English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Trabalho enviado em 13 de dezembro de 2015. Aceito em 04 de fevereiro de 2016. DOI: 10.12957/rdc.2016.20051 Resumo Actualmente se impone a los juzgadores (no solo mexicanos, sino de cualquier Estado constitucional y democratico) que realicen su labor jurisdiccional con apego a los parametros de legalidad, legitimidad, constitucionalidad y convencionalidad; sin embargo, lo anterior resulta complejo considerando que dichos parametros no siempre se complementan y, en ocasiones, se contradicen. Este articulo aborda esas complicaciones en la actividad jurisdiccional, tanto de aquella que esta destinada a tutelar la democracia y sus principios al interior de un Estado, como de aquella que no tiene ese objetivo ex profeso pero que de forma indirecta le afecta. Lo anterior fue realizado con base en una metodologia documental, considerando algunos hechos sobresalientes en los que ha tenido incidencia esa actividad jurisdiccional en Mexico, y se contrasta teoricamente con viejos y nuevos parametros para la actividad del juzgador. Todo lo anterior es utilizado para determinar como, en un intento por satisfacer esos cuatro parametros en los juicios democraticos mencionados, se puede provocar una ruptura juridica en lugar de conseguir la uniformidad del sistema juridico. Estos hallazgos sugieren la necesidad de considerar una nueva forma (pro-democratica) de interpretar los preceptos legales, constitucionales y convencionales, no contradiciendo los fundamentales y generando, ademas, legitimidad. Palabras clave: juicio democratico, legalidad, legitimidad, constitucionalidad, convencionalidad. Abstract Currently the judges (not only Mexicans but of any democratic and constitutional State ) carry out their judicial work in adherence to the parameters of legality, legitimacy, constitutionality and conventionality is imposed; however, the foregoing complex whereas these parameters are not always complementary and sometimes contradictory. This article discusses the complications in the judicial activity, both that which is intended to safeguard democracy and its principles within a state, as one that does not have that goal on purpose but indirectly it affects it. This was done based on a documentary approach, considering some salient facts that have had an impact that judicial activity in Mexico, and theoretically contrasted with old and new parameters for the activity of the judge. This was done based on a documentary approach, considering some salient facts that have had an impact that judicial activity in Mexico, and theoretically contrasted with old and new parameters for the activity of the judge. All this is used to determine how, in an attempt to meet these four parameters in the above judgments democratic, it may cause a legal break in place to achieve uniformity of the legal system. These findings suggest the need to consider new (prodemocratic ) way of interpreting the legal, constitutional and conventional provisions, not contrary to the fundamental and also generating legitimacy. Keywords: democratic judgment, legality, legitimacy, constitutionality, conventionality.

LEGALIDAD, LEGITIMIDAD, CONSTITUCIONALIDAD Y CONVENCIONALIDAD DEL JUICIO DEMOCRÁTICO EN MÉXICO: UNA CAUSA DE DISRUPCIÓN JURÍDICA