¿El control de racionalidad procedimental como forma de deferencia? Proceso y contenido en la jurisprudencia reciente del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/rdp.114.2022.34149Palabras clave:
Racionalidad procedimental, legitimidad, subsidiariedad cooperativa, cultura de la justificaciónResumen
Este trabajo examina el giro procedimental que está dando la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos tras las demandas de que Estrasburgo ejerza su función jurisdiccional desde un principio más robusto de subsidiariedad. Una vez caracterizadas las diversas dinámicas del control de racionalidad procedimental, se distinguen dos concepciones del principio de subsidiariedad, la estatista y la cooperativa, y se mantiene que son las exigencias de subsidiariedad cooperativa las que debemos usar para juzgar si el giro procedimental supone una buena noticia para los derechos humanos en Europa. Se defiende que el control procedimental puede contribuir a la legitimidad y eficacia del sistema del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos siempre que sirva para fiscalizar el cumplimiento de tres responsabilidades cooperativas de los estados: imparcialidad, cultura de la justificación y perspectiva convencional. También se aportan algunas consideraciones sistémicas para concluir que la revisión procedimental debería ocupar un lugar complementario en la aplicación del Convenio.
Descargas
Citas
Arai-Takahashi, Y. (2002). The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR. Oxford: Intersetia.
Arnardóttir, O.M. (2017). ”The ‘Procedural Turn’ under the European Convention on Human Rights and Presumptions of Convention compliance. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15 (1), 9–35.
Besson, S. (2016). “Subsidiarity in International Human Rights Law-What is Subsidiarity about Human Rights?”. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 61 (1), 69-107.
Besson, S. (2017). “Human Rights as Transnational Constitutional Law”, en Anthony. L y Antje, W. (eds.). Handbook on Global Constitutionalism, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 234-247.
Brauch, J. (2005). “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, 11, 113-150.
Brems, E. (2016). “SAS v. France: A Reality Check”. Nottingham Law Journal, 25, 58-72.
Brems, E. (2017). “The ‘Logics’ of Procedural-Type Review by the European Court of Human Rights”, en Gerards. J y Brems, E. (eds.). Procedural Review in European Fundamental Rights Cases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17-39.
Buchanan, A. (2013). The Heart of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carozza, P. (2003). “Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law”, The American Journal of International Law, 97 (1), 38-79.
Christoffersen, J. (2009). Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Cohen, J.L. (2008). “Rethinking Human Rights, Democracy, and Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization”. Political Theory, 36 (4), 578-606.
Cumper, P. y Lewis, T. (2019). “Blanket Bans, Subsidiarity, and the Procedural Turn of the European Court of Human Rights”. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 68 (3), 1-28.
Dyzenhaus, D. (2015). “What is a ‘Democratic Culture of Justification’?”, en Hunt, M., Cooper, H. y Yowell, P. (eds.). Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 425-446.
Dzehtsiarou, K. (2015). European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Endo, K. (1994). “The Principle of Subsidiarity: From Johannes Althusius to Jacques Delors”. Hokkaido Law Review, 46 (6), 553-652.
Føllesdal, A. (2014). “Much Ado about Nothing? International Judicial Review of Human Rights in Well Functioning Democracies”, en Føllesdal, A., Schaffer, J. y Ulfstein, G. (eds.). The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Regimes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 272-299.
Føllesdal, A. (2016). “Subsidiarity and International Human-Rights Courts: Respecting Self-Governance and Protecting Human Rights-Or Neither?”. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79 (2), 147-163.
García Roca, J. (2007). “La muy discrecional doctrina del margen de apreciación nacional según el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos: soberanía e integración”. Teoría y realidad constitucional, 20, 117-143.
Gargarella, R. (2016). “Tribunales internacionales y democracia: enfoques deferentes o de interferencia”. Revista Latinoamericana de derecho internacional, 4.
Gerards, J. (2012). “The prism of fundamental rights”. European Constitutional Law Review, 8 (2), 173-202.
Gerards, J. (2014). “The European Court of Human Rights and the national courts – giving shape to the notion of ‘shared responsibility’”, en Gerards, E y Fleuren, J. (eds.). Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the judgments of the ECtHR in national case law. A comparative analysis, Antwerp: Intersentia, 13-94.
Gerards, J. y Brems, E. (eds) (2017). Procedural Review in European Fundamental Rights Cases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greer, S. (2003). “Constitutionalizing Adjudication under the European Convention on Human Rights”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 23 (3), 405-433.
Kleinlein, T. (2019). “The Procedural Approach of the European Court of Human Rights: Between Subsidiarity and Dynamic Evolution”. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 68 (1), 91-110.
Lazarus, L. y Simonsen, N. (2015). “Judicial Review and Parliamentary Debate: Enhancing the Doctrine of Due Deference”, en Hunt, M., Hooper, H. y Yowell, P. (eds.). Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Letsas, G. (2006). “Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26 (4), 705-732.
Letsas, G. (2013). “The ECHR as a living instrument: Its meaning and legitimacy”, en Føllesdal, A., Peters, B. y Ulfstein, G. (eds.). Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 106-141.
McHarg, A. (1999). “Reconciling Human Rights and the Public Interest: Conceptual Problems and Doctrinal Uncertainty in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights”. The Modern Law Review, 62, 671-696.
Mowbray, A. (2015). “Subsidiarity and the European Convention on Human Rights”. Human Rights Law Review, 15 (2), 313–341.
Popelier, P. (2019). “Procedural Rationality Review after Animal Defenders International: A Constructively Critical Approach”. European Constitutional Law Review, 15 (2), 272-293.
Popelier, P. y Van de Heyning, C. (2013). “Procedural Rationality: Giving Teeth to the Proportionality Analysis”. European Constitutional Law Review, 9 (2), 230-262.
Popelier, P. y Van de Heyning, C. (2017). “Subsidiarity Post-Brighton: Procedural Rationality as Answer?”. Leiden Journal of International Law, 30 (1), 5-23.
Queralt Jiménez, A. (2018). “Las sentencias piloto como ejemplo paradigmático de la transformación del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos”. Teoría y realidad constitucional, 42, 395-424.
Sáiz Arnaiz, A. (2018). “Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y procesos políticos nacionales democracia convencional y margen de apreciación”. Teoría y realidad constitucional, 42, 221-245.
Sauvé, J.M. (2015). “Statement”. En Subsidiarity: a Two-Sided Coin?, Dialogue Between Judges, European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe.
Spano, R. (2014). “Universality or Diversity of Human Rights? Strasbourg in the Age of Subsidiarity”. Human Rights Law Review, 14 (3), 487–502.
Spano, R. (2015). “The European Court of Human Rights and National Courts: A Constructive Conversation or a Dialogue of Disrespect?”. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 33 (1), 1-10.
Spano, R. (2018). “The Future of the European Court of Human Rights—Subsidiarity, Process-Based Review and the Rule of Law”. Human Rights Law Review, 18 (3), 473-494.
Spielmann, D. (2012). “Allowing the Right Margin: The European Court of Human Rights and The National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review?”. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 14, 381-418.
Strasser, W. (1988). “The Relationship between Substantive Rights and Procedural Rights Guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights”, en Matscher, F. y Petzold, H. (eds.). Protecting Human Rights: The European Dimension: Studies in Honour of Gerard J. Wiarda, Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag KG, 595-604.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
