LA CORTE SUPREMA Y EL TEMA DE LA SUJECIÓN A LOS PRINCIPIOS DE DERECHO...
The reform of art. 67, inc. 19 -current art. 75, inc. 22- of the Fundamental Law carried out by the National Constitutional Convention of 1994 constitutes a point of special relevance in the system of defense of human rights provided for in our legal system. Such modification is a consequence, on th...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo publishedVersion |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Derecho. Departamento de Publicaciones
2019
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | http://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=juridica&cl=CL1&d=HWA_3845 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/collect/juridica/index/assoc/HWA_3845.dir/3845.PDF |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | The reform of art. 67, inc. 19 -current art. 75, inc. 22- of the Fundamental Law carried out by the National Constitutional Convention of 1994 constitutes a point of special relevance in the system of defense of human rights provided for in our legal system. Such modification is a consequence, on the one hand, of the generic authorization given by Law 24,309 of the reform of the Constitution to "update" the powers, in what matters here, of the Federal Congress to "approve or discard the treaties concluded with the others. nations and concordats with the Apostolic Chair" (art. 3, inc. e of said norm); and, on the other hand, of the most specific to legislate "institutes for the integration and hierarchy of international treaties" (art. 3, inc. "I" of the quoted text). In my opinion, the aforementioned paragraph 22 revolves around five fundamental aspects: a) to provide treaties and concordats with the Holy See as a supralegal rank, although in that examination the subject of (a1) the modality should not be disregarded how this priority takes place, that is, that it cannot violate principles of constitutional public law as stipulated in art. 27 of the Supreme Law and (a2) the operability of the provisions of those; b) the constitutionalization of a decalogue of international instruments that protect human rights, later extended to others; c) the granting of the said constitutional rank "under the conditions of its validity" of said instruments; and d) without this entailing "repealing any article of the first part" of the Constitution, but, rather, e) that such declarations and treaties "should be understood as complementary to the rights and guarantees recognized therein". However, in examining this issue, the remarkable influence that certain pronouncements of the High Court in the configuration of the newly referred notes should not go unnoticed. Hence, in what follows, I will examine the role of the Supreme Court in regard to the first aspect, which here has been called a1, that is, that the international instruments incorporated into the national legal system, be with a supra legal status, be with constitutional status, they must in all cases safeguard the "principles of public law" established in the federal Constitution. |
|---|