¿Lucha de soberanías? Dimensiones hegemónica y contrahegemónica de los derechos humanos y jurisdicción complementaria de la Corte Penal Internacional

It has been mentioned that the complementary jurisdiction which defines the ICC prevents the exercise ofstate sovereignty. However, for state crimes as crimes against humanity, it can be argued that supplementaljurisdiction could eventually form a setback. This, among other reasons, because it is no...

Full description

Autores:
GAMBOA RUBIANO, SANDRA ROCIO
Tipo de recurso:
Fecha de publicación:
2012
Institución:
Universidad Santo Tomás
Repositorio:
Repositorio Institucional USTA
Idioma:
spa
OAI Identifier:
oai:repository.usta.edu.co:11634/40956
Acceso en línea:
https://revistas.usantotomas.edu.co/index.php/iusta/article/view/1078
http://hdl.handle.net/11634/40956
Palabra clave:
Keywords
sovereignty
counter-hegemony
ICC
state crimes
human rights
complementary jurisdiction
concurrent jurisdiction.
soberanía
contrahegemonía
Corte Penal Internacional
crímenes de Estado
derechos humanos
jurisdicción complementaria
jurisdicción concurrente.
Rights
License
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
id SANTTOMAS2_2c63cbd2cb1a2ae960d2a8f9307fb904
oai_identifier_str oai:repository.usta.edu.co:11634/40956
network_acronym_str SANTTOMAS2
network_name_str Repositorio Institucional USTA
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv ¿Lucha de soberanías? Dimensiones hegemónica y contrahegemónica de los derechos humanos y jurisdicción complementaria de la Corte Penal Internacional
dc.title.alternative.eng.fl_str_mv Struggling for Sovereignty? Hegemonic and Counterhegemonic Dimensions of the Human Rights and Complementary Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court
title ¿Lucha de soberanías? Dimensiones hegemónica y contrahegemónica de los derechos humanos y jurisdicción complementaria de la Corte Penal Internacional
spellingShingle ¿Lucha de soberanías? Dimensiones hegemónica y contrahegemónica de los derechos humanos y jurisdicción complementaria de la Corte Penal Internacional
Keywords
sovereignty
counter-hegemony
ICC
state crimes
human rights
complementary jurisdiction
concurrent jurisdiction.
soberanía
contrahegemonía
Corte Penal Internacional
crímenes de Estado
derechos humanos
jurisdicción complementaria
jurisdicción concurrente.
title_short ¿Lucha de soberanías? Dimensiones hegemónica y contrahegemónica de los derechos humanos y jurisdicción complementaria de la Corte Penal Internacional
title_full ¿Lucha de soberanías? Dimensiones hegemónica y contrahegemónica de los derechos humanos y jurisdicción complementaria de la Corte Penal Internacional
title_fullStr ¿Lucha de soberanías? Dimensiones hegemónica y contrahegemónica de los derechos humanos y jurisdicción complementaria de la Corte Penal Internacional
title_full_unstemmed ¿Lucha de soberanías? Dimensiones hegemónica y contrahegemónica de los derechos humanos y jurisdicción complementaria de la Corte Penal Internacional
title_sort ¿Lucha de soberanías? Dimensiones hegemónica y contrahegemónica de los derechos humanos y jurisdicción complementaria de la Corte Penal Internacional
dc.creator.fl_str_mv GAMBOA RUBIANO, SANDRA ROCIO
dc.contributor.author.none.fl_str_mv GAMBOA RUBIANO, SANDRA ROCIO
dc.subject.proposal.eng.fl_str_mv Keywords
sovereignty
counter-hegemony
ICC
state crimes
human rights
complementary jurisdiction
concurrent jurisdiction.
topic Keywords
sovereignty
counter-hegemony
ICC
state crimes
human rights
complementary jurisdiction
concurrent jurisdiction.
soberanía
contrahegemonía
Corte Penal Internacional
crímenes de Estado
derechos humanos
jurisdicción complementaria
jurisdicción concurrente.
dc.subject.proposal.spa.fl_str_mv soberanía
contrahegemonía
Corte Penal Internacional
crímenes de Estado
derechos humanos
jurisdicción complementaria
jurisdicción concurrente.
description It has been mentioned that the complementary jurisdiction which defines the ICC prevents the exercise ofstate sovereignty. However, for state crimes as crimes against humanity, it can be argued that supplementaljurisdiction could eventually form a setback. This, among other reasons, because it is not consistent withthe logic of effective protection of legal interests of particular value to humanity, whose congruency wasestablished in the past, defining the concurrent jurisdiction of the international tribunals in Yugoslaviaand Rwanda.In these conditions it is interesting to check this phenomenon from the counter-establishment of humanrights, recognizing as Boaventura de Sousa Santos does, existence, linkages and implications of theforms of power in capitalist societies, like their deep messages concerning state crimes. This, even moreso when it has been established that the discussion of counter-hegemony, beginning with Gramsci andpartly developed by Sousa Santos under the perspective of domination of neoliberal globalization, callsfor a “new global social contract more caring and inclusive than today social contract crisis of Westernmodernity “(Bonet, 2010).
publishDate 2012
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv 2012-12-12
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv 2022-01-18T19:27:47Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv 2022-01-18T19:27:47Z
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv Artículo revisado por pares
dc.type.coarversion.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.drive.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.usantotomas.edu.co/index.php/iusta/article/view/1078
10.15332/s1900-0448.2012.0037.02
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11634/40956
url https://revistas.usantotomas.edu.co/index.php/iusta/article/view/1078
http://hdl.handle.net/11634/40956
identifier_str_mv 10.15332/s1900-0448.2012.0037.02
dc.language.iso.none.fl_str_mv spa
language spa
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.usantotomas.edu.co/index.php/iusta/article/view/1078/1313
dc.relation.citationissue.spa.fl_str_mv IUSTA; Núm. 37 (2012)
dc.relation.citationissue.eng.fl_str_mv IUSTA; No. 37 (2012)
dc.relation.citationissue.none.fl_str_mv 2500-5286
1900-0448
dc.rights.coar.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
rights_invalid_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.format.mimetype.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv Universidad Santo Tomás, Bogotá-Colombia
institution Universidad Santo Tomás
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositorio Universidad Santo Tomás
repository.mail.fl_str_mv noreply@usta.edu.co
_version_ 1782026093758251008
spelling GAMBOA RUBIANO, SANDRA ROCIO2022-01-18T19:27:47Z2022-01-18T19:27:47Z2012-12-12https://revistas.usantotomas.edu.co/index.php/iusta/article/view/107810.15332/s1900-0448.2012.0037.02http://hdl.handle.net/11634/40956It has been mentioned that the complementary jurisdiction which defines the ICC prevents the exercise ofstate sovereignty. However, for state crimes as crimes against humanity, it can be argued that supplementaljurisdiction could eventually form a setback. This, among other reasons, because it is not consistent withthe logic of effective protection of legal interests of particular value to humanity, whose congruency wasestablished in the past, defining the concurrent jurisdiction of the international tribunals in Yugoslaviaand Rwanda.In these conditions it is interesting to check this phenomenon from the counter-establishment of humanrights, recognizing as Boaventura de Sousa Santos does, existence, linkages and implications of theforms of power in capitalist societies, like their deep messages concerning state crimes. This, even moreso when it has been established that the discussion of counter-hegemony, beginning with Gramsci andpartly developed by Sousa Santos under the perspective of domination of neoliberal globalization, callsfor a “new global social contract more caring and inclusive than today social contract crisis of Westernmodernity “(Bonet, 2010).Se ha aludido que la jurisdicción complementaria que define a la Corte Penal Internacional vulnera elejercicio de la soberanía estatal. No obstante, tratándose de crímenes de Estado en tanto crímenes contrala humanidad, bien puede sostenerse que la jurisdicción complementaria podría llegar a constituir unretroceso. Esto, entre otras razones, por no ser coherente con la lógica de protección eficaz de bienesjurídicos de especial valía para la humanidad, en cuya congruencia en el pasado se estableció la jurisdicciónconcurrente que definió los tribunales internacionales de Yugoslavia y Ruanda.En dichas condiciones resulta interesante revisar este fenómeno a partir de la constitución contrahegemónicade los derechos humanos, reconociéndose, como lo hace Sousa Santos, la existencia, vinculacionese implicaciones de las formas de poder en las sociedades capitalistas, al igual que sus profundosmensajes en relación con los crímenes de Estado. Ello, con mayor razón, cuando se ha establecido que ladiscusión de la contrahegemonía –que inicia con Gramsci y que en parte desarrolla Sousa Santos desdela perspectiva de la dominación de la globalización neoliberal– propugna, como lo señala Bonet (2010),por un “nuevo contrato social global más solidario e incluyente que el hoy en crisis contrato social de lamodernidad occidental”.AbstractIt has been mentioned that the complementary jurisdiction which defines the ICC prevents the exercise ofstate sovereignty. However, for state crimes as crimes against humanity, it can be argued that supplementaljurisdiction could eventually form a setback. This, among other reasons, because it is not consistent withthe logic of effective protection of legal interests of particular value to humanity, whose congruency wasestablished in the past, defining the concurrent jurisdiction of the international tribunals in Yugoslaviaand Rwanda.In these conditions it is interesting to check this phenomenon from the counter-establishment of humanrights, recognizing as Boaventura de Sousa Santos does, existence, linkages and implications of theforms of power in capitalist societies, like their deep messages concerning state crimes. This, even moreso when it has been established that the discussion of counter-hegemony, beginning with Gramsci andpartly developed by Sousa Santos under the perspective of domination of neoliberal globalization, callsfor a “new global social contract more caring and inclusive than today social contract crisis of Westernmodernity “(Bonet, 2010).Resumo:Foi mencionado que a jurisdição complementar define o ICC impede o exercício da soberania do Estado.No entanto, para crimes de estado como crimes contra a humanidade, pode-se argumentar que a competênciasuplementar poderia, eventualmente, formar um revés. Isto, entre outras razões, porque não écoerente com a lógica de protecção eficaz dos interesses jurídicos de especial valor para a humanidade,cuja congruência foi estabelecido no passado, que define a competência concorrente dos tribunais internacionaisna Iugoslávia e Ruanda.Nessas condições, é interessante verificar esse fenômeno a partir do contador-estabelecimento dos direitoshumanos, reconhecendo como faz Boaventura de Sousa Santos, a existência, as ligações e as implicaçõesdas formas de poder nas sociedades capitalistas, como suas mensagens profundas sobre crimesde Estado. Isto, ainda mais quando foi estabelecido que a discussão da contra-hegemonia, começando com Gramsci e Boaventura desenvolve em parte sob o domínio da globalização neoliberal, apela para um“contrato social nova crise global de contrato de mais carinho e inclusiva do que hoje social modernidadeocidental “(Bonet, 2010). application/pdfspaUniversidad Santo Tomás, Bogotá-Colombiahttps://revistas.usantotomas.edu.co/index.php/iusta/article/view/1078/1313IUSTA; Núm. 37 (2012)IUSTA; No. 37 (2012)2500-52861900-0448¿Lucha de soberanías? Dimensiones hegemónica y contrahegemónica de los derechos humanos y jurisdicción complementaria de la Corte Penal InternacionalStruggling for Sovereignty? Hegemonic and Counterhegemonic Dimensions of the Human Rights and Complementary Jurisdiction of the International Criminal CourtArtículo revisado por paresinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1Keywordssovereigntycounter-hegemonyICCstate crimeshuman rightscomplementary jurisdictionconcurrent jurisdiction.soberaníacontrahegemoníaCorte Penal Internacionalcrímenes de Estadoderechos humanosjurisdicción complementariajurisdicción concurrente.http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf211634/40956oai:repository.usta.edu.co:11634/409562023-07-14 16:08:08.901metadata only accessRepositorio Universidad Santo Tomásnoreply@usta.edu.co

Publicaciones similares