Search results

This book explains the growing empowerment of the Colombian Constitutional Court in the early years of the 21st century and develops the concept of the deliberative judge. Taking the case of the Colombian Constitutional Court and drawing on neoinstitutional theory to explain the relationship between political crisis and institutional reforms, the book challenges the notion of rational choice institutionalism that agents act strategically. It indicates the limits of path dependence and argues instead that discursive institutionalism is the most appropriate method for analyzing processes of institutional learning. Combining theoretical and empirical research, it builds the argument that judicial independence promotes the case for deliberative democracy over rational choice or strategic action approaches. Finally, the book suggests that by introducing communicative and cognitive variables in our understanding of key actors and processes, we are more capable of bridging institutional origin and legacy. The work will be a valuable resource for academics, researchers, and policy-makers in Constitutional Law, Constitutional Politics, and Constitutional History.

This essay aims to utilize the concept of conviviality for connecting the coexistence of seemingly contradictory phenomena in Colombia. It argues that while conviviality implies a normative content – a society in which members do not slaughter each other is better than one in which members resort to violence – the meekness of that normative claim suggests that it is better used as an analytical tool that seeks to connect the contradictions that coexist in the real lifeworld. Colombia's history of violence and democracy is such a contradictory case. Comparativists have situated Colombia's deficits on the "extra-institutional playing field", lamenting that it is a "besieged" or "threatened democracy". Conviviality helps us to specify these "extra-institutional" defects by suggesting impediments exogenous and endogenous to the state-building logic of the Colombian nation-state.

Se dice que las Constituciones de la Colombia del Siglo XIX eran cartas de batalla que aplacaban la confrontación militar, pero al mismo tiempo contenían la semilla para el siguiente enfrentamiento. La Constitución de 1991 rompe con esa tradición, en tanto esta no es percibida como una carta de batalla, sino como un pacto de paz. A través de una metodología de política comparada, este artículo contrasta el proceso constitucional de 1991 con otros escenarios de profunda reconstrucción institucional para argüir que lo que hace que la Constitución de 1991 sea diferente a aquellas cartas de batalla fue el tipo de crisis que llevó a la constitución de la Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, su origen en un movimiento popular comprometido con una acción comunicativa y, por último, su carácter inclusivo y deliberativo, en el que se escuchó a grupos tradicionalmente marginados. ; It is said that the Constitutions of the nineteenth century Colombia were battle cards that appeased the military confrontation, but at the same time they contained the seed for the next confrontation. The 1991 Constitution breaks with that tradition, as it is not perceived as a battle card, but as a peace pact. Through a comparative politics methodology, this article contrasts the constitutional process of 1991 with other scenarios of deep institutional reconstruction to argue that what makes the 1991 Constitution different from those battle cards was the type of crisis that led to the constitution of the National Constituent Assembly, its origin in a popular movement committed to a communicative action and, lastly, its inclusive and deliberative character, in which groups traditionally marginalized were heard.

This paper presents an analysis of the political and legal debate of the declaration of unconstitutionality of the referendum that sought the re-election presidential second term in 2010. On the other hand, it exposes the debate between those who spoke of bias and political argument in the court ruling related to the idea of "democratic security"; while others speak of the persistence of "democratic legality" consisting of autonomy guaranteed legal reasoning from deliberative processes. Finally, it is noted that the degree of institutionalization of discourse of the Court is an important factor that speaks in favor of it's independence. ; Este artículo presenta un análisis del debate político y jurídico de la declaración de inconstitucional del referendo que buscaba la segunda re-elección mandato presidencial en el 2010. Por otro lado, deja en evidencia el debate entre quienes hablaban de un sesgo y argumentación política en el fallo de la corte relacionado con la idea de "seguridad democrática"; mientras otros hablan de la persistencia de "legalidad democrática" consistente en la autonomía del razonamiento jurídico garantizado a partir de los procesos de deliberación. Finalmente, se señala que el grado de institucionalización del discurso en la Corte constituye un factor importante que habla a favor de su independencia.

Since the 2016 Havana Peace Accord (HPA), for many Colombians security has hardly improved. This article argues that this is largely due to socially rooted marginalisation that constrains citizen participation and contributes to entrenched insecurity in the country, especially its border regions. We show how post‐HPA community‐level responses to insecurity, including constructive engagement with the state, can enhance security and kick‐start processes of de‐marginalisation. Drawing on original data from interviews in Cesar Department and a series of cross‐stakeholder fora in 2019, we demonstrate the utility of the citizen security lens when examining processes of marginalisation, de‐marginalisation, and their impact on perceptions of (in)security of marginalised communities.