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 = The juridification of the right to decide in Spain: the STC 42/2014 and the right to aspire to a process of political change of the constitutional order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La 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.The 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 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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".