Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorAgudelo Agudelo, Carlos Albertospa
dc.date.accessioned2021-01-01 00:00:00
dc.date.available2021-01-01 00:00:00
dc.date.issued2020-01-01
dc.identifier.issn1794-2918
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.17151/jurid.2021.18.1.2
dc.description.abstractEste artículo tiene cuatro partes. El primero expone la recepción de la “Dificultad Contramajoritana” (CMD) en Colombia, es decir, cómo se entendió la tensión entre jueces y democracia, un tópico constitucional creado por Alexander Bickel en América. La segunda parte explica la respuesta que dieron los jueces constitucionales en Colombia a la tensión con el principio democrático al promover fallos dialógicos. El tercero describe, de manera general, el movimiento LGTBI en Colombia y los diálogos que generó en laCorte Constitucional, logrando la protección de sus derechos contra las mayorías. Finalmente, en la cuarta parte, se muestran algunas líneas jurisprudenciales de la Corte colombiana, para demostrar cómo promueve, colabora y ayuda a la democracia cuando esta no es otorgada por los representantes.spa
dc.description.abstractThis article has four parts. The first one shows the reception of the “Countermajoritarian Difficulty” (CMD) in Colombia, it is to say, how the tension between judges an democracy,a constitutional topic created by Alexander Bickel in America, was received. The second part explains the answer that constitutional judges in Colombia gave to the tension with thedemocratic principle by promoting dialogical rulings. The third one describes, in a general way, the LGTBI movement in Colombia and dialogues it generated in the Constitutional Court to achieve the protection of their rights against majorities. Finally, in the fourth part, some jurisprudence lines of the Colombian Court are shown to demonstrate how it promotes, collaborates, and aids democracy when this is not granted by the representatives.eng
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfeng
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisherUniversidad de Caldasspa
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/eng
dc.sourcehttps://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/juridicas/article/view/4203eng
dc.subjectcounter-majoritarian difficultyeng
dc.subjectAlexander Bickeleng
dc.subjectjudgeseng
dc.subjectdemocracyeng
dc.subjectConstitutional Courtseng
dc.subjectDificultad contramayoritariaspa
dc.subjectAlexander Bickelspa
dc.subjectjuecesspa
dc.subjectdemocraciaspa
dc.subjectCorte Constitucionalspa
dc.titleLa Corte Constitucional colombiana desde una lectura prodemocráticaspa
dc.typeArtículo de revistaspa
dc.typeSección Sección Centralspa
dc.typeJournal Articleeng
dc.identifier.doi10.17151/jurid.2021.18.1.2
dc.identifier.eissn2590-8928
dc.relation.citationendpage35
dc.relation.citationissue1spa
dc.relation.citationstartpage17
dc.relation.citationvolume18spa
dc.relation.ispartofjournalJurídicasspa
dc.relation.referencesAgudelo, C.A. (2014). La Democracia de los Jueces: La “rama menos peligrosa” como poder prodemocrático en la práctica constitucional. Leyer.eng
dc.relation.referencesAgudelo, C.A. (2017). La tensión entre la democracia y los jueces. In M.C. Jiménez & P.B. Arboleda (Eds.), La garantía judicial de la Constitución: la relación entre los jueces, los derechos y la constitución (pp. 55-105). Editorial Universidad de Caldas.eng
dc.relation.referencesAguilar de Duque, L. (2012). El gobierno del poder judicial, una perspectiva comparada. Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.eng
dc.relation.referencesAlviar, H. (2005). La Búsqueda del Progreso en la Interpretación de la Constitución de 1991: El caso de la Intervención de la Corte en la Economía. In D. Bonilla & M. Iturralde (comps.), Hacia un Nuevo Derecho Constitucional (pp. 153-180). Editorial Universidad de los Andeseng
dc.relation.referencesArango, R. (2005). El concepto de derechos sociales fundamentales. Legis.eng
dc.relation.referencesArboleda, P.B. & Jiménez, M.C. (Eds). (2017). La garantía judicial de la Constitución: la relación entre los jueces, los derechos y la constitución. Editorial Universidad de Caldas.eng
dc.relation.referencesAriza, L. J. (2015). Los derechos económicos, sociales, y culturales de las personas presas y la intervención de la Corte Constitucional en el sistema penitenciario colombiano. In D. Bonilla Maldonado (ed.), Constitucionalismo del Sur Global (pp. 169-20). Siglo del Hombre editoreseng
dc.relation.referencesBassok, O. (2012). The two counter-majoritarian difficulties. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 31(2), 333. https://scholarship.law.slu.edu/plr/vol31/iss2/5eng
dc.relation.referencesBickel, A. (1962). The least dangerous branch. Bobbs-Merrill.eng
dc.relation.referencesBickel, A. (1975). The morality of consent. Yale University Press.eng
dc.relation.referencesBickel, A. (1978). The Supreme Court and the idea of progress. Yale University Press.eng
dc.relation.referencesBurt, R.A. (1995). Alex Bickel’s law school and ours. Yale Law Journal,4(7). https://digitalcommons.law. yale.edu/ylj/vol104/iss7/11eng
dc.relation.referencesColón Ríos, J. (2011). The counter–majoritarian difficulty and the road not taken: democratizing amendment rules. Cambridge University Presseng
dc.relation.referencesDahl, R. (1986). Democracy, liberty, and equality. Oxford University Press.eng
dc.relation.referencesDworkin, R. (1996). Freedom’s law: The moral reading of the American Constitution. Oxford University Press.eng
dc.relation.referencesDworkin, R. (2013). Justice for Hedgehogs. Belknap Press.eng
dc.relation.referencesElster, J. (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press.eng
dc.relation.referencesEly, J. (1997). Democracia y desconfianza. Una teoría del control constitucional. Siglo del Hombre, Editorial Universidad de los Andes.eng
dc.relation.referencesEsquirol, J.L. (2009). Writing the law of Latin America. George Washington International Law Review, 40, 693-732. https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications/325eng
dc.relation.referencesEsquirol, J.L. (2011). The turn to legal interpretation in Latin America. American University International Law Review, 26(4), 1031-1072eng
dc.relation.referencesFriedman, B. (1998). The history of the counter-majoritarian difficulty, part one: the road of judicial supremacy. New York University School of Law, 73(2). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.60449eng
dc.relation.referencesFriedman, B. (2000). The history of the counter-majoritarian difficulty, part three: the lesson of lochner. New York University School of Law, 76. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.242233eng
dc.relation.referencesFriedman, B. (2000). The history of the counter-majoritarian difficulty, part four: law’s policies. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/3312839eng
dc.relation.referencesFriedman, B. (2002). The birth of an academic obsession: the history of the counter-majoritarian difficulty, part five. Yale Law Journal, 112 (2), 153. https://doi.org/10.2307/1562239eng
dc.relation.referencesFriedman, B. (2002). The history of the counter-majoritarian difficulty, part two: reconstruction political Court. The Georgetown Law Journal, 91(1). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.312023eng
dc.relation.referencesFriedman, B. (2004). Mediated popular constitutionalism. Michigan Law Review, 101, 2596-2636. https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol101/iss8/4eng
dc.relation.referencesFriedman, B. (2004). The importance of being positive: the nature and function of judicial review. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 72,1257.eng
dc.relation.referencesFriedman, B. (2005). The policies of judicial review. Texas Law Review, 84,257. https://ssrn.com/abstract=877328eng
dc.relation.referencesGarcía Villegas, M. & Ceballos Bedoya, M.A. (Eds.).(2016). Justicia, democracia y sociedad, diez años de investigación en Dejusticia. Dejusticiaeng
dc.relation.referencesGarcía, L. F. (2017). Justicia y Democracia: algunas reflexiones y desafíos. Editorial Universidad del Rosario.eng
dc.relation.referencesGargarella, R. (2006). Should deliberative democracy defend the judicial enforcement of social rights?. In S. Besson, J.L. Marti & V. Seller (Eds.), Deliberative democracy and its discontents (pp. 232-252). Ashgate.eng
dc.relation.referencesGómez Pinto, L.R. (2012). El juez de las políticas públicas. Bogotá: Editorial Universidad Javeriana, Grupo Editorial Ibáñez.eng
dc.relation.referencesHeise, M. (2000). Preliminary thoughts on the virtues of passive dialogue. Akron Law Review, 34(1). https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol34/iss1/3eng
dc.relation.referencesHorwitz, M.J. (1998). The Warren Court and the pursuit of justice. Hill and Wang. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol50/iss1/4eng
dc.relation.referencesHwang, S. P. (2003). The counter-majoritarian difficulty revisited-an examination of Bickel’s theory of judicial review from Dworkin’s Perspective. EURAMERICA–Institute of European and American Sudies, Academia Sinica, 33(4), 685-709.eng
dc.relation.referencesKennedy, D. (1980). Toward an historical understanding of legal consciousness: The case of classical legal thought in America, 1850-1940. Research in Law and Sociology, 3, 3-24eng
dc.relation.referencesKennedy, D. (2008). A left phenomenological alternative to the Hart/Kelsen theory of legal interpretation. In G. Vattimo & S. Zabala (serie Eds.) Legal reasoning:collected Essays (pp. 153-174). Davies Group Publishers.eng
dc.relation.referencesKronman, A. (1985). Alexander Bickel’s philosophy of prudence. The Yale Law Journal, 94(7),1567-1616https://doi.org/10.2307/796212eng
dc.relation.referencesLemaitre, J. (2005). Los derechos de los homosexuales y la Corte Constitucional: (casi) una narrativa de progreso. In D. Bonilla & M. Iturralde(Eds.), Hacia un nuevo derecho Constitucional (181-217): Editorial Universidad de los Andeseng
dc.relation.referencesLimbach, J. (1999). The role of the federal constitutional Court. Fifty years of German basic law. American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, The John Hopkins University, 19-33.eng
dc.relation.referencesMendes, C. (2011). Direitos Fundamentais, Separação de Poderes e Deliberação. Editora Saraiva.eng
dc.relation.referencesOrduz, N. (Ed). (2018). La Corte Ambiental, expresiones ciudadanas sobre los avances constitucionales. Heinrich Böll Stiftung.eng
dc.relation.referencesPeretti, T. (1999). In defense of a Political Court. Princeton University Press.eng
dc.relation.referencesPogge, T. (2005). La pobreza en el mundo y los derechos humanos. Paidós.eng
dc.relation.referencesPosner, R. (2010). How Judges think. Harvard University Press.eng
dc.relation.referencesRehnquist, W. (2002). The Supreme Court. Vintage Books.eng
dc.relation.referencesRestrepo, E. (2003). Reforma constitucional y progreso social: la ‘Constitucionalización de la Vida Cotidiana’. In SELA (Seminario en Latinoamérica de Teoría Constitucional y Política) Papers. Yale Law School. https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yls_sela/14eng
dc.relation.referencesRostow, E.V. (1952). The Democratic Character of Judicial Review. Harvard Law Review, 66(2), 193. https://doi.org/10.2307/1336837eng
dc.relation.referencesRuling C-577/11.(2011, 26 July.). Constitutional Court of Colombia. (Gabriel Eduardo Mendoza Martelo, J.R.).eng
dc.relation.referencesRuling T-025/04.(2004, 24 Apr.). Constitutional Court of Colombia. (Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, J.R).eng
dc.relation.referencesRuling T-077/13. (2003, 14 Feb.)Constitutional Court of Colombia. (Alexei Julio Estrada, J.R.).eng
dc.relation.referencesRuling T-153/98. (1998, 28 Apr.). Constitutional Court of Colombia. (Eduardo Cifuentes Muñoz, J.R.).eng
dc.relation.referencesRuling T-406/92. (1992, 17 Jun.). Constitutional Court of Colombia. (Ciro Angarita Barón, J.R.).eng
dc.relation.referencesRush, M. (2010, June). Constitutional Dialogues and the Myth of Democratic Debilitation: Defusing the Counter-majoritarian Tension? [conference]. Annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Concordia University, Montreal, PQ, Canada.eng
dc.relation.referencesScheppele, K.L. (2003). The agendas of comparative Constitutionalism. Law and Courts. Newsletter of the Law and Courts Section of the American political Science Association, 1(2).eng
dc.relation.referencesSwindler, W. & Hanson, A. B. (1968). The Warren Court 10 Wm. & Mary Law Review, (263).eng
dc.relation.referencesValencia Villa, H. (2010). Cartas de batalla. Editorial Panamericana.eng
dc.relation.referencesWaldron, J. (2009). Judges as moral reasoners. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 7(1), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mon035.eng
dc.relation.referencesWaldron, J. (2006). The core of the case against judicial review.Yale Law Journal, 115(6), 1346-1486.eng
dc.relation.referencesWen-Cheng, C. (2012). A core case for judicial review: striking a dynamic balance between constitutionalism and democracy [conference]. Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association.eng
dc.relation.referencesWhitman, M. (2012). Brown v. Board of Education. Markus Wiener Publishers Princeton.eng
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesseng
dc.title.translatedThe Colombian Constitutional Court from a Prodemocratic Readingeng
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501eng
dc.type.contentTexteng
dc.type.driverinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleeng
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioneng
dc.relation.citationeditionNúm. 1 , Año 2021 : Enero - Juniospa
dc.relation.bitstreamhttps://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/juridicas/article/download/4203/3866
dc.type.coarversionhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85eng
dc.rights.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2eng


Ficheros en el ítem

FicherosTamañoFormatoVer
-4203.pdf209.8Kbapplication/pdfVer/

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/