La jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos como fuente de derecho. Una revisión de la doctrina del “control de convencionalidad”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La doctrina internacionalista nos enseña que las sentencias dictadas por los tribunales internacionales sólo constituyen fuente auxiliar de derecho internacional y sólo tienen efectos para las partes en litigio y respecto del caso que ha sido decidido. La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Corte IDH) ha dispuesto que los Estados partes deben realizar un control de convencionalidad que contraste las normas locales con la jurisprudencia desarrollada por ella. El control de convencionalidad supone instituir las decisiones de la Corte IDH como fuente de derecho interno, bajo una aplicación directa y restringiendo el campo de decisión soberana de los países. Para que el control de convencionalidad pueda consolidarse en el sistema interamericano de derechos humanos, es pertinente contar con una expresa autorización constitucional de los países miembros e incorporar de un modo diferenciado la doctrina del margen de apreciación nacional. Asimismo, es conveniente que la Corte IDH mediante mecanismos de reparación inéditos puede explorar distintas formas de dialogo interinstitucional con los poderes locales.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".