State legal pluralism: between conflict and dialogue insights from a colombian case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question whether judicial decisions can be reviewed on constitutional grounds in Colombia has given rise to a long-lasting conflict between the Colombian Constitutional Court, on the one hand, and the Colombian Supreme Court of Justice and Council of State on the other. The Constitutional Court claims to have the authority to review judgments of the other two high courts, while these courts claim to have exclusive authority over ordinary and administrative law. This simultaneous claim of authority has lead to disobedience of the Constitutional Court's judgments by the other two high courts. I argue that this conflict is an example of state legal pluralism. State legal pluralism, I claim, is a coexistence of authority-claiming institutions that: takes place within the governmental structure of the state; includes two or more public institutions; and involves a hierarchically irresoluble tension between or among these institutions over a decision on the same subject matter. I also assert that in all cases of legal pluralism, state legal pluralism included, there is a correlation between the coexistence of authority-claiming institutions and the lack of obedience. I claim, moreover, that disobedience and mere compliance are subspecies of the lack of obedience. A form of mere compliance can be accommodation of authority-claiming institutions and one way in which this accommodation can manifest itself is through inter-institutional dialogue. I argue that dialogue between coexistent authority-claiming state institutions is possible if their claim of authority is made against private parties only. Finally, I state that dialogue would be possible between the Colombian high courts if, based on the Colombian constitutional clause of harmonious collaboration, these courts claimed authority against private parties only.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| 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".