MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084405860 · doi:10.5944/rdp.91.2014.13220

La juridificación del derecho a decidir en España. La STC 42/2014 y el derecho a aspirar a un proceso de cambio político del orden constitucional.

2014· article· en· W2084405860 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joan Ridao

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Derecho Político · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Immigration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceDerechoHumanitiesCatalanReferendumTribunalDeclarationConstitutionLawPoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY: 1. The Sentence 42/2014, of the Constitutional Court of Spain, about the «Declaration of sovereignty and the right to decide of the people in Catalonia». 2. The right to self-determination and the juridification of the right to decide in the international context. 3 The fitting of the right to decide in the Spanish domestic constitutional order. Background. 3.1. The so-called «Ibarretxe Plan». 3.2. The Catalan case: the so-called «National Transition». 4. Query tools that do not involve the exercise of the right to self-determination. 4.1. Consequences of the weak standardization of referendums in Spain. 4.2. The potential territorialisation of referendums of Article 92 Spanish Constitution (CE). The eventual delegation of state power to authorize referendums of Article 150.2 CE. 5. Referendums and consultations at the regional level. 5.1. The Catalan legislation regarding referendums. 5.2. The non-referendum consultation: a hybrid not-called referendum. Conclusions. Bibliography.RESUMENLa STC 42/2014, de 25 de marzo, estimó parcialmente, por unanimidad, el recurso del Gobierno contra la «Resolución 5/X del Parlamento de Cataluña, por la que se aprueba la Declaración soberanista y del derecho a decidir del pueblo de Cataluña», declarando «inconstitucional y nulo» el principio primero, según el cual, «el pueblo de Cataluña tiene, por razones de legitimidad democrática, el carácter de sujeto político y jurídico soberano». No obstante, el alto Tribunal declaró constitucionales las referencias al «derecho a decidir de los ciudadanos de Cataluña» al no consagrar, a su juicio, un derecho de autodeterminación no reconocido constitucionalmente sino una aspiración política a concretar mediante un proceso ajustado a la legalidad constitucional, con respeto a los principios de «legitimidad democrática», «pluralismo» y «legalidad». La argumentación del Tribunal no sólo desestimó el argumento de que el derecho a decidir de los ciudadanos de Cataluña sólo puede existir una vez culminada la reforma constitucional sino que, además, acogió la doctrina de la Corte Suprema del Canadá sobre la secesión de Quebec, que apela a la posibilidad de que los miembros de una comunidad política puedan definir, sobre la base de mayorías claras y libremente conformadas, su propio marco jurídico-político. Ello no obstante, la STC 42/2014, a diferencia del Dictamen de la Corte canadiense no dio respuesta a la cuestión de si un referéndum consultivo y acordado con el Estado, como el planteado por algunas fuerzas políticas de Cataluña sobre el futuro político de este territorio, tiene cobertura constitucional. Con todo, contiene suficientes elementos que permiten pensar que ello es así. Y ese es precisamente el núcleo de la cuestión sobre la que se centra el presente trabajo, a partir del examen de algunas de las posibilidades que ofrece el orden constitucional español al respecto. ABSTRACTThe STC 42/2014, of 25 March, partially estimated unanimously the Government's appeal against the «Resolution 5/X of the Catalan Parliament, establishing the sovereignty and the right to decide Declaration approving the people of Catalonia» declaring unconstitutional and void «the first principle, according to which the people of Catalonia has, for reasons of democratic legitimacy, the nature of political and legal sovereign subject». However, the High Court declared constitutional references to right to decide on the citizens of Catalonia to not consecrate, in his view, a right of self-determination but not constitutionally recognized political aspiration through a narrow set of constitutional legality process with respect to the principles of «democratic legitimacy», «pluralism» and «legality». Thus, the reasoning of the Court not only dismissed the argument that the right to decide the citizens of Catalonia can only exist after completion of constitutional reform but also accepted the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Canada on secession Quebec, which appeals to the possibility that members of a political community can be defined on the basis of clear and freely formed majorities, its own legal and political framework. Nevertheless, the STC 42/2014, unlike the opinion of the Canadian Court did not answer the question of whether an advisory and agreed with the State, such as that posed by some catalan political parties on the political future of that territory referendum, has constitutional coverage. However, it contains enough elements which suggest that this is so. And that is precisely the core of the issue on which this paper focuses, from an examination of some of the possibilities offered by the Spanish constitutional order in this regard.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Derecho PolíticoSame topicHuman Rights and ImmigrationFrench-language works237,207