This work is enrolled in the general problem of the intersection between rights, policies and control mechanisms. In particular, it focuses on the answer given by the Argentinian Supreme Court between 2005 and 2015 to the question of the role of the Judiciary in controlling the state policies necessary to implement constitutional rights. The first part of the work (sections I, II and III) will give an account of the theoretical budget`s on which it is based: the expansion of the right produced in Argentina since the last constitutional reform on the matters traditionally reserved for politics; and the institutional dimension of that link, the control to the substantial adaptation of policies to social objectives crystallized as rights. In the second part of the paper (sections IV and V) it study the answer given by the Argentine Supreme Court to the question mentioned at the beginning. There it is identifies the most relevant criticisms that are usually made to this type of answers and it is briefly present some alternatives that could mitigate these criticisms.
Las políticas estatales y los mecanismos de control frente a la expansión del derecho en Argentina. La función del poder judicial según la Corte Suprema de Justicia (2005-2015)
Giles, Alejo Joaquin
2019-01-01
Abstract
This work is enrolled in the general problem of the intersection between rights, policies and control mechanisms. In particular, it focuses on the answer given by the Argentinian Supreme Court between 2005 and 2015 to the question of the role of the Judiciary in controlling the state policies necessary to implement constitutional rights. The first part of the work (sections I, II and III) will give an account of the theoretical budget`s on which it is based: the expansion of the right produced in Argentina since the last constitutional reform on the matters traditionally reserved for politics; and the institutional dimension of that link, the control to the substantial adaptation of policies to social objectives crystallized as rights. In the second part of the paper (sections IV and V) it study the answer given by the Argentine Supreme Court to the question mentioned at the beginning. There it is identifies the most relevant criticisms that are usually made to this type of answers and it is briefly present some alternatives that could mitigate these criticisms.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.