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

espanolEn esta investigacion se expone un ejemplo de dialogo judicial y transformador entre la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y la Corte Constitucional de Colombia. En la medida en que estos dos tribunales se han tomado en serio los derechos a la consulta previa, libre e informada de los pueblos indigenas y afrodescendientes, se presentan detalladas tablas con los casos y las estadisticas producidas durante 25 anos sobre el tema. La investigacion se centra en el historico precedente de la Corte Interamericana Saramaka v. Suriname (2007) y la sentencia T-129 de 2011 de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia por medio de la cual se profundizo el dialogo judicial y de donde quiza ha surgido el estandar de proteccion mas plausible y equilibrado en la materia, aunque en riesgo de ser modificado regresivamente. De ahi que se puntualice la relevancia del “consentimiento vinculante” como alternativa al mal denominado “poder de veto”. EnglishThis research presents an example of transformative case law from the Inter- American Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Colombia. Due to the fact that these Courts had seriously contemplated the right to free, prior and informed consultation of indigenous peoples and afro-descendants, this study explains the standards and statistics produced for 25 years on the topic. It focuses on the principal outcomes of the interamerican case Saramaka v. Suriname (2007) and the Colombian Decision T-129 of 2011, which nowadays encompass the most plausible and balanced standard of protection on the matter. However, the progressive outcomes are at risk of being regressively changed. For that reason, this study analyses the relevance of “binding consent” as an alternative to the problematic category or wrongly so-called “veto power”

Judicial Dialogue and Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America: The Case of Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendants