examine the role that these or similar factors are likely to play in facilitating the independence and legitimacy of international tribunals at the global level. We focus on two such broad aspects of the global environment not normally associated with the independence of international tribunals: the extent of political division between states that are parties to an international tribunal (interstate competition), and the extent of political division within states between state executives and national courts (inter-branch competition). We suggest further that the conditions that facilitate independence have increased in recent years and are likely to continue to do so.
Source: International Law Reporter
Raustiala: Institutional Proliferation and the International Legal Order
Kal Raustiala (Univ. of California, Los Angeles - Law) has posted Institutional Proliferation and the International Legal Order (in Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Law and International Relations:
The State of the Art, Jeffrey L. Dunoff & Mark A. Pollack eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
Since the cataclysm of World War II, the international order has grown increasingly institutionalized. Hundreds of international organizations and tens of thousands of treaties now exist, many with widespread – and in some cases nearly universal – membership. Compared to earlier eras, the international system today is far more densely populated by rules and institutions.
The State of the Art, Jeffrey L. Dunoff & Mark A. Pollack eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:
Since the cataclysm of World War II, the international order has grown increasingly institutionalized. Hundreds of international organizations and tens of thousands of treaties now exist, many with widespread – and in some cases nearly universal – membership. Compared to earlier eras, the international system today is far more densely populated by rules and institutions.
Call for Papers: Interfaces between International and National Legal Orders: An International Rule of Law Perspective
Amsterdam Center for International Law
CALL FOR PAPERS
Interfaces between International and National Legal Orders:
An International Rule of Law Perspective
The Amsterdam Center for International Law (ACIL) is organising a seminar on 14-15 March 2013 and invites paper proposals from scholars and practitioners of law and related disciplines.
The Seminar Theme
The seminar explores the evolving interfaces between international and national legal orders from the perspective of the international rule of law.
In this seminar, the international rule of law concerns international law regulating states, as well as international institutions and other subjects of international law. The international rule of law could be narrowly defined to encompass procedural requirements, or more broadly to include inter alia human rights, democracy, the separation of powers, and/or accountability.
CALL FOR PAPERS
Interfaces between International and National Legal Orders:
An International Rule of Law Perspective
The Amsterdam Center for International Law (ACIL) is organising a seminar on 14-15 March 2013 and invites paper proposals from scholars and practitioners of law and related disciplines.
The Seminar Theme
The seminar explores the evolving interfaces between international and national legal orders from the perspective of the international rule of law.
In this seminar, the international rule of law concerns international law regulating states, as well as international institutions and other subjects of international law. The international rule of law could be narrowly defined to encompass procedural requirements, or more broadly to include inter alia human rights, democracy, the separation of powers, and/or accountability.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)