Suchergebnisse

El presente artículo estudia elmodelo constitucional desarrollado en lasConstituciones latinoamericanas que han entrado en vigor en el sub-continente después de la Constitución Colombiana de 1991. El autor argumenta que la transformación constitucional latinoamericana de las últimas dos décadas, basada en la recuperación de la legitimidad popular y el reconocimiento del carácter multicultural de la nación, encuentra sus límites emancipatorios en los fundamentos filosóficos que la han inspirado. Si bien, las Constituciones pretenden refundar los Estados mediante el desarrollo de instituciones propias que permitan abrir espacios emancipatorios clausurados desde la época colonial, lasmismas también son la expresión de la filosofía política y jurídica moderna. El autor concluye que el nuevo modelo constitucional latinoamericano debe entenderse como resultado de la "migración de ideas" que hacen parte del proceso actual de globalización del derecho, y en este caso particular del derecho constitucional, y no como un caso exitoso de autodeterminación jurídica y política. ; This article analyzes the constitutional developments that have taken place in LatinAmerica since the 1991 Colombian constitution. The author shows that the constitutional transformation undergone during the last 20 years focuses on the recovery of popular sovereignty and the recognition of cultural diversity within the nation. Consequently, he argues that emancipation is unachievable through these three elements incorporated in the recent Latin American constitutions because they are limited by their own philosophical assumptions. The author claims that institutional arrangements set up in the newconstitutions with the aim of achieving social emancipation from the colonial constitutional legacy, are themselves deeply grounded in the European and modern philosophical tradition of law and politics. Hence, the author concludes the new LatinAmerican constitutions are to be seen as the result of the "migration of ideas" within the frame of legal globalization, rather than as a successful case of political and legal self-determination. ; 39-64 ; david.restrepo@ulb.ac.be

AbstractThe decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Slovak Republic v Achmea dealt a major blow to the predictability of the legal regime for the protection of foreign investments, whilst failing to offer a realistic, clear and sustainable solution for the protection of investments within the European single market. Commentators have mainly considered its implications from the perspective of the European Union or International Investment Law, and the potential conflict of regimes. This article offers a different approach, arguing that a reading of Achmea based on a moderate version of legal pluralism could adequately respond to the legitimate concerns about the case from both international and European legal perspectives. It is argued that the imprecision of the decision is in fact constructive ambiguity, allowing a sufficient margin of appreciation for all stakeholders and avoiding direct confrontation between the European and international legal orders. Recent developments, such as the innovative EU agreement for the termination of intra-EU BITs, point to new opportunities for ordering pluralism in the Achmea saga.