Note from the Editors
| Autor | Marcelo Lozada, Luz Helena Orozco, Nathalia Sandoval Rojas, Nelson Camilo Sánchez |
| Páginas | 3-5 |
Revista Derecho del Estado n.º 57, september-december 2023, pp. 3-5
Note from the Editors*
One of the ways to bridge the gap between the academies of the Global South
and the Global North is to encourage the engagement of intellectuals from
the Global North in the academic production made in our countries regarding
our legal landscapes. In this issue, we strive to advance this goal by present-
ing research articles on topics within Latin American public law, articulated
in the prevailing language of the Global North Academy. This approach has
proven to be productive, as it has sparked interest and discussion about our
legal systems in the realm of comparative public law and constitutionalism.
Consistent with the tradition of the Revista Derecho del Estado, the issue
offers a diverse selection of original works that cover a broad spectrum of
public law topics. Readers will find relevant and thought-provoking pieces
covering constitutional law, international law, judicial politics, philosophy of
law, and empirical studies of law. The articles are organized into three sec-
tions, progressing from theoretical and comparative issues to in-depth case
studies. In the following paragraphs, we will briefly present the contents of
each of the sections.
The first part of the issue delves into comparative studies on constitutional
law, showcasing a pair of engaging articles that address two long-standing
debates in the field: the enforceability of socio-economic rights and the
democratic legitimacy of judicial review itself. David Landau’s opening
article tackles the rather painful gap between the regional consensus on the
justiciability of socio-economic rights and the actual empirical record of
their judicial enforcement in countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and
Mexico. Landau’s work invites reflection on the strengths and limitations of
individual claims, “defensive” social rights, and structural remedies to achieve
social transformation. He proposes a more “holistic” constitutional approach
involving political parties and accountability institutions like human rights
commissions and ombudspersons to enforce socio-economic rights, shifting
away from a court-centric framework.
The second article by Alejandro Cortés offers a fresh and theoretically rich
view on the democratic deficit of judicial review. Drawing on the work of
Phillip Pettit, Aron Harel, and Cristina Lafont, Cortés persuasively defends
judicial review as a “conversation initiator.” He argues that, under certain
conditions, courts can be conceived as another political form of citizen
involvement that align with the republican ideal of self-government. He
examines the empirical institutional tenets of such participatory conception
of judicial review, exploring factors such as constitutional rigidity, rules of
standing, the right to a voice in the courtroom, and rules for constitutional
* DOI: https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n57.01
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba
COPYRIGHT Universidad Externado de Colombia
