7617

The integration of a national system of rights in a multi-level protection system - based on constitutional mandates of openness - together with autonomous international systems, leads to the formation of a community of final interpreters. Interordinal tension appears as a constant in these systems...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Pizzolo, Calogero
Formato:	Artículo publishedVersion
Lenguaje:	Español
Publicado:	Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Centro de Excelencia Jean Monnet 2023
Materias:	Tribunales Constitucionales y Supremos Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos Diálogo judicial Comunidad de Intérpretes finales TJUE TEDH Constitutional and Supreme Courts Court of Justice of the European Union European Court of Human Rights Judicial dialogue Community of final Interpreters ECHR CJEU
Acceso en línea:	http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=integra&cl=CL1&d=HWA_7617 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/collect/integra/index/assoc/HWA_7617.dir/7617.PDF
Aporte de:	Repositorio Digital de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) de Universidad de Buenos Aires

id	I28-R145-HWA_7617
record_format	dspace
institution	Universidad de Buenos Aires
institution_str	I-28
repository_str	R-145
collection	Repositorio Digital de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA)
language	Español
orig_language_str_mv	spa
topic	Tribunales Constitucionales y Supremos Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos Diálogo judicial Comunidad de Intérpretes finales TJUE TEDH Constitutional and Supreme Courts Court of Justice of the European Union European Court of Human Rights Judicial dialogue Community of final Interpreters ECHR CJEU
spellingShingle	Tribunales Constitucionales y Supremos Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos Diálogo judicial Comunidad de Intérpretes finales TJUE TEDH Constitutional and Supreme Courts Court of Justice of the European Union European Court of Human Rights Judicial dialogue Community of final Interpreters ECHR CJEU Pizzolo, Calogero 7617
topic_facet	Tribunales Constitucionales y Supremos Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos Diálogo judicial Comunidad de Intérpretes finales TJUE TEDH Constitutional and Supreme Courts Court of Justice of the European Union European Court of Human Rights Judicial dialogue Community of final Interpreters ECHR CJEU
description	The integration of a national system of rights in a multi-level protection system - based on constitutional mandates of openness - together with autonomous international systems, leads to the formation of a community of final interpreters. Interordinal tension appears as a constant in these systems and in the European system. This is not only based on who ultimately defines the conceptual identity of the rights, but also on who has the first word delimiting the scope of discussion. With the mutation of the interpretative circuits from unidirectional to multidirectional - and the development of incidental pathways parallel to constitutionality control as the prejudicial question of both EU and conventional law - the problem of concurrent control arises. That is, following various validity parameters, convergent rights are interpreted. In this context, the debate on "constitutional priority" becomes relevant in the face of the so-called "double prejudice" to which, in the EU States, the possible "triple prejudice" would be added. A first conclusion is that leaving aside self-referential solutions, only interjurisdictional dialogue and the construction of dialogic consensus allow cohabitation within the system itself and, ultimately, its continuity over time. The remaining problem, which raises questions about a possible violation of national constitutional identity, is that this implies - especially in the case of EU Law - the erosion of the concentrated control of constitutionality and its reconversion in fact into a decentralized control.
format	Artículo Artículo publishedVersion
author	Pizzolo, Calogero
author_facet	Pizzolo, Calogero
author_sort	Pizzolo, Calogero
title	7617
title_short	7617
title_full	7617
title_fullStr	7617
title_full_unstemmed	7617
title_sort	7617
publisher	Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Centro de Excelencia Jean Monnet
publishDate	2023
url	http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=integra&cl=CL1&d=HWA_7617 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/collect/integra/index/assoc/HWA_7617.dir/7617.PDF
work_keys_str_mv	AT pizzolocalogero 7617 AT pizzolocalogero desafiosactualesdelajurisdiccionconstitucionaleuropeadebateporlaprimeraylaultimapalabra AT pizzolocalogero currentchallengesofeuropeanconstitutionaljurisdictiondebateoverthefirstandthelastword
_version_	1824359853023297536
spelling	I28-R145-HWA_76172024-12-12 7617 The integration of a national system of rights in a multi-level protection system - based on constitutional mandates of openness - together with autonomous international systems, leads to the formation of a community of final interpreters. Interordinal tension appears as a constant in these systems and in the European system. This is not only based on who ultimately defines the conceptual identity of the rights, but also on who has the first word delimiting the scope of discussion. With the mutation of the interpretative circuits from unidirectional to multidirectional - and the development of incidental pathways parallel to constitutionality control as the prejudicial question of both EU and conventional law - the problem of concurrent control arises. That is, following various validity parameters, convergent rights are interpreted. In this context, the debate on "constitutional priority" becomes relevant in the face of the so-called "double prejudice" to which, in the EU States, the possible "triple prejudice" would be added. A first conclusion is that leaving aside self-referential solutions, only interjurisdictional dialogue and the construction of dialogic consensus allow cohabitation within the system itself and, ultimately, its continuity over time. The remaining problem, which raises questions about a possible violation of national constitutional identity, is that this implies - especially in the case of EU Law - the erosion of the concentrated control of constitutionality and its reconversion in fact into a decentralized control. Fil: Pizzolo, Calogero. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Cátedra Derecho de la Integración. Buenos Aires, Argentina Fil: Pizzolo, Calogero. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Cátedra Elementos de Derechos Humanos y Garantías. Buenos Aires, Argentina Fil: Pizzolo, Calogero. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Centro de Excelencia Jean Monnet. Cátedra Derecho Público Europeo. Buenos Aires, Argentina Union Europea Jurisdiccion Internacional Pizzolo, Calogero 2023 La integración de un sistema nacional de derechos en un sistema de protección multinivel -a partir de mandatos constitucionales de apertura- junto a sistemas internacionales autónomos, conlleva a la formación de una comunidad de intérpretes finales. La tensión interordinamental se presenta como una constante en estos sistemas y, en particular, en el sistema europeo. Ello no solo a partir de quién define en última instancia la identidad conceptual de los derechos, sino también por quién tiene la primera palabra delimitando el ámbito de discusión. Con la mutación de los circuitos interpretativos de unidireccionales a multidireccionales - y el desarrollo de vías incidentales paralelas al control de constitucionalidad como la cuestión prejudicial tanto del Derecho de la UE como convencional -, se plantea el problema del control concurrente. Esto es, siguiendo parámetros diversos de validez, se interpretan derechos convergentes. En este contexto, el debate sobre la "prioridad constitucional" cobra relevancia frente a la llamada "doble prejudicialidad" a la que se sumaría, en los Estados de la UE, la posible "triple prejudicialidad". Una primera conclusión es que, dejando de lado las salidas autorreferenciales, solo el diálogo interjurisdiccional y la construcción de consensos dialógicos permiten la cohabitación dentro del propio sistema y, en definitiva, su continuidad en el tiempo. El problema subsistente, y que abre interrogantes sobre una posible violación a la identidad constitucional nacional, es que ello implica - sobre todo tratándose del Derecho de la UE - la erosión del control concentrado de constitucionalidad y su reconversión de "facto" en un control descentralizado application/pdf 2346-9196 (en linea) Tribunales Constitucionales y Supremos Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos Diálogo judicial Comunidad de Intérpretes finales TJUE TEDH Constitutional and Supreme Courts Court of Justice of the European Union European Court of Human Rights Judicial dialogue Community of final Interpreters ECHR CJEU spa Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Centro de Excelencia Jean Monnet info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/ Integracion Regional y Derechos Humanos = Regional Integration and Human Rights Review. a11, no. 2 (Segundo semestre) IRyDH RI and HR Desafíos actuales de la jurisdicción constitucional europea. Debate por la "primera" y la "última" palabra Current challenges of european constitutional jurisdiction. Debate over the "first" and the "last" word info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=integra&cl=CL1&d=HWA_7617 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/collect/integra/index/assoc/HWA_7617.dir/7617.PDF

7617

Ejemplares similares