Suchergebnisse

La constitucionalización del derecho en Colombia obedece a una participación activa del juez; en particular del juez constitucional. El precedente judicial fuente del derecho es una muestra de la inclusión del juez en el escenario constitucional como garante de la democracia y del derecho. El ideal democrático incluye irreversiblemente al juez constitucional y sus interpretaciones. La sobreinterpretación del derecho responde a una interpretación amplia de la Constitución y a la construcción de normas que en algo contribuyen a llenar las lagunas del derecho. Con ello; el neoconstitucionalismo; es constitucionalizar el ordenamiento jurídico ; The constitutionalization of law in Colombia is due to an active participation of the judge; in particular; of the constitutional judge. The judicial precedent source of law is an example of the inclusion of the judge on the constitutional stage as guarantor of democracy and law. The democratic ideal irreversibly includes the constitutional judge and his interpretations. The overinterpretation of law answers to a broad interpretation of the Constitution and to a building of norms that contribute something to fill the gaps in the law. Thus neoconstitutionalism is constitutionalizing the juridical order.

When the Constitution established three branches of government, it did not create three hermetically sealed areas of responsibility. The executive, legislative and judicial branches are required to govern through a certain degree of accommodation. One area in which the need for accommodation between the judicial branch and the other two branches was recognized at an early stage is cases containing questions bearing on foreign relations.' Under the Constitution it appears that the conduct of the foreign relations is vested in the Executive with a secondary role for the Congress, but that the courts have no role to play in this area. Litigation brought to the courts, however, has been found to demand decisions affecting foreign relations. To avoid breaching the constitutionally required separation of powers in these instances, the Supreme Court has determined that the judiciary should move away from its role as a neutral decision maker . In these instances the courts are either to decide the cases consistent with the wishes of the executive branch or to refuse to decide, thus effectively sanctioning the status quo. It is apparent from the district court's treatment of the deference question that it doubted the appropriateness of judicial restraint in submerged lands cases and that it did not understand the injunction of the Supreme Court. This error is primarily the product of the Supreme Court's failure to identify the factors that require judicial restraint for foreign relations reasons and to test the submerged lands cases against those factors. If the Supreme Court would conduct this examination, this writer submits that it would probably find judicial restraint inappropriate in the submerged lands cases. Part one of this article undertakes that review by delineating the primary subject matter areas in which judicial restraint has been exercised for foreign relations purposes. These areas are: recognition, sovereign immunity, act of state, treaty interpretation and territorial questions. Each area involves a ...

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. It is the first directive under the Lisbon Treaty, the first directive in the field of Justice (up till then one had recourse to framework decisions only), the first directive on language since the founding treaties of the EU and, of course, the first directive on issues of translation and interpretation. In this contribution we will discuss the relevant policy-making history leading up to the Directive, highlight the main challenges the Directive presents to the Member States that need to transpose this binding Directive into their own legislation and practice and, finally, suggest a number of strategies and policies that could help the transposition process, both in the short and long term. ; Resulta difícil sobreestimar la importancia de la Directiva 2010/64/UE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 20 de octubre de 2010, relativa al derecho a interpretación y a traducción en los procesos penales. Se trata de la primera directiva emanada del Tratado de Lisboa, de la primera directiva en el ámbito de la justicia (hasta entonces se recurría solamente a las decisiones marco), de la primera directiva sobre lenguas desde los tratados fundacionales de la UE; y, por supuesto, de la primera directiva sobre traducción e interpretación. En la presente publicación, se analiza el historial de decisiones políticas relevantes que han llevado a la aprobación de la Directiva, se destacan los principales retos que presenta la Directiva para los Estados Miembros que tienen que transponer esta norma de obligado cumplimiento a su propia legislación y ejercicio; y, finalmente, se sugieren una serie de estrategias y políticas que pueden ser útiles durante el proceso de transposición, tanto a corto como a largo plazo.

Distributed to depository libraries in microfiche. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; 1/18/90. ; #15351283.