Judicial Dialogue and Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America: The Case of Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendants
| Autor | Juan C. Herrera |
| Cargo | Postdoctoral Visiting Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg. Contacto: juan.herrera@upf.edu |
| Páginas | 191-233 |
Revista Derecho del Estado n.º 43, mayo-agosto de 2019, pp. 191-233
JUAN C. HERRERA*
Judicial Dialogue and Transformative
Constitutionalism in Latin America:
The Case of Indigenous Peoples
and Afro-descendants**-***
Diálogo judicial y constitucionalismo
transformador en América Latina: el caso
de los pueblos indígenas
y afrodescendientes
ABSTRACT
This research presents an example of transformative case law from the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Colombia.
Due to the fact that these Courts had seriously contemplated the right to free,
prior and informed consultation of indigenous peoples and afro-descendants,
this study explains the standards and statistics produced for 25 years on the
topic. It focuses on the principal outcomes of the interamerican case Sara-
maka v. Suriname (2007) and the Colombian Decision T-129 of 2011, which
nowadays encompass the most plausible and balanced standard of protec-
tion on the matter. However, the progressive outcomes are at risk of being
regressively changed. For that reason, this study analyses the relevance of
“binding consent” as an alternative to the problematic category or wrongly
so-called “veto power”.
* Postdoctoral Visiting Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public
Law and International Law, Heidelberg. Contacto: juan.herrera@upf.edu
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6882-1014
** Recibido el 18 de mayo de 2018, aprobado el 15 de noviembre de 2018.
Para citar el artículo: HERRERA, J. C. Judicial Dialogue and Transformative Constitutionalism
in Latin America: The Case of Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendants. En Revista Derecho
del Estado, Universidad Externado de Colombia. N.º 43, mayo-agosto de 2019, 191-233.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n43.08
*** I would like to express my gratitude for their accurate and insightful critiques to Aida
Torres, Ander Errasti, Andres Del Castillo, Carlos Baquero, César Carvajal, Kehinde Balogun,
Manuel Góngora, Oscar Parra, Pedro Villarreal, Roy Lee, and for the comments and ideas of the
participants at the seminars and conferences where previous versions of the article were discussed
at: ICON·S 2017 Annual Conference (Copenhagen 07.07.2017), 3rd International Conference on
Public Policy ICCP3 (Singapore 06.28.2017), MPIL Agora (Heidelberg 20.04.2017), UB Law and
Society International Colloquium, (Barcelona 09.09.2016) and UPF Constitutional Law seminars
(Barcelona 07.06.2016). Financed by Colciencias.
192 Juan C. Herrera
Revista Derecho del Estado n.º 43, mayo-agosto de 2019, pp. 191-233
KEYWORDS
Transformative Constitutionalism, Right to Free, Prior and Informed Con-
sent (FPIC), Indigenous Peoples, Afro-Descendants, Constitutional Court of
Colombia, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judicial Dialogue.
RESUMEN
En esta investigación se expone un ejemplo de diálogo judicial y transformador
entre la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y la Corte Constitucio-
nal de Colombia. En la medida en que estos dos tribunales se han tomado
en serio los derechos a la consulta previa, libre e informada de los pueblos
indígenas y afrodescendientes, se presentan detalladas tablas con los casos
y las estadísticas producidas durante 25 años sobre el tema. La investigación
se centra en el histórico precedente de la Corte Interamericana Saramaka v.
Suriname (2007) y la sentencia T-129 de 2011 de la Corte Constitucional de
Colombia por medio de la cual se profundizó el diálogo judicial y de donde
quizá ha surgido el estándar de protección más plausible y equilibrado en la
materia, aunque en riesgo de ser modificado regresivamente. De ahí que se
puntualice la relevancia del “consentimiento vinculante” como alternativa
al mal denominado “poder de veto”.
PALABRAS CLAVE
Constitucionalismo transformador, derecho a la consulta previa, libre e
informada, pueblos indígenas, afrodescendientes, Corte Constitucional de
Colombia, Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, diálogo judicial.
SUMARIO
Introduction. 1. Why the indigenous question matters? 2. Transformative case
law of the Interamerican Court of Humans Rights. 3. Transformative case law
of the Constitutional Court of Colombia. 3.1. Contextualization. 3.2. Con-
stitutional and legal protection. 3.3. Review of legislation (abstract control).
3.4. The tutela decisions (concrete control). 4. The main developments of
Colombian case law. 4.1 Why Decision T-129/11 is transformative? 4.2. Is
there a veto power? 4.3. Why are the outcomes of the case law at risk? 5. An
emblematic example of dialogue and transformative constitutionalism. Conclu-
sions: towards informed consent? Appendix. References.
193
Judicial Dialogue and Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America
Revista Derecho del Estado n.º 43, mayo-agosto de 2019, pp. 191-233
INTRODUCTION
Free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of indigenous peoples and afro-
descendants on matters that have the potential to affect their interests and
territories has become one of the most powerful tools that positive and
jurisprudential law has created in recent decades to protect the collective
rights of these populations.1 In the construction of transformative constitu-
tionalism in the region;2 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the
Constitutional Court of Colombia have become a kind of beacons irradiating
principles and supranational values. In other words, these two courts have set
up a supranational dialogue beyond hierarchical or vertical preconceptions.
Regarding the indigenous question in the constitutional Latin American
context, R. Gargarella asks: “how should we solve, then, the questions posed
by the emerging tensions between the rights and interests of indigenous groups
and rights and interest of the rest of the population?”.3
This study articulates an answer to that question contextualizing the is-
sue in the region (section 1) and presenting the most relevant and current
standards of case law according to the mentioned Courts (sections 2 and 3).
In general terms, this research complements and critically annotates the case
law and legal grounds of the right to FPIC focusing on the issue of binding
consent. For this reason, this article will not provide an empirical review of
how the right to prior consultation itself is implemented. Further, it develops
a series of arguments to highlight the main aspects of this exemplary judicial
dialogue and the outcomes.
For instance, it will explain why the precedents are transformative and
why are the outcomes at risk. Furthermore, it will provide strong reasons to
not understand prior consultation in terms of who vetoes who (section 4).
In (section 5) the study explains the reasons to consider this case law as an
emblematic example of dialogue and elucidates some problems that dialogue
and the constitutionalization of international law in the region face, particu-
larly, under the framework of a broader ius commune. Finally, this analysis
points to regional integration as a fundamental “piece” to articulate a long-
term dialogic, transformative and common constitutionalism for the region.
1 About the origin and meaning of the category “FPIC”, see HANNA, P. and VANCLAY, F.
Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples and the Concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent. In
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. Vol. 31, No. 2, 2013, 146-157.
2 See BOGDANDY, A. V. et al. Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America: The
Emergence of a New Ius Commune. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. About the origins,
KLARE, L. Legal Culture and Transformative Constitutionalism. In South African Journal of
Human Rights. Vol. 14, No. 1, 146-188, 146.
3 GARGARELLA, R. Latin American Constitutionalism, 1810-2010: The Engine Room of
the Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, 180-181.
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba
COPYRIGHT Universidad Externado de Colombia
