墨西哥镜头下的比率决定

Q4 Social Sciences
Rodrigo Camarena González
{"title":"墨西哥镜头下的比率决定","authors":"Rodrigo Camarena González","doi":"10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In March 2021, the Mexican Constitution was amended to transition to a system of precedents. This amendment mandates that the “reasons” of Supreme Court rulings will be binding on the lower courts. However, the reform is rooted in a long-standing practice of ‘Tesis’, i.e., abstract statements that the Court itself identifies when deciding a case. Moreover, there is no consensus as to what these reasons are and why they should be binding. The aim of this article is to identify the possible conceptions of reasons to explore the Court’s different judge-made law roles. Different common law conceptions of the ratio decidendi are used as “mirrors” to identify four models of judicial lawmaking in Mexican practice, namely: judicial legislation, implicit rules, moral-political justifications and social categories. Although the first model seems to prevail, the others provide means for a broader understanding of how the Court creates law depending on the interpretative context in which it operates.","PeriodicalId":53459,"journal":{"name":"Problema","volume":"141 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Ratio Decidendi through Mexican Lens\",\"authors\":\"Rodrigo Camarena González\",\"doi\":\"10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17579\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In March 2021, the Mexican Constitution was amended to transition to a system of precedents. This amendment mandates that the “reasons” of Supreme Court rulings will be binding on the lower courts. However, the reform is rooted in a long-standing practice of ‘Tesis’, i.e., abstract statements that the Court itself identifies when deciding a case. Moreover, there is no consensus as to what these reasons are and why they should be binding. The aim of this article is to identify the possible conceptions of reasons to explore the Court’s different judge-made law roles. Different common law conceptions of the ratio decidendi are used as “mirrors” to identify four models of judicial lawmaking in Mexican practice, namely: judicial legislation, implicit rules, moral-political justifications and social categories. Although the first model seems to prevail, the others provide means for a broader understanding of how the Court creates law depending on the interpretative context in which it operates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Problema\",\"volume\":\"141 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Problema\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17579\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Problema","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24487937e.2022.16.5.17579","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2021年3月,墨西哥修改了宪法,向判例制度过渡。这项修正案规定,最高法院裁决的“理由”将对下级法院具有约束力。然而,改革的根源在于“Tesis”的长期实践,即法院在裁决案件时自己确定的抽象陈述。此外,对于这些理由是什么以及为什么它们应该具有约束力,没有达成共识。本文的目的是确定理由的可能概念,以探讨法院不同的法官制定的法律角色。以英美法系不同的决定率概念为“镜子”,识别出墨西哥司法立法实践中的四种模式,即:司法立法模式、隐性规则模式、道德-政治正当性模式和社会范畴模式。虽然第一种模式似乎占上风,但其他模式提供了更广泛理解法院如何根据其运作的解释背景制定法律的手段。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Ratio Decidendi through Mexican Lens
In March 2021, the Mexican Constitution was amended to transition to a system of precedents. This amendment mandates that the “reasons” of Supreme Court rulings will be binding on the lower courts. However, the reform is rooted in a long-standing practice of ‘Tesis’, i.e., abstract statements that the Court itself identifies when deciding a case. Moreover, there is no consensus as to what these reasons are and why they should be binding. The aim of this article is to identify the possible conceptions of reasons to explore the Court’s different judge-made law roles. Different common law conceptions of the ratio decidendi are used as “mirrors” to identify four models of judicial lawmaking in Mexican practice, namely: judicial legislation, implicit rules, moral-political justifications and social categories. Although the first model seems to prevail, the others provide means for a broader understanding of how the Court creates law depending on the interpretative context in which it operates.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Problema
Problema Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal Problema is a yearbook of Philosophy and Theory of Law of the Institute of Legal Research of the UNAM. The objective of the journal is to publish submissions in Spanish and English, and is aimed at professors, students and professionals interested in various contemporary issues of political, legal and moral philosophy. That is why the Editorial Committee is constituted by researchers from the Institute of Legal Research experts in the field. It is important to note that the Journal Problema has a process of judgment under the double-blind principle, which is carried out by the members of the Editorial Board, which is constituted by national and international researchers from various institutions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信