Control constitucional y derecho internacional de inversiones a través de cuatro sentencias constitucionales en Colombia, Ecuador, y la Unión Europea (Constitutional Review and International Investment Law in Light of Four Constitutional Decisions in Colombia, Ecuador and the European Union)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spanish Abstract: Los tribunales constitucionales funcionan como valvulas de seguridad, o como mecanismos de bloqueo, para el derecho internacional, incluso para el derecho internacional de inversiones, que se incorpora en el orden juridico interno. Recientemente tres tribunales constitucionales han sido objeto de atencion por la importancia de sus decisiones, ya tomadas o todavia pendientes, para la politica del Estado en materia de atraccion y proteccion de inversiones internacionales, asi como para el mecanismo de resolucion de controversias entre inversores y Estados a nivel multilateral. En particular, este articulo analiza el Dictamen 1/17 del Tribunal de Justicia de la Union Europea de 30 de abril de 2019 sobre la compatibilidad del mecanismo de solucion de controversias entre inversores y Estados en el Acuerdo Economico y Comercial Global entre Canada, por una parte, y la Union Europea y sus Estados miembros, por otra (CETA), con el derecho de la Union Europea; dos sentencias emitidas por la Corte Constitucional de Colombia el 6 de junio de 2019 sobre la constitucionalidad del Acuerdo de inversion suscrito entre Colombia y Francia y sobre la constitucionalidad del Tratado de libre comercio (TLC) celebrado entre Colombia e Israel; y la accion de interpretacion constitucional, que se encuentra pendiente de resolucion en el momento de terminar de redactar este articulo, ante la recientemente conformada Corte Constitucional de Ecuador. El articulo propone que, aunque el derecho “nacional” no puede utilizarse como una excusa para evitar el cumplimiento del derecho internacional, las sentencias de algunos tribunales constitucionales establecen los terminos bajo los cuales un Estado, o una organizacion internacional en el caso de la Union Europea, puede asumir obligaciones a nivel internacional. Estos tribunales estan entablando un dialogo institucional que puede tener efectos profundos en la redaccion de futuras normas internacionales de inversion, incluso mas alla de la jurisdiccion del tribunal en cuestion. English Abstract: Constitutional courts function as safety valves, or as blocking mechanisms, for international law, including international investment law, which enters the domestic legal order. Recently, three constitutional courts have come to the forefront of attention owing to the importance of their decisions, rendered or still pending, for the recipient states’respective investment policies, but also for investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) more generally. In particular, this article analyses Opinion 1/17 of the Court of Justice of the European Union of April 30, 2019 on the compatibility of the ISDS mechanism in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) concluded between Canada and the EU with EU law; two judgments issued by Colombia’s Constitutional Court on June 6, 2019 on the constitutionality of the Colombia-France BIT and of the Colombia-Israel Free Trade Agreement (FTA); and a request for constitutional interpretation, pending at the time of writing, before the recently formed Constitutional Court of Ecuador. The article proposes that, although ‘domestic’ law cannot be used as an excuse to avoid compliance with international law, the decisions of some constitutional courts establish conditions under which a state, or an international organisation in the case of the EU, can assume obligations at the international level. These courts are engaging in an institutional dialogue that may have profound effects on the drafting of future international investment rules, even beyond the jurisdiction of the court in question.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".