Internal Control of International Relations of the State
As a title, judicial control over international relations and/or diplomatic relations of the State, does not allow to glimpse anything alone, especially if the scope of each element is not known part of this part of this. Therefore, we believe precise to initiate this test by defining and decomposing each object object of the same, so that, then, the respective analysis can be deepened.
To this, as first point, Celestino M. From Arenal Moyúa defines within his work Introduction to international relations the phrase: International Relations, which, the author proposes, can be understood as an academic discipline that covers a set of social relations that are configured between subjects of international law – bothAmong state actors and non -state – that, due to their same reciprocal interactions, these are developed within the international community. These relationships cover a symphin of subjects, such as political and non -political, economic, cultural or humanitarian and religious, among others, among others.
As a second point, diplomacy, as Raúl Valdés points out in its writing called usual terminology in international relations, is composed of the management of international relations under a specific method to achieve the establishment, maintenance and narrowing of official relationsBetween heads of state, heads of government, ministers of foreign relations and diplomatic agents. Therefore, consequently, diplomatic relations would be the official treatment or relationships between states, which are maintained through special agents accredited among them.
As a third point, the jurisdictional control, as noted by Francisco Zúñiga Urbina in its text entitled Judicial Control of the Political Acts, is those exercised by the judicial courts that make up the Independent State Jurisdictional Body that, on the one hand, control the fulfillment of theconstitutionality and that, on the other, the author emphasizes, they control the observance of the legality of the acts. Saids which, in this case, would be the result of the international and diplomatic relations emanating from the executive body and its accredited agents.
Therefore, during this essay, positions and arguments will be developed that try to explain and justify the theses with their respective antithesis, not pretending, in the course of the same, to oppress a particular position, quite the opposite, it is intended to presentValid and opposite points that deal with the existing dichotomy in the possibility that there is a judicial control over political acts and the direction of international and diplomatic relations even when they properly compete with the executive body. Therefore, under this premise, you will try to answer the following question: can there be any kind of jurisdictional control about international relations and/or diplomatic relations?
Thus, many authors distinguish judicial control as a power of exercise that concerns state officials responsible for providing justice, this with the firm purpose of protecting the sovereignty of the people, since it is, in certain situations, it is diminished by thepolitical acts carried out by heads of state or heads of government.
Therefore, as Sergio García Ramírez states in his article called the internal judicial control of conventionality, the jurisdictional control is necessary to avoid – as mentioned above – unconstitutionalities and illegalities of acts that are overwhelmed from the functions assigned to the agent,Thus, consequently, the judge duty to intervene according to the people and for the people, since when the system built from the sovereign wills are found, it must always act under a vision that represents the principle of weights andAgainst pesos to prevent despotism and abusiveness from the officials on duty to take control.
And as Rodrigo Borja Cevallos points out in his book on political and constitutional law, the State as a whole is governed under an interrelation of powers where the functions of the State are distributed uniformly among the organs – generally – executive, legislativeand judicial, then, each of them exercising a limited cluster of faculties and competencies. For this reason, it is necessary to emphasize the term interrelation, since this implies a constant reciprocal link, an interaction, intercom and correspondence between the same organisms, since the power is unique and, for its exercise, it is distributed indifferent organs that carry them out in order to avoid the concentration of power.
In other words, the three typical organisms are intertwined and in constant connection, so this leads to the unlinking of the false idea that each power is unique, antagonistic, isolated and opposite to each other.
The authors who support this position have as its main argument that, if an organism leaves its sphere of action, the other is ¬ – in function of serving as a counterweight – the obligation to intervene and avoid the extralimations. So, in Burdish words, the act of the judicial body is excused when it exerts control over the executive body because the theory of pesos and counterweights allows it.
In this way, John Ferejohn in his article on the judicialization of politics, politicization of the law indicates that the jurisdictional area does not seekParts who seek judicial assistance. And this occurs, says Ferejohn, because those interested seek protection against political abuse and know that they can get it from the competent judge.
Leave feedback