journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ljubljana, 2022 revija za ustavno teorijo in filozofijo prava časopis za ustavnu teoriju i filozofiju prava revija za ustavna teorija i filozofija na pravoto REVUS 46.indd 1 20. 06. 2023 18:20:38 REVUS 46.indd 2 20. 06. 2023 18:20:38 3 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 VSEBINA V tokratni številki so objavljeni prispevki v angleščini in španščini. Za slovenske povzetke in ključne besede glej strani 203–220. Andrew Halpin 7 On kno-rights and no-rights Álvaro Núñez Vaquero 41 Constitutive rules of precedent A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis Claudina Orunesu 63 Control de convencionalidad y supremacía de los tribunales internacionales Algunas reflexiones sobre el control de convencionalidad en el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos Marisa Iglesias Vila 83 The conventionality control and the Fontevecchia case: Is the margin of appreciation the panacea? Ángeles Ródenas 95 La vida secreta de los conceptos (O sobre el arte de decantar conceptos) 109 The secret life of concepts (Or on the art of winnowing concepts) REVUSOV FORUM Symposium on visions of constitutionalism: Theory Eoin Daly 123 Contesting the idea of disagreement as the circumstance of politics revija za ustavn teorijo in filozofijo prava REVUS 46.indd 3 20. 06. 2023 18:20:38 Camila Vergara 141 Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism Ana Cannilla 163 Political constitutionalism in the age of populism M. Victoria Kristan 183 Sovereign schliberties Where Pettit’s international protection of individual freedom falls short 203 POVZETKI IN KLJUČNE BESEDE REVUS 46.indd 4 20. 06. 2023 18:20:38 5 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS This issue is composed of papers in English and Spanish. For synopses and keywords, see pages 203–220. Andrew Halpin 7 On kno-rights and no-rights Álvaro Núñez Vaquero 41 Constitutive rules of precedent A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis Claudina Orunesu 63 Control de convencionalidad y supremacía de los tribunales internacionales Algunas reflexiones sobre el control de convencionalidad en el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos Marisa Iglesias Vila 83 The conventionality control and the Fontevecchia case: Is the margin of appreciation the panacea? Ángeles Ródenas 95 The secret life of concepts (Or on the art of winnowing concepts)) (also in Spanish) SYMPOSIUM Symposium on visions of constitutionalism: Theory Eoin Daly 123 Contesting the idea of disagreement as the circumstance of politics REVUS 46.indd 5 20. 06. 2023 18:20:38 Camila Vergara 141 Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism Ana Cannilla 163 Political constitutionalism in the age of populism M. Victoria Kristan 183 Sovereign schliberties Where Pettit’s international protection of individual freedom falls short 203 ENGLISH SYNOPSES AND KEYWORDS REVUS 46.indd 6 20. 06. 2023 18:20:38 7 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Andrew Halpin* On kno-rights and no-rights This article joins a debate over no-right previously conducted with Matthew Kramer and more recently joined by Mark McBride, in defence of Kramer. My disagreement with Kramer centres on his assertion that the relationship between claim-right and no-right involves logical duals rather than contradictories, as Hohfeld proposed. That position is tied to Kramer’s view that no-right and liberty must have the same content as correla- tives. McBride has attacked my rejection of Kramer’s use of duals as being erroneous and an impediment to understanding the Hohfeldian analytical framework, including the role of correlativity. I reject here McBride’s efforts to technically rescue Kramer’s use of duals and to vindicate that use as being essential for an intelligible explanation of the complete Hohfeldian framework. I argue that the representation of claim-right and no- right as duals remains erroneous, making the Hohfeldian framework unworkable. With- in that argument, I draw attention to the distinct concepts of Hohfeldian no-right and Kramerian kno-right; question the complicated steps introduced by McBride to establish a test demonstrating the duality of kno-right; and, taking kno-right and two instances of no-rights as distinct positions on a deontic hexagon, demonstrate the inability of kno- right to operate within a framework of Hohfeldian correlatives. Keywords: Hohfeld (Wesley Newcomb), no-right, logical duals, correlativity, deontic oppositional geometry, rightlessness 1 INTRODUCTION In a previous article I explored the relationship of correlativity between the Hohfeldian no-right and liberty (privilege),1 and in doing so challenged the un- derstanding of no-right which Matthew Kramer had proposed as an improve- ment on what he sees as a defective notion of no-right in the Hohfeldian analyti- cal framework.2 A key reason for Kramer’s dissatisfaction with Hohfeld is found in Kramer’s view of correlativity, which requires that both correlative positions should share the same content. Contrary to Hohfeld’s reading of the content of a liberty being the negation of the content of the relevant no-right (Y’s liberty to enter Whiteacre is the correlative of X’s no-right that Y do not enter),3 Kramer insists that the same content should prevail for both positions.4 The key move * halpin@nus.edu.sg | Professor and Co-Director of the Centre for Legal Theory, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore (Singapore). I am grateful to Mark McBride for much stimu- lating discussion and for helpful comments to Luka Burazin and two anonymous referees. 1 Halpin 2020. Throughout that and the current article I adopt the more widespread “liberty” which Hohfeld accepted as a synonym for his preferred “privilege” – Hohfeld 1919: 42, 47-49. 2 Kramer 2019. 3 Hohfeld 1919: 39. 4 Kramer 2019: 215. revus (2022) 46, 7–39 REVUS 46.indd 7 20. 06. 2023 18:20:38 8 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin employed by Kramer, in support of his take on the no-right/liberty relationship, is to represent the relationship between claim-right and no-right as that of logi- cal duals. Since logical duals are characterized by a negation of content between the two duals, Kramer relies on this to switch the content between claim-right and no-right, so as to be able to align the content of the no-right with that of the liberty (which he keeps as being the opposite or negation of the content of the absent claim-right).5 More recently, Mark McBride has mounted a defence of Kramer’s position,6 concentrating on vindicating his use of duals, which I had suggested was erro- neous and an unnecessary distraction to reaching a clear understanding of the Hohfeldian framework. McBride fundamentally disagrees, believing that estab- lishing the duality of the claim-right/no-right relation is essential to securing the reality of the no-right position, the reality of Hohfeldian liberties, and, ultimately, the viability of the Hohfeldian framework itself.7 McBride’s defence is ingenious, and valuable in amplifying Kramer’s understanding of no-right through provid- ing more detail of the intricacies of its operation. However, where McBride sees his efforts as technically rescuing Kramer’s use of duals and making an essential contribution to an intelligible explanation of the complete Hohfeldian frame- work, I shall argue here that the use of duals remains erroneous and that the suggested representation of the Hohfeldian framework is unworkable. My argument proceeds in four stages. In section 2, I clarify the distinct concepts8 referred to by Hohfeld and Kramer through the common label of “no-right”. I adopt a suggestion briefly entertained in the earlier article that it would be helpful to provide a different label for Kramer’s concept, a “kno-right”, in order to keep this distinctiveness in mind.9 Then in section 3, I note how McBride’s attempt to rescue Kramer’s depiction of kno-right and claim-right as logical duals includes a change from consideration of no-right to consideration of kno-right, when applying the commonly accepted template for testing the existence of logical duals. However, McBride does not follow through with a 5 Kramer 2019: 216. In the absence of X ’s claim-right correlative to Y’s duty not to enter White- acre, Y enjoys a liberty to enter Whiteacre. Conventional Hohfeldian analysis adds X’s no- right that Y not enter. It is this latter negative content that is switched by Kramer in order to give the no-right the same content as the correlative liberty. Regarding the liberty as a dual of the claim-right is the basis for its having the negation of the content of the claim-right. 6 McBride 2021. 7 McBride 2021: 40-41. Although McBride’s immediate target is my attack on Kramer’s use of duals, he makes it clear that ultimately the objective is to strengthen Kramer’s position in his disagreement with Heidi Hurd and Michael Moore, who challenge the Hohfeldian under- standing of no-right, liberty, and hence the operation of the Hohfeldian framework. However, I have argued that Hurd and Moore’s threats to Hohfeld can be combatted without any invoca- tion of duals. See Halpin 2020: Part II. 8 Concepts and the practical normative positions to which those concepts refer. 9 Halpin 2020: 151, 154. REVUS 46.indd 8 20. 06. 2023 18:20:38 9 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights straightforward subjection of kno-right to the template test. I undertake such a test at this point, which leaves kno-right failing to satisfy the test. In section 4, I review the more complicated steps taken by McBride in his efforts to complete the testing of kno-right in a way that can satisfy the requirements made by the template. The complications introduced by McBride include a suggestion as to how duals are to be understood and approached, a transfer of external nega- tion, a severance of the contradictory relationship from the dual relationship, further amplification of the appropriate grammar for the neologism no-right as first suggested by Kramer, and a curious switch between the asserting of a claim-right and the asserting of a remedial right. At this point, the detailed in- tricacies of the operation of kno-right provided by McBride are illuminating, but on closer inspection reveal that kno-right cannot meet the requirements of the template to secure its status as a dual, nor fit within the Hohfeldian frame- work. Finally in section 5, I move on from the negative conclusions of the pre- vious part and reflect on the precise characteristics of Kramer’s kno-right, as linked by him to a state of rightlessness. Drawing on the resources of deontic oppositional geometry, I demonstrate how the kno-right and two instances of no-rights can be represented as distinct positions on a deontic hexagon. For present purposes, this reinforces the conclusion that a Kramerian kno-right cannot operate within a framework of Hohfeldian correlatives, for which the two instances of Hohfeldian no-rights are essential. A final reflection considers wider implications of the present study for the relationship between deontic op- positional geometry and Hohfeldian legal relations. 2 THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF KNO-RIGHT AND NO-RIGHT It is easy to become confused over the nature of Kramer’s disagreement with Hohfeld regarding no-right. From the intensity of some of Kramer’s remarks,10 it appears that the charge against Hohfeld11 amounts to the failure to provide a coherent concept of no-right within his analytical framework, or to have made an elementary blunder by incorrectly describing one of the normative posi- tions within that analytical framework. More specifically, Hohfeld’s treatment of a no-right as having the same content as the absent claim-right is incoherent because this then gives it a different content to its correlative liberty, whereas correlatives must have the same content. Or, the normative position within the 10 “Hohfeld himself and many eminent exponents of the Hohfeldian analysis have failed to use the term ‘no-right’ correctly” – Kramer 2019: 215; “Many other philosophers of rights have followed Hohfeld in conflating ‘no-right’ and ‘no right’.” – Kramer 2019: 217. 11 And a large number of others – Kramer 2019: 217-18. REVUS 46.indd 9 20. 06. 2023 18:20:38 10 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin framework that is taken to be both the negation of a claim-right and the cor- relative of a liberty has mistakenly been given the wrong role by Hohfeld. Understood in either (or both) of these ways, the disagreement is about who has correctly identified a no-right, Hohfeld or Kramer. This is misleading, and a basic mischaracterization of where the disagreement actually lies. It can be shown that Hohfeld’s no-right is a coherent concept, of a practical normative position that can be intelligibly understood as the negation of a claim-right and the correlative of a liberty. Hohfeld attaches the label “no-right” to the concept of this normative position that makes sense on its own terms. Kramer’s concept (and the related normative position) obviously differs from Hohfeld’s, at the very least, from bearing a content which is the precise negation of the content of Hohfeld’s concept; and consequently, standing in a different relationship to the absent claim-right.12 In order to avoid confusion, we should accordingly adopt a different term for Kramer’s concept and the normative position to which it refers.13 Hence, the suggested “kno-right”. So understood, the dispute between kno-right and no-right places a bur- den on Kramer to show the coherence and utility of his concept, as much as it places pressure on Hohfeld’s concept to meet these criteria. I have already as- serted the coherence of Hohfeld’s concept in the previous paragraph. The confi- dence of this assertion is based on work undertaken in the earlier article. I shall briefly rehearse the salient points in the remainder of section 2. Consideration of Kramer’s concept (as defended by McBride) will occupy sections 3 and 4, spilling into the concluding section 5, where it will be evaluated alongside its Hohfeldian rival. The simplest way to appreciate the coherence of the Hohfeldian no-right is to take Hohfeld at his word when he explains its correlative as being nothing 12 Whereas the Hohfeldian no-right bears a relationship of negation to claim-right (they are contradictories), the relationship of Kramer’s kno-right to claim-right is not clearly explained by Kramer (Kramer 2019: 221 n22). He explicitly denies that they are contradictories (214, 217, 223) and also indicates the relationship does not involve negation by rejecting a para- phrase of “no right” as applicable to no-right (215, 216, 217, 219, 222). Yet nowhere does Kramer fully explain what the relationship does consist of, beyond his assertion that they are duals, which appears to be pressed more to assure the relationship Kramer thinks he needs between the correlative kno-right and liberty than to secure an understanding of the kno- right/claim-right relationship. The practical question of what happened to the claim-right, once the kno-right has been recognized, is not addressed by Kramer. And the conceptual question, if the claim-right is now absent, of how the presence of the kno-right can be related to that absence, remains unexplored by Kramer beyond his remarks of what the relationship does not involve. As we shall see below, part of the burden picked up by McBride is to attempt to fill in this gap. 13 In contrast to Kramer, McBride does provide some recognition of the two distinct Hohfeldian and Kramerian concepts (McBride 2021: 40 n3), though maintains the Kramerian option is required in order to salvage the Hohfeldian scheme and admits to paying less attention to the Hohfeldian alternative. REVUS 46.indd 10 20. 06. 2023 18:20:38 11 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights more than the absence of a duty. Despite labelling this correlative position as a “liberty not”,14 Hohfeld insists it is constituted by the absent duty alone,15 and even at one point considers “no-duty” as an alternative label for it.16 Overlooking Hohfeld’s preferred label for the moment, we can readily grasp an intelligible concept of no-right as the negation of a claim-right and the cor- relative of a no-duty, where all these related elements possess a common con- tent. Adding for the sake of completeness the negated duty, we obtain a full set of the four normative positions found in the opposing correlative relations that express a dispute between two parties.17 We can capture this in what we can refer to as a dispute box, as found in Figure 1. Figure 1 X’s claim-right that Y pay $100 correlative to Y’s duty to pay $100 denied by X’s no-right that Y pay $100 correlative to Y’s no-duty to pay $100 Note that the intelligibility of these interrelated concepts coheres around a common instance of conduct, the payment of $100 by Y to X. This is claimed as due in the first correlative relation, and denied as due in the second. Incidentally, note also, that with the current terminology there is no prob- lem in meeting Kramer’s insistence that two correlative positions must have the same content. This is satisfied in both correlative relations in Figure 1.18 Things are not so straightforward when the label is changed from “no-duty” to “liberty not”. Y’s no-duty to pay $100 becomes Y’s liberty not to pay $100, and the common content of paying $100 is now jarred by the appearance of not paying as the content of the liberty correlative to the no-right. Yet if we do ac- 14 Hohfeld 1919: 39 (“privilege not” in the original, but see note 1 above for the use of liberty here). The confusion regarding Hohfeld’s choice of label is compounded by his initially dis- playing liberty as the correlative of no-right and negation of claim-right in his table of con- cepts (Hohfeld 1919: 36) and then only subsequently (39) adding the negation of its content, almost as an afterthought. It took Glanville Williams (1956) to insist that the negative suffix should have appeared in the standard table of concepts. 15 Hohfeld 1919: 39. In a stimulating study of the Hohfeldian scheme, Arriagada (2018) inter- rogates the Hohfeldian relation of negation between liberty (not) and duty. In reaching the conclusion that liberty is “derived” where duty is “primitive”, she stresses the importance of acknowledging the practical utility of Hohfeld’s scheme alongside its logical structure. That emphasis is endorsed here in taking the practical context of a legal dispute as providing intel- ligibility to Hohfeld’s relation of negation. 16 Hohfeld 1919: 48 n59. 17 For the significance of a legal dispute to Hohfeld’s analytical scheme, see Halpin 2020: 149 n13. My position is not that Hohfeld’s scheme can only be applied to contexts involving an actual or potential legal dispute, but that his concepts and the relations between them have that as their primary setting, and so must be capable of being applied to a dispute. 18 A fuller response to Kramer’s position on correlativity can be found in Halpin 2019: 230-31. REVUS 46.indd 11 20. 06. 2023 18:20:38 12 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin cept that for Hohfeld “a liberty not to pay $100” is to be understood precisely as “no duty to pay $100”, then whatever fallout there might be from Hohfeld’s pre- ferred terminology, that should find expression as criticism of his choice of la- bel for the correlative of no-right,19 not as an accusation of incoherence against his concept of no-right. There is another aspect of the coherence of Hohfeld’s overall scheme incor- porating his concept of no-right that needs to be stressed, whose importance will become fully evident later. Within his scheme disputes concerning specific conduct and that conduct’s negation are treated as discrete disputes, each with a separate set of interrelated concepts. We can illustrate this in the dispute boxes found in figures 2 and 3, retaining the label of no-duty. Figure 2 X’s claim-right that Y enter his property correlative to Y’s duty to enter denied by X’s no-right that Y enter his property correlative to Y’s no-duty to enter Figure 3 X’s claim-right that Y not enter his property correlative to Y’s duty not to enter denied by X’s no-right that Y not enter his property correlative to Y’s no-duty not to enter This much should be self-evident. A dispute over whether you are required to enter my property to paint it under a contract between us (Figure 2) is totally different from a dispute over whether you are required not to enter my property as a trespasser (Figure 3). However, once “no-duty” is replaced with the termi- nology of “liberty” a potential source of confusion is introduced, since to talk of having a liberty can be suggestive of having a choice: enjoying a liberty to do something or not. The examples provided above indicate that this cannot be inferred within the Hohfeldian scheme. A liberty not to enter (now replacing the no-duty to en- ter in Figure 2) is discrete from the liberty to enter (now replacing the no-duty not to enter in Figure 3), and it is a contingent matter whether either is accom- panied by a liberty with the opposite content so as to provide the holder with a full liberty to do something or not. In the case of the painter who successfully argues he is under no duty to enter the property because there was no valid con- tract, his liberty not to enter is not going to be accompanied with a complemen- tary liberty to enter. In the case of the alleged trespasser who successfully argues he is under no duty not to enter because he is exercising a right of way, his lib- 19 Criticism of Hohfeld’s choice of label is found in Halpin 2020: 163. REVUS 46.indd 12 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 13 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights erty to enter will in those circumstances be accompanied by a complementary liberty not to enter, though that is hardly likely to form the subject matter of a legal dispute. The dispute in question, captured within the Hohfeldian scheme, is wholly over a liberty to enter. Accordingly, even when we revert to Hohfeld’s terminology of liberty (privi- lege) in place of “no-duty”, it should be clear that this is not a licence to intro- duce a full liberty. The fact that Hohfeld stresses that the liberty has a content which is the precise negation of the content of the absent duty should be enough to warn against falling into this error.20 For if the liberty in question were a full liberty, possessing the expanded content of engaging in the conduct or not, it would be impossible to regard it as the precise negation of either a duty to en- gage in that conduct or a duty not to engage in that conduct. It would amount to the negation of both. What might be referred to as a state of “dutilessness” in the holder of the full liberty – accompanied by a state of “rightlessness” in the other party. The possible significance of that state of affairs will be examined below. For now it suffices to establish that it has no relevance to expounding a coherent concept of Hohfeld’s no-right. 3 TESTING CLAIM-RIGHT/KNO-RIGHT AS LOGICAL DUALS In the earlier article I introduced a template based on the uncontroversial case of duals found among normative or deontic21 positions, the case of duty and liberty. The template conveys the dual relationship between duty and lib- erty, involving an equivalence based on both internal and external negation, and also the contradictory relationship which can be produced by removing the external negation. I then employed this template to test whether claim-right and no-right could fit into a dual relationship. McBride accepts the general va- lidity of the template, and, indeed, seeks to demonstrate that claim-right and kno-right can satisfy it within an appendix found at the end of his article. He 20 Hohfeld 1919: 39. The error has nevertheless been made – examples are provided by Hurd and Moore (2018: 332 n96). Confusion persists if the availability of “liberty” as a synonym for “privilege” in Hohfeld (see note 1 above) is ignored and then “liberty” is taken from usage elsewhere to be restricted to the case of full liberty, and as such to be alien to Hohfeld’s scheme of analysis. This strategy has been adopted in de Oliveira Lima, et al 2021. Outside of Hohfeld, this strategy may be problematic in failing to account for the distinct usages of “liberty to” and “liberty not to”, as opposed to “liberty to or not to” (on the distinction between “half-liberties” and “full liberties”, see Feinberg 1980: 157). Within an understanding of Hohfeld, it may be problematic in obscuring the Hohfeldian analysis of a full liberty as an aggregate legal posi- tion (picked up in section 5 below). 21 The alternative descriptions are taken as synonymous here, though see Halpin 2020: 162, for a potential distinction; McBride prefers deontic. REVUS 46.indd 13 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 14 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin also accepts that the template is not satisfied by the Hohfeldian claim-right and no-right, as I pointed out in the earlier article.22 DUALS: Joe has a claim-right to be paid $10 by Sally Joe has no no-right not to be paid $10 by Sally CONTRADICTORIES: Joe has a claim-right to be paid $10 by Sally Joe has a no-right not to be paid $10 by Sally The second line of the duals pair clearly does not express the equivalent of the first, and the second line of the contradictories pair clearly does not express the contradictory of the first. Hence the test is failed. When it comes to testing the Kramerian claim-right and kno-right, McBride’s reaction is to point out that the negative result to testing the Hohfeldian no-right cannot hold for the Kramerian kno-right since the external negation of the lat- ter differs in impact from the external negation of the former. The “no no-right” can sensibly be understood, once the double negation is eliminated, as the pres- ence of a claim-right not to be paid, which proves calamitous for establishing its equivalence to a claim-right to be paid, as required for duals. This result does not follow for “no kno-right”. Since a kno-right is not itself to be understood as the negation of a claim-right, it follows that the negation of a kno-right will not yield a claim-right. Accordingly, McBride infers, this obstacle to establishing a relationship of duals no longer applies to claim-right and kno-right.23 However, this tactic of removing an obstacle in the test for claim-right and no-right is not in itself adequate to ensure a positive result for the test of claim- right and kno-right, for which an independent test would have to be run. I sug- gested in the earlier article that submitting claim-right and kno-right to the test would not vindicate Kramer’s assertion of their duality.24 I did not provide the details there, thinking that the task of filling them in could easily be left to the reader. That, in hindsight, was a mistake. The task uncompleted there remains to be done. Here I shall provide a straightforward application of the test to claim-right/kno-right, before considering in section 4 the more complex attempt to meet the test mounted by McBride. Recall that for Kramer the key assumption is that liberty and kno-right as correlatives must have the same content. We can start by representing this in a dispute box, abiding by Kramer’s stricture, as follows in figure 4. 22 McBride 2021: 44. Halpin 2020: 154. 23 McBride 2021: 44-45. 24 Halpin 2020: 154. REVUS 46.indd 14 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 15 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights Figure 4 Joe’s claim-right that Sally pay $10 correlative to Sally’s duty to pay $10 denied by Joe’s kno-right that Sally not pay $100 correlative to Sally’s liberty not to pay $100 This flags up an immediate problem for Kramer in that the claim-right that Sally pay $10 is not obviously negated by a kno-right that Sally not pay $100. In fact, it is difficult to make any sense of Kramer’s relationship between claim- right and kno-right in the practical context of a legal dispute (which is the pri- mary context for the application of Hohfeld’s framework).25 Kramer himself does not provide much assistance with this conundrum, concentrating more on the abstract conceptual relationship between claim- right and kno-right rather than providing details of its practical application. At the abstract level, he informs us that kno-right is not the contradictory of claim-right but instead its dual;26 and, that kno-right cannot be paraphrased as “no right”, which would express the negation of the claim-right.27 From these observations, we can conclude that Kramer’s kno-right is not itself to be under- stood as the negation of a claim-right. The question remains whether the kno- right is capable of playing its part in the representation of a dispute, as in figure 4. And if so, how exactly we should understand “kno-right not” as the negation of a claim-right. That “liberty not” is the negation of duty is readily intelligible from the accepted interconnected semantics of duty and liberty, accommodated in the relationship of duals between them.28 Is it simply a matter of recognizing claim-right and kno-right as duals? 25 Kramer 2019: 221 n22: “Between a claim-right and the no-right that is its dual, there is only one thing in common (apart from the fact that each of them is a deontic position): the person who holds the claim-right is the person who bears the no-right, and the person who bears the duty correlative to the claim-right is the person who holds the liberty correlative to the no-right.” 26 Kramer 2019: 214, 216, 217, 221, 223. 27 Recall Kramer asserts that kno-right is not equivalent to “no right”, the phrase amounting to a negation of the (claim-)right – note 12 above. Yet if it is still to perform the role of negating a claim-right, what sense can it be given to achieve this? Intriguingly, before Kramer’s outright rejection of an equivalence between “no-right’ and “no right” in his 2019 article, he had in his 1998 essay appeared to equate the presence of “a no-right concerning the activity” with having no right: “no right to the halting of the activity” – Kramer 1998: 10. The earlier part of this passage is cited in Kramer 2019: 219. 28 Lorenz Demey and Hans Smessaert (3) point to the well known example of the duality be- tween conjunction and disjunction in classical propositional logic and point out that it is “[b] ecause of their semantics, i.e. the way they are standardly interpreted in CPL, [that] these connectives can be defined in terms of each other”. Also, at 4, regarding another well known case of duals: “All these equivalences are manifestations of the underlying semantics of the universal and existential quantifiers”. Similarly, the accepted semantics of duty and liberty REVUS 46.indd 15 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 16 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin In order to put that to the test, we can run claim-right and kno-right through the template. DUALS: Joe has a claim-right to be paid $10 by Sally Joe has no kno-right not to be paid $10 by Sally29 CONTRADICTORIES: Joe has a claim-right to be paid $10 by Sally Joe has a kno-right not to be paid $10 by Sally Bear in mind that the second line of the duals pair needs to express the equivalent of the first, and the second line of the contradictories pair the con- tradictory of the first. Commencing with the purported equivalence, this boils down to a claim- right with a particular content being equivalent to the negation of a kno-right with that content negated: CRc = ¬KR¬c. It is axiomatic for Kramer (and McBride) that CR ≠ ¬KR, so, as we noted, we do not arrive at the absurdity of CRc = CR¬c. However, that still leaves the issue of how to makes sense of what a kno-right is, such that it is capable of having this equivalence through double negation with claim-right. One cannot simply stipulate that something that is intelligible (a claim-right) possesses a dual (a kno-right), and then rely on that duality to make the stipulated item intelligible. Not everything possesses a dual. Neither Kramer nor McBride offers an explanation of the meaning of kno-right which might be capable of rendering it an intelligible dual of claim-right. No interconnected semantics for the two terms is ever proposed. If we turn to the purported contradictory, this boils down to accepting that CRc and KR¬c are contradictories, but since KR is not itself the contradictory of CR, how can negating the content of KR turn it into a contradictory? The intelligibility of kno-right becomes even more vexed when we take into account that Kramer does accept the simple formulation of “there is no right” to sig- nify the contradictory of claim-right, and if we drop the silent k and revert to Kramer’s chosen term for his kno-right. We then get from Kramer as equivalent expressions for the contradictory of “a claim-right that c”: (i) “there is no right that c”; and, (ii) “there is a no-right that not-c”. The equivalence of (i) and (ii) is difficult to fathom. If the “no” in the “no-right” compound does not signify the negation of a right, as Kramer insists for his kno-right, then how exactly is this allow them to be defined in terms of each other (duty to = no liberty not to) as duals, which also produces duty and “liberty not” as contradictories. 29 Kramer 2019: 216, misses the external negation from his illustration (“Y’s no-right concern- ing X’ (...) REVUS 46.indd 16 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 17 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights compound noun to be understood – particularly if the negation of its content then does somehow turn it into the negation of a right? Again, no explanation of the meaning of “no-right” is provided in order to make kno-right intelligible for this aspect of its purported relationship with claim-right. We may conclude from this initial subjection of the professed duality of claim-right and kno-right to the template test that the second line of the duals pair does not intelligibly express the equivalent of the first, and the second line of the contradictories pair does not intelligibly express the contradictory of the first. Hence the test is failed: claim-right and kno-right cannot be duals. 4 COMPLICATING THE TEST The puzzle of Kramer’s lack of concern to provide a meaning for “no-right”, as applied to his own concept of kno-right, may partly be explained by his con- centrating instead on proclaiming its dual relationship with claim-right, which he saw as the basis for finding a common content between no-right and its cor- relative liberty. In part, Kramer’s disinterest in its meaning might also be ex- plained by his assumption that he was simply rescuing Hohfeld’s understanding of no-right from error, while abiding by the basic meaning of no-right derived from its position in the Hohfeldian framework. This suggestion is support- ed by the use Kramer himself makes of the conventional table of Hohfeldian concepts.30 However, we can see from section 2 that such a borrowing of the basic meaning of no-right from Hohfeld overlooks, first, the intelligibility of the Hohfeldian no-right, and, secondly, its distinctiveness from the proposed Kramerian kno-right. In any event, despite his unequivocal assertion that the term “no-right” needs to be understood differently from the phrase “no right”, Kramer does make an effort to show that his kno-right can obliquely provide a negation of claim-right, as well as being a proper correlative to liberty – so making it a candidate for per- forming the twin roles of correlativity with liberty and negation of claim-right, attributed to no-right in Hohfeld’s analytical scheme and displayed in his table of concepts, which Kramer reproduces. Kramer’s process of oblique negation is not derived from a meaning given to kno-right but from the novel locution of its content, which Kramer insists is required by its peculiar formation as a ne- ologism. Kramer moves from a content of “kno-right not” (as found in figure 4 above and the subsequent application of the template test) to a content of “kno- right concerning”.31 This novel locution of content is embellished by McBride, 30 Kramer 2019: 214 – repeated in McBride 2021: 40. 31 The concerning locution is found in Kramer’s 1998 essay, but seems to be compatible with a negation of claim-right there – see note 27 above. More recently, we find in Kramer 2019: 216, a statement seemingly acknowledging kno-right as the negation of claim-right: “the claim- REVUS 46.indd 17 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 18 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin who also employs it to allow kno-right to be used as a negation of claim-right. McBride also fortifies his defence of Kramer’s kno-right with some additional complications. We shall consider all of these complications in turn here. 4.1 The approach to duals In an intriguing discussion of how duals should be approached, McBride seeks not only to clarify the relationship between the statements of equivalents and the statements of contradictories in the template test; but also, more funda- mentally, to establish an analytical priority for the relation of duality over propo- sitions (statements) expressing duality, from which he in turn treats some qual- ity of duality itself as the source for the equality from double negation found in statements expressing duals. It is worth quoting these claims in McBride’s own words. His discussion starts from the template originally devised from the uncontroversial case of the duality of duty and liberty, with added numbering (I add letters to McBride’s key steps):32 DUALS: [1] Sally has a duty to pay $10 to Joe [2] Sally has no liberty not to pay $10 to Joe33 CONTRADICTORIES: [3] Sally has a duty to pay $10 to Joe [4] Sally has a liberty not to pay $10 to Joe (a) … we are bound to ask: Why? In virtue of what are [3] and [4] contradictory? … the answer lies in seeing the equivalence – not duality – of [1] and [2]. (b) … again we are bound to ask: Why? In virtue of what are [1] and [2] equivalent? … the answer lies, of course, in the duality of the duty/liberty relation … (c) To sum up, we have [3] and [4] as contradictory propositions. And that is so in virtue of [1] and [2] being equivalent propositions. And that in turn is so in virtue of the duality of the duty/liberty relation. This is how things are, and must be. … when we seek specifically to expound the nature of the duty/liberty relation, we are, and must be, in the realm only of duality. The duality of the dual/liberty rela- tion is the bedrock: it is explanatorily basic, or fundamental. For McBride the “realm only of duality” in (c), from which alone under- standing of the dual relation between duty and liberty can be gleaned, has some- right which Y would possess if he did not bear the no-right which he bears.” At 220, more explicitly: “Any deontic position designated by “no-right” is constituted by the absence of a claim-right as a position of rightlessness”. 32 McBride 2021: 41-42 (internal footnotes omitted). 33 Kramer 2019: 216, misses the external negation from his illustration (“Y’s no-right concern- ing X’ (...) REVUS 46.indd 18 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 19 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights how become detached from the equivalence and contradictoriness expressed in the statements (propositions) [1]&[2] and [3]&[4] respectively. This outcome is first assisted by his finding, in (a), an expression of “equivalence – not duality” in [1]&[2]. It is further stressed in a footnote attached to the final words of (c): “Contradictory and equivalent propositions are explained by the dual relation (and not conversely).”34 Let me first agree with McBride that equivalent statements employed to ex- press duals, such as [1]&[2], have a prority over contradictory statements, such as [3]&[4], which can also be found where duals exist. Put simply, if Q and R are duals, then we can express their duality by the equivalence, Qc = ¬R¬c. From which it follows that Q and R can also be found as contradictories, Qc and R¬c.35 If there is a dual relation between two things then there must also be a contradictory relation between them. Obviously, not everything that can be found in a contradictory relationship can also be found in a dual relationship. So it is fair to point out the priority of equivalence over contradictoriness in a case where Q and R are duals. However, that is not to say one can then sever the contradictory relationship from the dual relationship – this I shall consider more fully in section 4.3. In this part, the brunt of my disagreement with McBride covers his efforts to separate the quality of duality found in a case of duals, or, as he puts it, in the “relation of duality” they possess, from statements (propositions) express- ing their equivalence through double negation. We have seen above that he re- iterates this position in a number of ways – first denying that [1]&[2] express duality and restricting them to expressing equivalence; then creating a realm of duality in which dual relations enjoy an existence discrete from statements (propositions) expressing their equivalence through double negation; and cul- minating in attributing explanatory power to the dual relation over statements (propositions) expressing the equivalence of duals through double negation. All this suggests there is some essence of duality locked away in a secret kingdom accessible only to dual relations who alone can dwell there. Once the dual relations emerge, they are capable of providing an explanation of state- ments (propositions) of the equivalence (through double negation) of duals. Unfortunately, we are not ourselves allowed access to this secret essence. In the absence of McBride revealing it to us, we should stick with the conventional understanding of the duality of Q and R, which is expressed in the statement of their equivalence through double negation. This expression may take the form 34 McBride 2021: 42 n11 – despite continuing in that footnote to acknowledge: “duality’s nature, in abstracto, rests on negation and equivalence.” 35 This generalizes the standard case of duality through double negation, under which duty/ liberty duality falls – see further, Halpin 2020: 153. REVUS 46.indd 19 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 20 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin of a single statement, as in Qc = ¬R¬c, above; or, the form of a pair of state- ments, as [1]&[2] illustrate. If the equivalence of [1]&[2] expresses duality, then we do not need to look to duality to explain [1]&[2]. Moreover, there is no further essence of duality to be found. If Q and R are duals then their duality is fully captured by their equivalence through double negation. This equivalence through double nega- tion is just what duality is. 4.2 The transfer of external negation There is another aspect of McBride’s exposition of duality which complicates matters, when it comes to testing the duality of claim-right and kno-right. In addition to his efforts to separate statements expressing duality from duality itself, McBride attempts to clean up these statements (propositions) by trans- ferring the external negation of the dual element to govern the statement or proposition. This is a more understandable move if he does not see the state- ments as expressing the duality of the two elements but only an equivalence between propositions. If the statements themselves are equivalents, then why not explicitly relate the external negation which contributes to that equivalence to the statement itself? So McBride offers as an equivalent but rephrased form of [2] the improved [2']: [2] Sally has no liberty not to pay $10 to Joe [2'] It’s not the case that Sally has a liberty not to pay $10 to Joe Despite McBride’s insistence that [2] and [2'] are equivalent,36 there is a significant presentational difference between them, when it comes to their ex- pressing the duality of liberty and duty; or later with [6] and [6'], when this technique is applied to the testing of claim-right and kno-right as duals.37 The external negation of liberty, one of the duals, in [2] is transferred to being an external negation of the statement or proposition in [2'].38 But assessing the proposition [2] or [2'] as a dual is not the issue.39 Combined with McBride’s insistence in (a) that we look only for equivalence and not duality in the propo- sitions [1] and [2'], this transfer of the external negation from liberty (and later kno-right) to the proposition distracts us completely from any consideration of its duality with duty (claim-right). Nevertheless, McBride deploys his revised 36 McBride 2021: 42. 37 McBride 2021: 44. 38 McBride 2021: 42: “to make fully explicit the first external negation of the proposition”. 39 Kramer 2019: 214, displays a similar preoccupation with propositions, rather than focusing on the entities that are regarded as duals – possibly contributing to his error of missing off the external negation mentioned in note 29 above. REVUS 46.indd 20 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 21 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights [2'] and subsequent [6'] with the transferred external negation, to the testing of a dual whose own defining external negation is no longer evident.40 McBride’s justification for making this transfer when it comes to kno-right is particularly revealing. The move is heralded by McBride as “vitally important”41 and explained as being so because it forestalls the mistake of performing double negation elimination with “no no-right” when we are applying this phrase to the Kramerian kno-right.42 However, we saw in section 3 that the double negation elimination applicable to the Hohfeldian no-right can be avoided for kno-right by asserting that kno-right does not bear the same meaning as no-right in that it does not amount to “no right”. However, as was also pointed out in section 3, this leaves open the glaring issue of what exactly a kno-right is (the meaning of “no-right” when applied to Kramer’s concept).43 4.3 Severing the contradictory relationship from the dual relationship We saw in section 4.1 how McBride’s efforts to separate the dual relation from propositions expressing the equivalence of the two duals, and proposi- tions expressing the contradictory relationship between the two duals, led to an unwarranted claim. This being that the statements expressing equivalence through double negation had to be explained by the dual relation, as though there were something within that relation other than the very quality of enjoy- ing equivalence through double negation, which was expressed in those state- ments. Having discredited that claim in 4.1, there remains an issue over the additional contradictory relationship between duals. The contradictory relationship, as acknowledged above, is in a sense second- ary to the relationship of equivalence through double negation possessed by duals, in that the former can be derived from the latter but not the latter from the former. McBride seeks to go further, assisted by his initial separation of the dual relation from statements expressing the equivalence of duals, he then finds the statements (propositions) expressing contradictories existing “in virtue of ” the statements (propositions) expressing equivalence44 – so setting the contra- dictories two steps removed from the actual dual relation. This renders “duals 40 It is noteworthy that McBride deploys this technique of transferring the external negation at the point where kno-right is put to the test in his Appendix, but reverts to the “no no-right” formulation elsewhere when discussing “concerning” (2021: 46, 47). 41 McBride 2021: 42. 42 McBride 2021: 44. 43 If, indeed, the transfer only produces an “equivalent” statement to the one employing “no no- right”, as McBride (2021: 42, 44) insists, then the improved statement would always be open to being switched back to the statement with the awkward “no no-right”. The problem would not go away. 44 McBride 2021: 42. REVUS 46.indd 21 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 22 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin and contradictories” as “compatible”, but not co-existing in the “realm only of duality”. Rather, they are only found in the same “ballpark”.45 In this way, McBride seeks to defend Kramer’s omission to mention the contradictory relationship between duals.46 Yet this contradictory relationship cannot be glossed over so easily, even if it were only found within some outer ballpark rather than an inner realm. It goes to the very heart of the relation- ship between claim-right and kno-right, as found in figure 4 and the following template test in section 3. If claim-right and kno right are duals, as Kramer and McBride contend, then if follows that they also enjoy a relationship as contra- dictories. So when it comes to depicting the denial of claim-right in the dispute box in terms of a kno-right, why would one reach for the relationship of equiva- lence through double negation as duals (which, in any case, cannot be made intelligible here) rather than the contradictory relationship which would more naturally fit into the context of denial? This question is even more pressing when a correction is made to the outer ballpark imagery, based on McBride’s flawed separation between a dual relation and statements expressing that relationship. Admittedly, the vocabulary of du- als is not the easiest to grasp intuitively, but here is an attempt to offer the basics, with paraphrases and illustrations in parentheses. (I) Q and R are duals (the duality of Q and R) (a dual/duality relation exists between Q and R) (Q is the dual of R) (liberty and duty are duals) (II) as its dual, Q is the equivalent of the double negation of R (Qc = ¬R¬c) (a liberty to enter is the dual of no duty not to enter) (“Y has a liberty to enter” is equivalent to “Y has no duty not to enter”) (III) as duals, Q and R can be found in a relationship of contradictories (Qc and R¬c are contradictories) (a liberty to enter is the contradictory of a duty not to enter) (“Y has a liberty to enter” is the contradictory of “Y has a duty not to enter”) One source of confusion is that we can refer to the two entities as duals, (I), or to statements of their equivalence through double negation as duals, (II). Although (II) definitively expresses (I), as I have already stressed, it is not the case that the relationship of equivalence in (II) exhausts the possible relation- ships between the two entities found as duals in (I). It is clearly inherent in (II) that Q and R can be found in a relationship of contradictories in addition to their relationship of equivalence through double negation – simply by remov- ing the external negation of R. And if it is inherent in (II), which is the definitive 45 McBride 2021: 42. 46 McBride 2021: 42 n10. REVUS 46.indd 22 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 23 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights expression of (I), it follows that a potential relationship of contradictories is inherent in the duality noted at (I). Again we have to ask, why it is that we should select the equivalence rela- tionship when seeking to deny a claim-right by a kno-right, rather than looking to the contradictory relationship that claim-right and kno-right must possess (if, indeed, they are duals). Moreover, the presence in the template of statements expressing the two relationships of equivalence through double negation as du- als, and of contradictories, can be regarded as a wholly appropriate way to test for the presence of duals. 4.4 An appropriate grammar for no-right One possible motivation for ignoring (Kramer) or sidelining (McBride) the contradictory relationship between claim-right and kno-right is the be- lief that the purported equivalence relationship as duals between them can be made to work indirectly to convey the negation of claim-right that a con- tradictory relationship might more obviously be expected to do. Such oblique negation through duality is advanced through invoking a peculiar grammar for “no-right”, initially by Kramer47 and then repeated with embellishment by McBride.48 The reasons given for this grammar are twofold: first, no-right is a neologism; secondly, it is constructed in a distinctive way so as to distinguish it from the phrase “no right”, which cannot, accordingly be regarded as conveying the same meaning.49 The first reason lacks deference to the creator of the neologism, Hohfeld. As creator, he would normally be accorded the privilege of stipulating what mean- ing the neologism was designed to bear. On this, Hohfeld was clear. Having found the need for a neologism in the absence of a “single term available to express” the conception which he had indicated to be both the negation of a claim-right and the correlative of a liberty, Hohfeld immediately pointed out that “no-right” bore the same content as the absent claim-right (“shall not en- ter”) in contrast to the content of its correlative liberty (“of entering”). Hohfeld was clear that X’s “no-right that Y shall not enter” conveys precisely the same meaning as X’s having “no right that Y shall not enter”. And as such, no-right is intelligible as both the negation of a claim-right and the correlative of a liberty.50 Or so it seemed, to Hohfeld and a number of reasonably well-educated people after him. Kramer disagrees. Due to its “hyphenatedness” and “status as a single term”, “no-right” according to Kramer cannot be employed “as if it 47 Kramer 2019: 217-18. 48 McBride 2021: 44-46. 49 Kramer 2019: 216. 50 Hohfeld 1919: 39. REVUS 46.indd 23 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 24 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin were the phrase ‘no right’” – as Hohfeld mistakenly did.51 Although there can be found concerns about stylistic infelicity in Kramer’s reprimand of Hohfeld, it is clear that the crux of Kramer’s charge is substantive: Hohfeld (and others after him) incorrectly used no-right to convey the same meaning as “no right”, namely, as bearing a content identical to the absent claim-right, rather than the negation of that content in common with the correlative liberty.52 For Kramer, “the inapposite grammatical form is accompanied by an inaccurate substantive specification of the content.”53 Yet even if Kramer were correct about holding Hohfeld to more exacting stylistic, or even grammatical, standards than he respected, the accusation that any such failings are accompanied by a substantive error of content would not follow. First establish the content the neologism is intended to convey, and then look to the appropriate stylistic or grammatical form to fit it. If necessary, cor- rect or improve upon the stylistic and grammatical points, but stick with the intended content. The real gripe Kramer has with Hohfeld is that he has chosen the wrong content for his neologism, and this revolves around one thing alone: Kramer’s persistent assertion that no-right and liberty as correlatives must have a common content.54 As it is, Kramer’s stylistic and grammatical criticisms are not well made. The term “no-right” is a compound noun, a “single term”, employing a hyphen to connect its constituent elements. Other compound nouns constructed in this way can be found. Notably, claim-right. That a compound noun of this type can be followed by a subordinate clause introduced by “that” is well documented (“John has a claim-right that Mary pay him $10.”55). No grammatical bar then to no-right similarly governing this type of subordinate clause. Although unu- sual, the formation of a hyphenated compound noun with “no” as its prefix is not unknown. There is no grammatical rule specifying that if I wish to coin the term “no-Z” then it must convey something different to an alternative construc- tion that does not employ a hyphenated term. Consider the equivalence be- tween: “John was a no-show for the 3.15 flight.” and “John did not show up for the 3.15 flight.”56 More pointedly, consider Hohfeld’s other unused neologism, “no-duty”, as employed in section 2. “Y has a no-duty to pay $100.” is an intel- ligible equivalent to “There is no duty on Y to pay $100.” The grammar police 51 Kramer 2019: 216. 52 Kramer 2019: 216-18. 53 Kramer 2019: 218. 54 This is evident in the second paragraph of Kramer 2019: 216, where the accusation that “Ho- hfeld specified the content incorrectly” is backed up solely by an invocation of duality, con- nected to establishing the same content for no-right and liberty as correlatives. 55 Kramer 2019: 216. 56 Those who understand cricket will appreciate the equivalence between “That delivery was a no-ball” and “There was no (valid) ball from that delivery.” REVUS 46.indd 24 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 25 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights cannot intervene and insist that if we employ no-duty it must be “no-duty not to pay $100”. The same point applies if the more common “non-” is used in place of “no-” as the prefix for the compound noun. Bentham’s neologism a “non- command” intelligibly, and correctly, bears the same content as the command it negates.57 One searches in vain for the enunciation by Kramer of a rule of grammar which specifies that two different grammatical constructions must possess dif- ferent meanings, because one employs a term and the other a phrase; because one involves a hyphenated compound noun; because one involves a “no-” (or “non-”) prefix … . Kramer’s recourse to grammar provides inadequate support for his basic assertion that no-right and liberty have a common content as cor- relatives, related to the professed duality of claim-right and no-right. Apart from grammar, Kramer is conscious of stylistic elegance. He first states what he takes to be the dual relationship between claim-right and no-right:58 (A) Y’s no-right concerning X’s entering the land is the dual of Y’s claim-right to X’s not entering the land. He then acknowledges the more ponderous formulation of the content of the no-right: (B) As is evident from [this] sentence … , the term “no-right” does not connect very elegantly to a specification of the content of the position which that term desig- nates. He then attributes the lack of elegance to the use of the hyphenated term: (C) For the hyphenated term, the link to the content of its designated position has to be formulated slightly more ponderously… Since this is regarded as a necessary consequence of employing “no-right” by Kramer, Hohfeld’s substantive failing rather than the lapse in elegance can become the focus – a failing which prevents an accurate representation of the content of a no-right: (D) …instead of writing … Y’s no-right that X shall not enter, Hohfeld should have written that the correlate is Y’s no-right concerning X’s entering the land … . When the link to the content is formulated suitably, the content itself can then be specified straightforwardly and accurately. This line of reasoning from Kramer displays a number of flaws. To begin, at (A) Kramer omits the external negation from the dual relationship.59 It should be, “Y’s no no-right concerning X’s entering” as the dual of “Y’s claim-right to 57 See Bentham 2010: 139-40. 58 Kramer 2019: 216-17. 59 See the earlier discussion in note 29 above. REVUS 46.indd 25 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 26 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin X’s not entering”.60 By omitting the external negation, (on the assumption that claim-right and no-right are duals) Kramer would have provided a relation- ship of contradictories between “Y’s no-right concerning X’s entering” and “Y’s claim-right to X’s not entering”.61 If this represents Kramer’s depiction of the corrected normative positions as they are meant to appear in Hohfeld’s table, then this is irreconcilable with Kramer’s assertion that these positions have a relationship of duals within the table, rather than contradictories.62 More importantly, all this depends on reading “concerning entering” as “en- tering” – the internal negation of “not entering” found as the content of the claim-right. But that then brings us back to the unintelligibility of the purport- ed contradictories found in applying the template test in section 3. The unintel- ligibility of treating CRc and KR¬c as contradictories is equally problematic for a case with the negation the other way round, CR¬c and KRc as contradictories – as we have here: “a claim-right that X not enter” being regarded as the con- tradictory of “a kno-right that X enter”. The unintelligibility now revealed goes beyond Kramer’s concerns with lack of elegance in (B), or ponderous style of expression in (C). It also gives the lie to his claim to have provided an accurate specification of the content of no-right in (D). However, there is another aspect to Kramer’s choice of locution for the con- tent of his kno-right. Although this takes us from the strict pattern of dual- ity Kramer asserts for claim-right and no-right, it provides an air of credibility when it comes to fitting the two normative positions within a relationship of ne- gation, as required by Hohfeld’s table. As I pointed out in the previous article,63 the phrase “no-right concerning X’s entering” is capable of covering both the potential rights Y might possess with regard to X’s entering: the right that X enter and the right that X not enter. That this broad understanding of “no-right concerning” might have been what Kramer intended, is reinforced by a para- phrase he introduces in his recent article: “a state of rightlessness”.64 Heidi Hurd and Michael Moore have suggested (prior to Kramer’s recent article) that Kramer treats liberty as a full liberty, and the rightlessness of a no- right as the combination of no-rights respectively correlative to the two liberties (to do or not to do).65 Kramer himself had not provided sufficiently detailed application of his analysis to be fully confident of how he intended “covering” 60 Alternatively, “Y’s no-right concerning X’s entering” as the dual of “Y’s no claim-right to X’s not entering” – taking “concerning entering” being the negation of “not entering”, and so providing the internal negation (more on that shortly). 61 Recall from section 3 that removing the external negation from entities in a dual relationship creates a contradictory relationship between them. 62 Kramer 2019: 214. 63 Halpin 2020: 154-55. 64 Kramer 2019: 220. 65 Hurd and Moore 2018: 307 n29. REVUS 46.indd 26 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 27 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights to be taken, but the expansive reading is certainly possible, and if it is adopted it has a clear advantage for his fundamental ambition to treat claim-right and no- right as duals with mutually negated contents, while still fitting them into the Hohfeldian table where they appear as negations of each other. Here is how it would work. The expansive reading of no-right concerning entry is cashed out as a no-right that X enter to provide it with the negated con- tent of the absent claim right that X not enter – so satisfying Kramer’s invoca- tion of duality. Then it is cashed out as a no-right that X not enter, so making it appear intelligible as the negation of the claim right that X not enter – so fitting into Hohfeld’s table. Of course, the success of the strategy comes from not pay- ing close attention to the unpacking, relying instead on some broad generality conveyed by “concerning”, and then following the appropriate connotation as and when required.66 Unfortunately, this expansive reading is incompatible both with Hohfeldian correlativity (see section 2 above) and with duality, which requires the negation of a specific internal content in order for the dual relation to be established (see section 4.1 above). An undifferentiated state of rightlessness can satisfy neither. 4.5 Switching to remedial rights In general, McBride endorses Kramer’s approaches to duality, grammar, and the locution employing “concerning”, but in one important respect he seeks to improve upon Kramer’s position by providing us with a basis for differentiating “concerning”. McBride is willing to explicitly specify whether the ambivalent “no-right concerning X’s entry” should be understood narrowly as a “no-right concerning X’s entry”, or as a “no-right concerning X’s non-entry”, by making the negated content explicit when appropriate. In this way, McBride indicates which of the two potential rights is present and which missing when a state of rightlessness is introduced by a kno-right.67 Now this amendment is in itself a helpful clarification, but it loses the po- tential advantage of the expansive reading of “concerning” I mentioned at the end of section 4.4. More than that, it brings to the surface other complications when the attempt is made to test Kramer’s kno-right with the template test. This is hardly surprising, since if “concerning c” and “concerning not c” are simply meant to be synonymous respectively with “that c” and “that not c”, or other conventional Hohfeldian phrases employed in stating the content of a no-right, 66 Evidence to support this strategy is found in Kramer’s persistence in treating no-right as the negation of claim-right despite distinguishing it from the negation when asserting duality – see note 31 above. 67 This is clearest at McBride 2021: 47, where the two no-rights “concerning your entry” and “concerning your non-entry” are distinguished. REVUS 46.indd 27 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 28 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin then we are back to the unintelligibility of Kramer’s kno-right, as discovered in section 3.68 However, McBride seeks to overcome this problem in the following ingen- ious way. He commences with what is extremely close to what was found in the template test for considering a Hohfeldian no-right as the dual of claim-right in section 3. Let us remind ourselves of that: (1) DUALS: Joe has a claim-right to be paid $10 by Sally Joe has no no-right not to be paid $10 by Sally This is accepted as failing the test. I also offered a straightforward test of the Kramerian kno-right in section 3 which I demonstrated was also a failure: (2) DUALS: Joe has a claim-right to be paid $10 by Sally Joe has no kno-right not to be paid $10 by Sally Here then we have McBride’s effort employing the “concerning” locution, displayed in the same format:69 (3) DUALS: I have a claim-right that you enter I have no no-right concerning your non-entry Remember that to satisfy the test, the second of the paired statements has to be intelligibly rendered as the equivalent of the first. Before scrutinizing McBride’s attempt to satisfy the test, we can note that he has built in a no-right with a content that is the negation of the content of the claim-right, so respecting Kramer’s insistence that this is required so as to pro- vide a common content with its correlative liberty. However, that is secondary to the issue to be addressed. As already pointed out, if we took McBride’s dif- ferentiated concerning locution to be merely synonymous with conventional Hohfeldian terminology, then (3) could be restated with “no no-right that you not enter” and would be no different from (1) – or (2) if we are following a Kramerian kno-right. As such, it could be summarily dismissed as failing the test, as already undertaken in section 3. But McBride has more work for his con- cerning locution to do. Here is his exposition of the second statement in (3):70 68 Text following note 28 above. McBride does retain the Kramerian negation of content for the differentiated no-rights, in a way to be discussed in the main text following here. 69 McBride 2021: 46. 70 McBride 2021: 46. REVUS 46.indd 28 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 29 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights Which is to say, to adopt Kramer’s terminology, if you fail to enter I’m not in a position of rightlessness (correlative to a liberty of yours not to enter). If you fail to enter, I can make a claim. This has the appearance of tying in Kramer’s “rightlessness” to the “no-right concerning” locution, as Kramer himself did, and then linking the negation of that rightlessness to the presence of a claim, so as to demonstrate equivalence with the claim-right present in the first statement in (3). So it seems that the test for duality has been satisfied and also the fruit of that desired duality has been harvested, in a common content for the correlatives liberty and no-right. On closer inspection, things are not so simple. Where we initially praised McBride for introducing differentiation into a postulated expansiveness in Kramer’s use of concerning and rightlessness, we now have to find fault with McBride’s extension of rightlessness (and, by association, concerning) beyond anything attributable to Kramer. Where we wondered if Kramer might be taking rightlessness (no-right concerning entry) to cover an absence of both the right that you enter and the right that you not enter, it is clear that McBride has extend- ed it in a far more ambitious manner, to cover the absence of a remedial right. So when that no-right is negated in an attempt to illustrate a case of the equivalence of duals, the remedial right is now present. If you fail to enter, I can make a claim. However, this “claim” now appearing in McBride’s exposition is not the orig- inal “claim-right that you enter” in the first of the statements he is discussing, found in (3) above. It is a claim to a remedy for being in breach of the duty that is the correlative of that claim-right. As such this “claim” is not technically a Hohfeldian claim-right at all.71 It is certainly not the correlative of the duty to enter;72 it cannot be accommodated in the dispute box found in figure 2;73 and, if this claim features in the understanding of a no-right, that conception of no- right cannot be fitted into Hohfeld’s table of conceptions, contrary to McBride’s expectation. Furthermore, McBride’s no-right constructed with this elaboration of rightlessness (and concerning) cannot fit in the purported relation of duality with claim-right, irrespective of what negation its content bears. For the sub- stantial element of its content (my entitlement to a remedy)74 is wholly different 71 It primarily involves a power (or powers) on the part of the claim-right holder to pursue pro- ceedings for breach of duty, and some time thereafter (possibly) a power of an official to grant a remedy, before any talk of a claim-right to a specific remedy might become appropriate. For important recent work on this topic, see Liau 2020: ch 2. 72 Nor is the negation of that claim, i.e., my state of “rightlessness” with regard to a remedy, the correlative of your liberty not to enter, as professed by McBride (2021: 46). 73 It is a basic precept of Hohfeld’s analytical scheme that the analysis of a primary claim-right/ duty relation is undertaken separately from the anlalysis of any remedial consequences that might ensue as a result of a breach of the primary duty – Hohfeld 1919: 41 n39; Finnis 1972: 380; Halpin 1997: 31. 74 McBride does not specify what the remedy in question might be, but inasmuch as he treats the negation of a no-right as amounting to the entitlement to make a remedial claim, the presence REVUS 46.indd 29 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 30 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin from the content of the claim-right (that you enter). There is no prospect of achieving equivalence between these disparate contents. The same critique can be made of McBride’s effort to satisfy the template test in his Appendix, where the following appears. (4) DUALS: [5] Joe has a claim-right to be paid $10 by Sally [6''] It’s not the case that Joe has a no-right concerning not being paid $10 by Sally Taking into account that for McBride “It’s not the case that Joe has a no- right”in [6''] can be expressed by the equivalent “Joe has no no-right”75 (the formulation found in (3) above), we can adopt this alternative in order to avoid the distraction of a transferred external negation. Also, now we have the benefit of McBride’s exposition of his use of the concerning locution, we can replace the “a no-right concerning not being paid $10 by Sally” by the clarification he has provided: “a no-right to a remedy in the event of not being paid $10 by Sally”. Combined together these two points then provide us with a clearer representa- tion of [6'']: [6''*] Joe has no no-right to a remedy in the event of not being paid $10 by Sally Place this now alongside [5] in the professed dual in (4) above: (4*) DUALS: [5] Joe has a claim-right to be paid $10 by Sally [6''*] Joe has no no-right to a remedy in the event of not being paid $10 by Sally Still, there is no prospect of achieving equivalence between [5] and [6''*] with their disparate contents, so as to express a relation of duality between claim- right and no-right. That is not to say there is no relationship evident within [5] and [6''*]. Picking up on McBride’s adoption of rightlessness as a synonym for no-right, and his understanding that “no no-right” amounts to “not a position of right- lessness”, if we take one step further we reach “a position of having a right”. This then provides us with a more accessible version of [6''*]: Joe has a right76 to a remedy in the event of not being paid $10 by Sally. We have now discredited any attempt to establish duals here, or to find in McBride’s rescue of Kramer’s kno- of the no-right must be understood as covering not having the entitlement to make a remedial claim. However the negation is configured, the content involves entitlement to a remedy. 75 See note 42 above. 76 A non-Hohfeldian right, in the same way that the “claim” was non-Hohfeldian – text at note 70 above. REVUS 46.indd 30 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 31 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights right a credible conception that might fit in Hohfeld’s analytical framework. However, the more accessible version of [6''*] matched to [5] does produce an intelligible relationship – a relationship of implication between the existence of a claim-right and the provision of a remedy to the holder of the claim-right, in the event of the breach of the correlative duty: (5) BREACH: (i) Joe has a claim-right to be paid $10 by Sally (ii) Joe has a right to a remedy in the event of not being paid $10 by Sally Seeing an implication between (i) and (ii) may be taken as providing a sem- blance of equivalence between them, but that would be to unduly stretch the notion of equivalence, to overlook any controversy over the ubi ius ibi reme- dium maxim, to ignore the discretionary aspects of civil law remedies,77 and to neglect the contingency of (ii) – some duties will be performed. It does turn out that Sally’s behaviour in (ii) is the negation of Sally’s behaviour in (i) – simply because the conduct which triggers a remedial claim has to be the negation of the conduct required under a claim-right.78 Here too maybe the semblance of the internal negation of content required for duals. But on both points, at best, all we have here is a façade. Upon closer inspection, we have seen that McBride’s defence of Kramer’s kno-right cannot meet the test for duality, nor provide it with credibility as a conception within Hohfeld’s framework. 5 KNO-RIGHT, RIGHTLESSNESS AND NO-RIGHTS 5.1 Exploring rightlessness To state that a party is found in a condition of rightlessness could amount to a number of things. In the extreme case, having no legal personality at all and so being unable to enjoy any rights whatsoever. That sense is clearly not relevant here. The Hohfeldian framework is used to analyse the positions of parties who are capable of possessing rights, and to specify in particular circumstances what type of right (claim-right, liberty, power or immunity) is held, or not, depend- ing on the outcome of a (potential) legal dispute – together with the correlative 77 This point reinforces the relevance of official (judicial) power in the securing of a remedy, picked up in note 70. 78 The claim-right claim is to the performance of a duty, the remedial claim is conditional upon the non-performance of the duty. Once this is appreciated, the negation of content appearing in McBride’s “no-right concerning” being related to the remedial claim is wholly compatible with the Hohfeldian no-right related to the claim-right claim. Accordingly, contrary to his pro- testation (2021: 45 n19), he has (in some respects) “collapsed into being a strict Hohfeldian”. REVUS 46.indd 31 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 32 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin position of the other party to that dispute.79 So, “rightlessness” as invoked by Kramer (and McBride) must relate to some condition of a party who is capable of holding rights, who potentially might enjoy a right, subject to the outcome of the dispute in question going their way. Given the particularity of a Hohfeldian position within a correlative legal re- lation, that can be found one side or the other of a specific legal dispute between two parties, it might be thought that any discussion of a more expansive condi- tion of rightlessness is simply irrelevant to Hohfeldian concerns. As indicated in section 2, even where a party possesses a full liberty, to do or not do something, any dispute relating to that condition of full liberty will focus on challenging one limb of that condition (you think you have a full liberty to use a right of way over my land or not, I challenge you, arguing that you have a duty to stay off on the grounds that the right of way does not exist, then it is solely your liberty to enter that is pertinent – I have no reason to argue that you do not possess the liberty to stay off). That is not to say that the Hohfeldian analytical scheme is incapable of being used to connect the analysis of specific legal positions held by parties within bipartite legal relations to the analysis of broader aggregate legal positions en- joyed by those parties – the aggregate being composed of a purposeful holding of different legal relations together. Notably, this occurs with the aggregate of a property interest; also, with an aggregate of a contractual interest – among many other commonplace legal interests that can be broken down into their constituent legal relations.80 The state of a full liberty mentioned towards the end of section 2, possessing the expanded content of engaging in the conduct or not, can be simply under- stood as a Hohfeldian aggregate composed of the two discrete liberties under the Hohfeldian scheme: a liberty to engage in the conduct, and a liberty not to engage in the conduct. It was also mentioned there that (given Hohfeld’s narrow understanding of liberty as the negation of a duty),81 this state would amount to a condition of dutilessness with respect to that conduct for the party enjoy- ing the aggregate position; accompanied by a state of rightlessness with respect to that conduct in the other party, holding the two no-rights correlative to the discrete liberties. The qualifying phrase “with respect to that conduct” could be replaced by similar expressions such as, “in regard to that conduct”, or “concerning that conduct”. These and other similar phrases are used by Kramer to indicate the scope of a no-right (kno-right).82 Kramer also suggests in his recent arti- 79 See note 17 above and accompanying text. 80 For further discussion, see Sichelman 2022; Halpin 2017; Halpin 2022. 81 For discussion of a normatively rich notion of liberty, see Halpin 2020: 163-66. 82 Kramer 2019: 217; Kramer 1998: 10, 13. REVUS 46.indd 32 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 33 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights cle that, “A no-right is a position of rightlessness, and a liberty is a position of dutilessness.”83 There is, accordingly, further evidence to back the postulated reading from Hurd and Moore that Kramer treats liberty as a full liberty and the rightlessness of a no-right as the combination of the two no-rights respectively correlative to the two liberties (to do or not to do).84 Yet if that is the case, then the expanded normative position of rightlessness or dutilessness, combining the two individual Hohfeldian positions found in discrete legal relations cannot itself represent the correlative of either of those individual Hohfeldian positions. My rightlessness concerning entry cannot be treated just as the correlative of your liberty to enter (or your liberty not to en- ter). Similarly, it cannot be treated just as the negation of my claim-right that you do not enter (or my claim-right that you do enter). In both cases, the aggregate contains more than is needed for dealing with either individual legal relation. Using rightlessness as a convenient resource to store both no-rights, to then be individually picked out as and when the circumstances require is clearly not a legitimate tactic. Certainly not, if our enterprise is to provide a coherent ac- count of Hohfeld’s table of fundamental conceptions, which seeks to specify precisely which normative positions are present or absent for any legal relation. Rightlessness and dutilessness have no part to play in that table. I have not, however, been completely dismissive of the notions of right- lessness and dutilessness, having acknowledged their role in portraying the Hohfeldian aggregate position of a full liberty. Still, to suggest that an aggregate position can infiltrate the table of Hohfeld’s fundamental conceptions should be regarded as anathema. Yet so much controversy persists over the Hohfeldian ana- lytical framework that to invoke orthodoxy is no guarantee of securing agree- ment.85 Instead, I conclude with an attempt to present the distinct concept of the Kramerian kno-right as expressed in terms of rightlessness, as opposed to the two distinct Hohfeldian no-rights (respectively correlative to a liberty to do and a liberty not to do) by drawing on the resources of deontic oppositional geometry. 5.2 The deontic hexagon The Aristotelian square of opposition has been used to portray the logical relations between deontic operators, providing us with a deontic square of op- position; and it is widely acknowledged that this square can be employed to represent both Bentham’s and Hohfeld’s basic normative concepts.86 Arriving later on the scene, the less well-known oppositional hexagon provides an extra two points, which can be used to represent additional deontic states and their 83 Kramer 2019: 222. 84 Text following note 63 above. 85 McBride 2021: 39 n1. 86 Halpin 2020: 153 n27. REVUS 46.indd 33 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 34 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin relations to the basic deontic operators of obligation (duty) and permission (liberty).87 One of the extra points can be taken to represent a state of dutiless- ness or, correlatively, rightlessness; and within the hexagon the relationships can be displayed between this state and the separate positions of holding a lib- erty not to (no duty to) and a liberty to (no duty not to) – or, correlatively, the separate positions of holding no claim-right that and no claim-right that not. Note for this part I initially avoid use of “no-right” as the label for the negation of a claim-right with a view to benefiting from the insights available from the deontic hexagon while keeping the discussion on neutral territory where the specific content of a no-right does not enter the discussion. Even without the terminology of no-rights, it is evident that the (liberty not/no claim-right that) and (liberty/no claim-right that not) correlatives amount to the two distinct correlatives, which are derivable from the Hohfeldian framework. And since Kramer is happy for the “no right” designation to accurately portray the nega- tion of a claim-right, we remain on neutral ground by employing the “no claim- right” phrase at this point. Four deontic hexagons are reproduced in Figure 5. 87 I add the Hohfeldian concepts in parentheses here. Subsequently, I shall exclusively refer to the Hohfeldian concepts. For discussion of the relationship between deontic operators and Hohfeldian normative positions, see Halpin 2019: 251-52. An illuminating history of the op- positional hexagon can be found within Demey 2020. REVUS 46.indd 34 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 35 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights Figure 5: Deontic hexagons Hexagon (i) provides the basic formal structure, with its points lettered for ease of reference when discussing the specific content attached to the other hexagons. In (i), the square of opposition is found at abcd. The horizontals and diagonals of the full square are omitted for current purposes. We retain the ver- tical sides ac and bd representing the relationships of implication (downwards but not upwards).88 To reach a hexagon we then add on the lower point e which represents the conjunction of c and d, and the upper point f which represents the disjunction of a and b. 88 The completed diagram with accompanying explanation can be found in Demey 2020. REVUS 46.indd 35 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 36 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin Turning to hexagon (ii), here we have the deontic relationships represented wholly in terms of duty, signified by D, with a preceding negation sign indicat- ing the negation of duty and a succeeding negation sign indicating the negation of its content. At this stage, we do not translate the absence of a duty into the presence of a liberty. The disjunction of duties at point f here amounts to what can be referred to as a state of obligatoriness – whether the duty is to perform some specific conduct or to not perfom that conduct, the party is under an obligation and not free to choose what to do. This can be contrasted with the conjunction of the negations of duties at point e. This amounts to a state of dutilessness. As such, the party is free from any obligation and is free to choose what to do (a state of optionality).89 We shall see shortly that this can equally be expressed in terms of the enjoyment of liberty. First, however, in hexagon (iii) we find the correlative positions of the other party. Since the correlative positions of the two parties in a Hohfeldian legal relation mutually imply each other, we can always infer the presence of the one from the existence of the other. So, we could have simply added the correlative claim-right positions alongside the duty positions found in hexagon (ii). For ease of comprehension it is convenient to represent them in their own distinct hexagon, found at (iii). But it is important to keep in mind that each of hexagons (ii) to (iv) can be merged together. They are all representing different facets (or designations) of common normative relationships. So, hexagon (iii) provides us with the various conditions that the right-holder might be in, relative to the different positions of the correlative duty-holder, with respect to a claim-right, signified by CR. We now find at point e of (iii) a state of rightlessness, correlative to the state of dutilessness at point e of (ii).90 Finally, in hexagon (iv) I introduce the terminology of liberty (L) to replace negated duties, providing us with a state of full liberty at point e (to do or not to do), distinct from the discrete liberties to do and to not do at points c and d respectively. Several pertinent observations can be made from this brief digression into deontic oppositional geometry, which helpfully displays the distinct normative positions found in Hohfeldian legal relations at points a, b, c and d, while sepa- 89 Optionality and obligatoriness are contradictories, but as the following footnote indicates the e and f points cannot be treated in the same way as the a, b, c and d points to represent the interconnections of correlatives and negations found across Hohfeld’s fundamental concep- tions and legal relations. 90 The state of right-holding at point f of (iii) and the corresponding state of obligatoriness at point f of (ii) are of less interest. This is due to the disjunctive state at f, from which it is im- possible to infer correlativity between the two f states (obligatoriness in (ii) might amount to a duty not to while right-holding at (iii) might amount to a claim-right that, which would obviously not be the correlative of that duty). In general, the greater explanatory value of the e point over the f point can be supported by the historical recognition of a pentagon of opposi- tion (abcde) having significance independently from the hexagon – Demey 2020: 40-44. REVUS 46.indd 36 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 37 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights rately representing the conditions of dutilessness and rightlessness at point e. We can note the importance of recognizing the two discrete Hohfeldian rela- tions cohering at points c and d. As discrete liberties in (iv) they cannot be sub- merged in a condition of full liberty at point e.91 Technically, implication flows upwards from e to c and d, but not downwards from c or d to e. Similarly, the two absent duties at c and d in (ii) cannot be submerged in a condition of dutilessness at e. Also, the two absent claim-rights at c and d in (iii) cannot be submerged in a condition of rightlessness at e. The differentiation of absent rights and duties is required. Kramer’s kno-right has not shown itself to be capable of effectively conveying the differentiation of absent rights, from behind the cover of rightlessness. Hohfeld’s no-right has never had any problem with fulfilling this role. Futhermore, when we move from the role no-right possesses in Hohfeld’s table of concepts as the negation of claim-right to the role it possesses as the correlative of liberty, it is clear that the condition of rightlessness, chosen by Kramer as the specification of his kno-right, being found at point e, cannot be treated as the correlative of either of the liberties at points c and d in (iv). As mentioned, it does make sense to regard the condition of rightlessness at point e of (iii) as the correlative of the condition of dutilessness at point e of (ii). However, this is based on a clear understanding of the meaning and signifi- cance of these two terms. Employing a specific term of “no-right” to cover the absence of claim-right at points c and d in (iii) has to be both content specific and capable of intelligibly conveying that there is no (claim-)right of the appro- priate content. At the same time, if the term “no-right” is employed to cover the correlative of the liberties at points c and d in (iv), it again has to be both con- tent specific and capable of intelligibly conveying that correlativity. The term as applied to Hohfeld’s concept of no-right, with the simple meaning of there being no claim-right (equivalent to “no right”), can be understood in a way that meets these requirements. When it comes to Kramer’s kno-right, no intelligible meaning for kno-right has been provided, let alone one capable of meeting these demands. Despite the strenuous efforts of Kramer and McBride to defend the duality of no-right, seen as a bulwark for the common content they take it as sharing with its correlative liberty, no meaning for kno-right has been offered that carries with it an inter- connected semantics with claim-right capable of establishing a relation of dual- ity between them. If kno-right is taken to be a state of rightlessness, as found at point e of the deontic hexagon, it is incapable of playing any part as the specific negation or correlative of the Hohfeldian conceptions found at points a, b, c and d. It does not fit within Hohfeld’s table of concepts. Nor then can we expect it to secure the reality of the no-right position, the reality of Hohfeldian liber- 91 As discussed in section 2 above. REVUS 46.indd 37 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 38 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Andrew Halpin ties, and the viability of the Hohfeldian framework itself. These being the stated aims of Kramer and McBride. This outcome of our assessment of the Kramerian kno-right might be regarded as reason for relinquishing the axiomatic attach- ment to a common content between liberty and no-right,92 and for ceasing to push duality onto a relationship where it has never been shown to fit. As a final reflection, it can be pointed out that this brief excursus into the deontic hexagon in order to assist with realizing an outcome for a local contest between Hohfeldian no-right and Kramerian kno-right is capable of bearing other implications, when it comes to considering the general relevance of de- ontic oppositional geometry to the illumination of legal relations – or, to put it the other way round, the illustrative value of practical legal relations in ex- ploring the theoretical standing of deontic oppositional geometry. At the local level, we discovered a crucial status for the inner square, abcd, which expan- sion to further points on the hexagon, e and f, could neither infiltrate nor dis- turb. Recently, it has been suggested that increasing the complexity of deontic geometric models is necessary to “complement” the analysis found in Hohfeld’s analytical framework.93 The suggestion to be carried from here into that debate is that any complementary features may also have to fit with more basic or el- ementary features contained within Hohfeld’s framework (as depicted in the square of opposition alone). That is undoubtedly a debate which will deservedly attract more attention than can be paid to it here. My concluding aspiration for the present article is limited to the hope that it renders further debate over kno- right and no-right unnecessary. 92 For other reasons, see the discussion cited in note 18 above. 93 See de Oliveira Lima, et al 2021. References: Arriagada Cáceres, M. B. (2018). Fundamentality, interdefinability, and circularity: Three ideas on Hohfeld examined. Revus. Journal for constitu- tional theory and philosophy of law, 35, 7-44. Bentham, J. (2010). Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, ed. Philip Schofield. Clarendon Press. Demey, L. (2020). Between Square and Hexagon in Oresme’s Livre du Ciel et du Monde. History and Philosophy of Logic, 41, 36-47. Demey, L. & Smessaert, H. Duality in Logic and Language. In The Internet Encyclopedia of Philo- sophy. https://www.iep.utm.edu/dual-log/ de Oliveira Lima, J. A., Griffo, C., Almeida, J. P. A., Guizzardi, G. & Aranha, M. I. (2021). Casting the Light of the Theory of Opposition onto Hohfeld’s Fundamental Legal Concepts. Legal Theory, 27, 2-35. Feinberg, J. (1980). Rights, Justice and the Bounds of Liberty. Princeton University Press. Finnis, J. (1972). Some Professorial Fallacies about Rights. Adelaide Law Review, 4, 377-88. Halpin, A. (1997). Rights and Law – Analysis and Theory. Hart Publishing. Halpin, A. (2017). The Value of Hohfeldian Neutra- lity when Theorising about Legal Rights. In M. McBride (Ed.), New Essays on the Nature of Rights. Hart Publishing. Halpin, A. (2019). Choosing Axioms of Correlativity. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 64, 225-58. Halpin, A. (2020). No-Right and its Correlative. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 65, 147-66. Halpin, A. (2022). Hohfeld and Rules. In S. Balganesh, T. Sichelman & H. Smith (Eds.), The Legacy of Wesley Hohfeld: Edited Major Works, Select Personal Papers, and Original REVUS 46.indd 38 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 39 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 On kno-rights and no-rights Commentaries (pp. 138-156. Cambridge Uni- versity Press. Hohfeld, W. N. (1919). Fundamental Legal Concep- tions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. Yale Uni- versity Press. Hurd, H. & Moore, M. (2018). The Hohfeldian Analysis of Rights. American Journal of Juris- prudence, 63, 295-354. Kramer, M. (1998). Rights without Trimmings. In M. Kramer, N.E. Simmonds & H. Steiner, A Debate over Rights. Philosophical Enquiries. Oxford University Press. Kramer, M. (2019). On No-Rights and No Rights. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 64, 213-23. Liau, T. (2020). Standing in Private Law [DPhil thesis]. Oxford University. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/ uuid:f2acd5c9-7173-43a3-bd86-3b1019409d1b McBride, M. (2021). The Dual Reality of No-Rights. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 66, 39-48. Sichelman, T. (2022 forthcoming). Very Tight “Bundles Of Sticks”: Hohfeld’s Complex Jural Relations. In S. Balganesh, T. Sichelman & H. Smith (Eds.), The Legacy of Wesley Hohfeld: Edited Major Works, Select Personal Papers, and Original Commentaries. Cambridge University Press. (Available at https://www.ssrn.com/ab- stract=2947912.) Williams, G. (1956). The Concept of Legal Liberty. Columbia Law Review, 56, 1129-1150. REVUS 46.indd 39 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 REVUS 46.indd 40 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 41 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Álvaro Núñez Vaquero* Constitutive rules of precedent A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis The purpose of this paper is to reject the thesis that a system of precedent is established with a prescriptive norm. This claim is supported by two lines of reasoning. First, it is claimed that systems of precedent necessarily require constitutive norms and not pre- scriptive norms. Second, any system of precedent comprises at least two, if not three, constitutive rules of precedent. While one confers the power to set a precedent, another conditions the validity of a judicial decision to the fact that it follows the precedent. Finally, there may also be a third rule that confers the power to ensure that precedent is followed and to annul divergent decisions. Keywords: rule of precedent, prescriptive norm, constitutive norm, competence, applicability 1 INTRODUCTION Literature on the theory and dogmatics of judicial precedent is undergoing a renaissance, as the publication of numerous articles, compilations, and volumes on the subject proves. There is, however, still work to be done in this field, at least in terms of the analytical theory of law. It is important to note that certain common statements in the framework of theories on judicial precedents have not yet been sufficiently filtered through the analytical theory of law. Indeed, while existing contributions have undoubtedly been valuable, many are based on questionable assumptions. I address one such assumption in this paper, namely, that when a system of precedent is in place, following precedent is either mandatory, although to varying degrees, or at the least, permitted.1 In particular, I argue against the common assumption that the use of precedents in any system of precedent is governed by a prescriptive norm of obligation or – when there is no such ob- ligation – by a prescriptive norm of permission.2 To this end, I proceed as fol- * alvaro.nunez.vaquero@gmail.com | Departamento de Fundamentos del Orden Jurídico y Constitucional, Universidad de Murcia (España). The present work is part of the project PA- PIIT No. IN302422 from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. This work was also discussed in seminars at the universities of Genoa and Alicante. I would like to thank the participants in both events, as well as Josep Aguiló and María Beatriz Arriagada for their comments in private instances. 1 See Horty’s excellent work on precedent-setting as obligations with exceptions (Horty 2011). See also Pulido Ortiz 2018. 2 Given this limited aim, I will neither provide a comprehensive review of the literature nor refer to it exhaustively. A more comprehensive analysis should undoubtedly include many revus (2022) 46, 41–62 REVUS 46.indd 41 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 42 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Álvaro Núñez Vaquero lows: First, I start by rejecting the thesis that the rules establishing the alleged “obligation” or the alleged “permission” to follow precedents are prescriptive (or regulative) norms.3 Second, I argue that systems of precedent are necessarily established by constitutive norms, and I demonstrate that the practice of prec- edent is normally based on three constitutive rules of precedent: one that neces- sarily confers the power to set a precedent; another that necessarily conditions the validity of judicial decisions to their following of the precedent; and in some systems, one that that confers the power to ensure that precedents are followed and to annul divergent decisions. Three clarifications are, however, important before we turn to the heart of the argument. 2 THREE PRELIMINARY CLARIFICATIONS The first clarification concerns the difference between prescriptive norms and constitutive norms (2.1). The second traces a distinction between the con- cept of precedent and the rule of precedent (2.2). The third regards the positive nature of the rule of precedent (2.3). (2.1) Two distinctions that show the contrast between constitutive norms and prescriptive norms are important for the argument in this paper.4 First, constitutive norms do not provide deontic characterisations of behaviours or states of affairs as mandatory, prohibited, or permitted under certain circum- stances of application (as prescriptive norms do). Instead, constitutive norms correlate certain circumstances of application with the attribution of an institu- tional property. Second, unlike prescriptive norms, constitutive norms are not associated with sanctions for the addressees who are responsible for deviating from the norm. Instead, the legal consequence of non-compliance with a consti- tutive norm is that the institutional property correlated with the circumstances of application of the norm does not occur. To be able to adequately describe how precedents operate in a legal system, the distinction between prescriptive norms and constitutive norms must be main- tained consistently. Indeed, it enables us to flag an improper use of the language when the possibility of choosing to apply a precedent or not is explained by saying other important contributions, among which those by non-Anglo-American authors are too often neglected in English language works. See at least Aarnio 1996, Barberis 2015, Chias- soni 2012, Gascón 1993, Bustamante 2016, Peczenik 1997, Taruffo 2014, Garay 2013, Gómora 2018, Guastini 2014 and 2018, Siltala 2000, Wróblewski 2008, Magaloni Kerpel 2001, Ferreres 2010, Zanetti Jr. 2015 and Pulido Ortiz 2018. 3 I will use these two expressions interchangeably. 4 See, e.g., Moreso and Vilajosana (2004: 73) or von Wright (1970: 26) for distinctions between prescriptive and constitutive norms. REVUS 46.indd 42 20. 06. 2023 18:20:39 43 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Constitutive rules of precedent. A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis that there is a prescriptive norm of permission that allows the judge to choose between both options. As I will show, the norm “allowing” the judge to choose between both options does not have the form of a permission but of a constitutive norm that considers either decision valid. The same can be said about the “obli- gation” to apply a precedent: It is not that the judge has an obligation established by a prescriptive norm of obligation. Rather, the judge’s decision is invalid if the judge does not apply said precedent. For reasons of clarity, it is therefore impor- tant to avoid using the terms ‘mandatory’ and ‘permitted’ in these contexts. (2.2) The second clarification concerns the distinction between the rule of precedent and precedents themselves. Of course, the concept of precedent cannot be taken for granted; numerous concepts of precedent are available (Chiassoni 2012; Horty 2011; Iturralde 2014). For the purposes of this work, however, “precedent” means a court decision that contains a (general) rule rel- evant to the justification of other court decisions.5 It is clear, however, that not every court decision constitutes precedent (except in the sense of a contingent auto-precedent) for the court issuing the ruling. What differentiates any old ju- risdictional decision from a ruling setting precedent is a norm identifying it as such. Such a norm must be in place (is necessary) for precedent to be estab- lished. In this regard, a distinction must be drawn between court decisions con- taining a rule relevant to future judgements and a norm establishing that certain decisions count as precedents. Put simply, while precedents are a set of judicial decisions, the rule of precedent, or the rule of stare decisis, is the rule determin- ing that certain court decisions count as precedent.6 However, and as this paper shall demonstrate, the rule of precedent is not a single rule. It is instead a set of rules on (at least) the competence to set precedents and on their relevance. (2.3) The third clarification concerns the (potentially) positive nature of the rule of precedent. Clarification is needed because a conceptual link has too often been established, either expressly or supposedly, between the posi- tivization from the legislator (or the courts) and the mandatory nature of prec- edents. Indeed, while a distinction between legally binding and de facto binding precedents is highly recommended, this distinction has often been associated with that made between binding precedents and merely persuasive precedents. Beyond the fact that the opposition between binding and persuasive precedents 5 In this sense, my work develops the theory of precedent in terms of norms rather than rea- sons for action. Of course, a development of precedent theory based on reasons for action is as perfectly possible and plausible as Lamond (2005) and Horty (2011) have shown. But my work is conceptually prior to theirs’s insofar as they presuppose that the rules model – as reconstructed by Alexander and Sherwin (2004) – is a prescriptive rules model. In this sense, when Horty and Lamond attack the rules model, they do so on the grounds that the rules would be prescriptive norms. 6 Pulido Ortiz 2018: 24 ff. REVUS 46.indd 43 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 44 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Álvaro Núñez Vaquero deserves a separate discussion,7 it is frankly disorienting to argue that prec- edents are more or less binding depending on whether the legislator (or the court) has positively enforced them. This is disorienting for two reasons. First, nothing prevents the legislator from positivizing the “obligation” to only consider previous decisions, or to only mention them.8 This means that there is a positive rule but that it establishes a different framework to the manda- tory nature of following precedents (for instance, merely considering them may be enough). However, it is also possible that the judges deem following prec- edent “mandatory” even when there is no legislative provision to support this.9 This becomes apparent, for instance, when without making a general statement, judges annul court decisions merely because they do not follow previous rulings. Second, however, the legislator’s positivization of a normative statement is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for adding a rule to the system. Beyond the very real issue of the separation of powers, the fact is that every experienced lawyer is aware of the presence of legislative statements that are systematically ignored by the courts of justice. But the opposite is also true, namely, that every experienced lawyer knows that some norms considered “mandatory”, or even of valid, cannot in any way be traced back to legislative or constitutional texts. The three clarifications offered above are relevant precisely because the prac- tice of following precedents is governed, particularly in civil law, through im- plicit rather than explicit rules. As detailed below, this poses a certain difficulty for determining the nature and the content of the rule of precedent. This is be- cause if we cannot count on legislative positivization to determine the presence and content of the rules governing the practice of precedent, we must empiri- cally analyse which rules govern the use of precedent and the legal consequence of not following them. This is not easy, however, at least if we admit the possibil- ity that some legal rules are associated with no legal consequence. It is possible that in an specific legal system, only the following of precedent is associated with legal consequences or that, on the contrary, only not following precedent 7 The term ‘persuasiveness’ does not properly express the degree of bindingness of court deci- sions for two reasons. First, in deontic logic, the term ‘mandatory’ does not admit degrees. Second, persuasiveness refers why, based on its content and not just its origin, a norm enters reasoning – but it tells us nothing about its bindingness. 8 It is true that in some jurisdictions the legislature (or some legislatures) cannot establish what the force of precedent should be. However, my statement does not refer to any specific statu- tory law, but to the logical possibility of it being so regulated. 9 In fact, without expressly mentioning it, courts have frequently first considered the ‘manda- tory’ nature of following case law. Later, the courts themselves expressly declare it, particularly courts of final appeal. Only in a final stage, if at all, does the legislator positivize this. This ap- pears to have been the case in Colombia. See Bernal Pulido 2008. REVUS 46.indd 44 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 45 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Constitutive rules of precedent. A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis has such consequences.10 The latter seems to be the case with following at least some precedents: decisions where following precedent determines the validity of the subsequent ruling, but not following precedent is not a condition for in- validing the judicial decision.11 From this standpoint, thinking that because the rule holding precedent to be mandatory has not been positivized, or because there is no legal consequence for not following precedent, these decisions be- come irrelevant, seems to be a somewhat hasty conclusion. It could certainly be the case that following precedent is not regulated in any way, thus making the following of precedent legally irrelevant. However, the opposite seems to be the case: although there may be no clear consequences for not following precedents, courts often use them to justify their decisions and trial lawyers constantly cite them. In some legal frameworks, identifying the legal consequences of failing to follow precedent is impossible, but this does not render the precedents them- selves irrelevant. Consequently, it is logically possible, and is in fact the case in many legal systems (e.g., in Chile, Spain, and Italy) that failure to follow prece- dent does not entail any legal consequences but following precedent does. Now, on most occasions, not following precedent does entail legal consequences in terms of the annulment of the judgement or the possibility of appealing it, but these are not the only ways precedent can be relevant. Further, this is not the only evidence to suggest that precedents are legally relevant even when there are no expected implications for not following them. We invest heavily in bibliographic databases, while the judiciaries in several countries are launching free, large-scale digital publications of their rulings; we dedicate whole sections of legal journals to the analysis of judgements; we teach entire university courses on jurisprudential analysis. Therefore, we must ana- lyse how precedents are relevant (if this is the case), even while not following them carries no legal consequences at all. This paper does not seek to describe how precedent works in any specific legal system of common law or civil law. What it aims at is recreating the way 10 From this standpoint, it is possible that not following precedents has no associated conse- quence for any subject, but following them is a condition to consider the decision valid. This is possible only if we think that it establishes conditions other than those necessary. In such a case, if following precedent were a necessary condition, it would be impossible for the rule of precedent to regulate following precedent, but not regulate the not following of precedent. 11 The work of Richard Re (2020) is particularly valuable. He tries to reconstruct a part of the rule of precedent as a permission. He believes that if we consider the rule of precedent as a rule of permission, it is possible to account for the role that precedents play when they are not binding. The only problem with this thesis is that whether permissive rules can fulfil this function is highly debatable. Indeed, a permissive rule shows a certain action as possible, but as seen below, it is not possible to account for what a behaviour that is merely permitted con- tributes to justifying the decision. If the rule of precedent is something that affects the validity of legal decisions, then it is not possible to reconstruct it as a permissive rule because these do not affect the validity of any legal act. REVUS 46.indd 45 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 46 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Álvaro Núñez Vaquero both types of systems work. Despite the possibility that specific legal systems include prescriptive norms regulating the following (or non-following) of prec- edent, these have a contingent character. What is fundamental in precedent sys- tems is that they are based on constitutive norms. 3 PROBLEMS OF PRESCRIPTIVIST ANALYSES Generally speaking, the reconstruction of the practice of precedent in the common and civil law systems is often introduced as constituting a major divi- sion. While in the former, precedent is said to be mandatory, in the latter, it is said to be merely persuasive, with no associated legal consequences.12 While it is true that in some Latin American civil law systems, there have been legislative and judicial positivization processes for the practice of precedent, many contain no express consequence for not following precedents, meaning they are not, therefore, mandatory. I believe that theories like the above are based on a conceptual error: think- ing that the stare decisis norm (or rule of precedent) is prescriptive. This section will analyse the theory that following precedent is a prescriptive rule of obliga- tion or a prescriptive rule of permission. As legal systems do not generally pro- hibit the practice of using past court decisions to justify future court decisions, I shall not focus on this logical possibility.13 3.1 Mandatory rule of precedent To analyse the theory that the rule of precedent is a prescriptive norm that renders following precedent mandatory, strictly speaking, based on the ratio decidendi or the holding contained in the precedent, I shall assume the maxi- mum degree of bindingness. Consequently, following precedent in this regula- tory scenario would be an imperative duty. This section will show that even in such cases, the rule of precedent cannot be configured as a prescriptive norm that qualifies following precedent as mandatory. Despite the fact that in regular juristic parlance, following precedent is often presented as mandatory, it is extremely unwise to reconstruct the rule of prec- edent as a prescriptive rule of obligation. Indeed, if it were mandatory to apply the same ratio decidendi to similar cases as those already decided in a previous decision, then the consequence for a judge not following this mandate would typically be a sanction. 12 This is not the only fundamental difference. See, Núñez Vaquero 2021; Bustamante 2016: ch. 1; Gascón Abellán and Núñez Vaquero 2020; Zanetti 2015: ch. 1. 13 Furthermore, due to the interdefinability between “prohibited” and “mandatory”, analysing the second option helps us respond to the theory that using precedent is prohibited. REVUS 46.indd 46 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 47 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Constitutive rules of precedent. A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis To be clear, I am not arguing that there are no prescriptive norms without sanctions. I am only putting forward the idea that if not following a prescrip- tive norm has any consequences, these must logically be a sanction. Since Hart’s critique of Kelsen, it has become widely accepted that there can be prescriptive norms without sanctions associated to their violation. Nonetheless, also accord- ing to Hart, it is agreed that the normal consequence of a violation of a prescrip- tive norm is a sanction, whereas the consequence of a constitutive norm is its non-validity. As I aim to show in what follows, the idea that the rule of prec- edent is a prescriptive norm is not only in contrast with the practice of our legal systems (3.1.1), but that the implications of considering it as such would also be rather strange (3.1.2). (3.1.1) First, it is extremely rare for judges to be sanctioned for not following precedent. Indeed, very few legal systems set forth sanctions for judges if they do not apply the ratio decidendi from the previous case.14 One exception is the Colombian legal system where its Supreme Court considers the failure to follow precedents as a type of prevarication.15 Two points must be made in this respect. The first concerns the type of pre- varication, which always requires at least an inexcusable error if not wilful in- tent (this is more common). In other words, for prevarication to take place one must not only make the decision in question, but also wilfully (or due to a seri- ous lack of knowledge of the law) infringe the law with it. However, it is also important to stress that when considering failure to follow precedents as pre- varication, precedents are comparable to any other legal rule. It is not a question of not following precedent, but of not following any legal rule. The second point concerns the possible indirect sanctions that judges may receive. Indeed, several advocates for judicial independence (Bordalí 2003; Andrés Ibáñez 2019; Taruffo 2014; Núñez Vaquero 2020) have sounded the alarm because following precedent is being associated, albeit not directly with sanctions, with withholding awards, incentives, or some other form of pressure that decreases judicial independence from their (supposed) hierarchical superi- ors. To assess the thesis that the rule of precedent is not a prescriptive norm of obligation, we shall therefore adopt a broad concept of ‘sanction’ that covers any negative consequence for the incumbent(s) of the judicial body failing to follow precedent. Consequently, we can argue that the rule of precedent is a prescrip- tive norm because the failure to follow precedent entails some such sanction in the broad sense. 14 The possible sanction associated with international liability that a state may incur for not following the jurisprudence of an international tribunal deserves separate mention. For ex- ample, no one doubts that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights lacks the jurisdiction to overturn decisions, but that failure to follow the Court’s precedents could result in interna- tional liability. 15 Colombian Supreme Court ruling C-539/11. REVUS 46.indd 47 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 48 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Álvaro Núñez Vaquero However, despite the expansive nature of such a concept of sanction, which includes not only direct punishments but also indirect sanctions such as losing awards, it is still extremely uncommon for incumbent judges to be sanctioned. Judges are not normally sanctioned for not following a specific precedent but for systematically disregarding them. Still, this remains exceptionally rare.16 Note that the above definition of sanction excludes the legal consequences that the decisions such courts hand down may be subject to instead of their authors, i.e., the nullity or revocability of the decision. This point is important because if there is one consequence most provided for in the case of not follow- ing precedents (strictly speaking: their rationes decidendi), it is the nullity or at least the revocability of the decision in question. (3.1.2) Second, it seems somewhat strange that judges would be sanctioned while their judgements would remain valid or at least non annullable. I am not only saying that the sanctioning of judges for not following a precedent in a sys- tem where precedents are binding is far from the most frequent consequence of the violation of the rule of precedent. I am saying that the nullity of the decision in question is more consistent with what constitutes a system of precedents. A legal system aiming at having future decisions determined by past rulings could deploy a set of sanctions to make the courts decide in the same fashion as in the past. However, a system of sanctions does not guarantee institutional results, but leads to their achievement only indirectly through the suppression of deviant behaviour. Indeed, it would be possible for judges to accept sanctions and yet systematically ignore precedent. Consequently, it can hardly be argued that a legal framework that punishes judges who do not follow precedent, but does not annul their decisions, is really a system of precedent. This perspective highlights that the most common consequence linked to a system of precedent is not sanctioning incumbent judges but annulling the judicial decisions that go against past rulings. While it is true that sanctions may function as a negative incentive for judges to not deviate from past deci- sions, a system of precedent based exclusively on sanctions for judges deviating from past decisions is strange in this sense.17 To understand this point, simply imagine a system of precedent where failure to follow the precedent results only 16 While I do not have empirical data demonstrating how many times judges depart from prec- edent, I do have some data regarding how many times judges are sanctioned for departing from precedent. Between 2015 and 2019, only two judges have been sanctioned in Spain, for example. See Consejo General del Poder Judicial (2016-2020). However, it is also a commonly shared assertion in several civil law jurisdictions that judges often fail to follow precedent without justification, and that there is no legal consequence for such behaviour. 17 According to Pulido Ortiz, prescriptive norms would have the capacity to guide the behav- iour of judges indirectly by generating pressure on practical decision making (Pulido Ortiz 2018: 330 and 335). However, while what such pressure from prescriptive norms consists of in relation to judicial decisions is unclear, above all, it cannot explain the role it would have concerning the validity of the decisions. Of course, it would be absurd not to recognise that REVUS 46.indd 48 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 49 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Constitutive rules of precedent. A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis in sanctioning the incumbent judge, and another system where the anticipated consequence is only the nullity (or the revocability) of the ruling. In the first case, it would be perfectly possible for a judge to decide to deviate from the precedent, accepting the sanction as a reasonable price to pay. However, this appears to frustrate the goals sought through the establishment of a system of precedent. In the second case, on the contrary, if the consequence of not fol- lowing precedent is the nullity of the decision, whether the incumbent judges are willing to accept the sanction becomes irrelevant because the institutional consequence remains the same. Therefore, while a system of precedent based exclusively on prescriptive norms associated with sanctions for incumbent judges is inconsistent with such goals, it is possible and most common to have a system of precedent that sets forth the nullity (or the revocability) of the decision deviating from precedent as the sole consequence of not following it. As will be developed below (sec. 4), this is an initial argument for considering that the rule of precedent, although possibly accompanied by prescriptive norms regarding the following of prec- edents, is above all a jurisdiction rule. In short, it is possible for a legal framework to include a prescriptive norm of obligation to follow the precedent. However, the system of precedent must be based on constitutive rules since a system of precedent based exclusively on prescriptive rules isn’t possible. 3.2 Permissive rule of precedent It could be claimed that in the majority of civil law systems, the rule of prec- edent is a prescriptive norm of permission. However, the idea that the rule of precedent can be reconstructed as permission, wherein following precedent is not mandatory, must also be rejected. In a nutshell, the main reason is that if precedent is something that affects the validity of a judicial decision, and valid- ity depends on constitutive norms, then the rule of precedent cannot be a per- missive rule because permissive rules are prescriptive norms.18 To explain why the analysis of the rule of precedent in terms of a permissive norm should be rejected, it is useful to recall that “permission” constitutes the only deontic operator that qualifies either the commission or the omission of a certain behaviour, but not both.19 Therefore, if following precedent is merely prescriptive norms can play some role related to following precedent. While a system of prec- edent is possible without sanctions, it is not possible without a system of annulments. 18 A reviewer suggested that there might be permissive constitutive rules, which do not affect the validity of any legal act. I do not know if such rules exist, but I cannot identify any examples, let alone identify the rule of precedent with such a rule. 19 In this sense, permission is called the minimal regulatory solution (Alchourrón & Bulygin 2012: 63). In contrast with permissions, obligations and prohibitions constitute deontic oper- ators that qualify both the commission and the omission of the regulated behaviour. In short, REVUS 46.indd 49 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 50 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Álvaro Núñez Vaquero permitted (as opposed to optional, mandatory, or prohibited), then not follow- ing a precedent may be prohibited, mandatory, or permitted. But this seems implausible for the following reasons: (i) First, if not following a precedent were prohibited, this would mean that following a precedent would be not only permitted (as by hypothesis of this subsection 3.2), but also mandatory per definition (in deontic logic, “prohibited to ϕ” is defined as synonymous with “mandatory not to ϕ” and “not permitted to ϕ”). In other words, following a precedent would be qualified as both permitted and mandatory. The problem, however, is that this specifically brings us back to what was said in section 3.1 about the rule of precedent as a norm that makes following precedent mandatory. (ii) Second, if not following a precedent were mandatory, this would mean, again per definition, that following a precedent would be prohibited. We would thus have an antinomy: two incompatible regulatory qualifi- cations for the same action. Indeed, following precedent would be both permitted (as by hypothesis of this subsection) and prohibited. Besides the fact that this brings us back to the problem of qualifying the (non-) following of precedent as mandatory, it does not seem sensible to think that the rule of precedent is a set of antinomic rules. (iii) Third, it is possible that both following and not following a precedent are permitted. Therefore, the rule of precedent would be a norm that would qualify following precedent as permitted, but not following it would also be permitted. It would thus be optional. However, this makes the following of a precedent somewhat irrelevant (but in any case, see Bulygin 2020 and Poggi 2004). To understand the reason, we must ex- amine the functions performed by the permissions, and therefore the optional behaviours, in the legal systems. Permissions are typically assigned three functions: (a) the first is to clarify the regulatory status of a conduct; (b) the second is to protect conduct from future amendments in lower ranking provisions; and (c) the third is to repeal prohibitive rules.20 Of these three functions, only the third advocates for the rule of precedent.21 Therefore, we can reject the notion that the function this rule performs in the legal system is to clarify the status of the behaviour of “fol- lowing the precedent”, or to derogate prohibitive rules. if a certain behaviour is mandatory, its omission is prohibited and vice versa; and if a certain behaviour is prohibited, then its omission is mandatory and vice versa. 20 Guastini 2017: 67-68; Poggi 2004: 22. 21 However, the last function, to repeal past prohibitions, could be relevant when use of prec- edent was previously prohibited. However, as demonstrated below, this reconstructs the fol- lowing of precedent as a legally irrelevant action, which is strange, as we will see. REVUS 46.indd 50 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 51 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Constitutive rules of precedent. A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis The relevant point is the function of permissions to shield certain behaviour so that lower ranking provisions22 cannot amend the deontic characterisation of the behaviour in question. There would be two rules that could not be issued precisely because the rule of precedent is a norm that qualifies following prec- edent as optional: (i) the rule sanctioning the incumbent judge for not follow- ing a precedent; (ii) the decision annulling a judicial decision for not following a precedent. (i) The first option, where the judge is not sanctioned, must be ruled out for the reasons detailed above. Namely, it is extremely uncommon and strange for judges to be sanctioned for not following a precedent, and when they are, this occurs under the broader term of prevarication, which requires a subjective element (i.e., the will to break the law by making the decision in question or to break the law due to a serious lack of knowledge of the law). (ii) The second option is that a rule of precedent making following prece- dents optional, prohibits a higher body (or the individual rule this body issued) from annulling a decision for (not) using a precedent in its reasoning. From this standpoint, if the rule of precedent qualified the use of precedent as optional, it would be preventing a higher court from annulling the decision for (not) fol- lowing a precedent, by issuing an individual rule, merely because the decision uses (or does not use) a past court ruling in its reasoning (whether other rea- sons are used or not). This second option must also be ruled out for two reasons. First, because, as seen above, the consequence that may arise from failure to comply with a pre- scriptive norm, such as a permissive rule, is a sanction for a certain individual. Although there are sanctions affecting the legal acts an individual may perform through the penalty of disqualification, this applies to future actions on a per- sonal basis. A judicial decision being annulled because precedent was not fol- lowed does not seem to comply with these characteristics. In other words, if the rule of precedent prevents a legal decision from being annulled because it has followed precedent or not, then it affects the validity of such a decision. Prescriptive norms do not affect the validity of legal actions (constitutive norms do). Therefore, when we speak about the rule of precedent, we are not speaking about a permissive norm (or at least not only a permissive norm). Second, this configuration of the rule of precedent as optional does not re- veal a key aspect of how precedents function in our legal systems: it does not al- low a distinction to be made between institutionally relevant and irrelevant be- haviour. For example, imagine a system with a rule qualifying signing decisions with a green pencil as permitted. Signing (or not) a legal decision with a green pencil does not add or remove anything for the validity of judicial decisions. It 22 When speaking of lower ranking provisions, I understand hierarchy materially. For the different meanings of hierarchy, see Guastini 2017: 207. REVUS 46.indd 51 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 52 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Álvaro Núñez Vaquero is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of justifying the judgement, although it protects such behaviour from any other norms issued. I do not think we can say the same about the use of legal precedent in the justification of judicial decisions. Instead, even in legal systems with consensus that a failure to follow the stare decisis rule does not constitute grounds to annul the decision, this does not mean it is irrelevant for justifying the judicial deci- sion. In such systems, the use of precedent constitutes at least a contributing condition for the validity of the judicial decision. This means that if we clas- sify following precedent as merely permitted in these legal systems, we do not account for how following precedent conditions the validity of the judgement because permissive norms do not condition (and cannot condition) the valid- ity of legal decisions. To use an extreme example, citing a precedent where not mandatory is not like looking into a crystal ball. Setting the rule of precedent as a permissive rule does not allow this key aspect to be accounted for. Of course, nothing would prevent that apart from there being a rule that makes the use of past legal decisions relevant, it is permitted (or optional) to cite precedents. Furthermore, if such a permission is found in a higher-rank- ing provision, this would prevent a lower ranking provision from being able to qualify such behaviour as prohibited. Nevertheless, it still does not account for the role that the rule of precedent plays in our legal systems. 4 A NON-PRESCRIPTIVIST ACCOUNT After ruling out the rule of precedent as a prescriptive norm, we must estab- lish what kind of rule it would be. In this section I argue, first, that not being a prescriptive norm, the rule of precedent must be reconstructed as a constitutive norm (4.1). I then introduce three constitutive norms typical of systems of prec- edent (4.2):23 a norm for setting precedents, another on the applicability of the individual rules contained in the ruling decisum, and a third (contingent) rule on the competence to control the following of precedent. 4.1 Stare decisis as a constitutive rule In this section, I argue that if the rule of precedent is not a prescriptive norm, the only option is to reconstruct it as a constitutive norm. Two reasons justify such a necessity. (i) First, as mentioned above, it is generally accepted that the consequence associated with constitutive norms, from Hart onwards (1998: chs II and III), 23 These are not the only standards. On the contrary, it is possible that there are other constitu- tive rules that are not rules of competence, such as those that establish - as a reviewer rightly mentions - the difference between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. REVUS 46.indd 52 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 53 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Constitutive rules of precedent. A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis is not a sanction, but the validity (or invalidity) of the act. In fact, Hart’s criti- cism of Kelsen’s reconstruction of primary and secondary norms, which states that primary norms (the only existing rules) are instructions for judges, while secondary norms merely reflect primary norms, hits the mark here: there are norms that are difficult to reconstruct as prescriptive norms. As is also well known, Hart distinguished between three types of secondary rules: change, ad- judication (or judgement), and recognition. As detailed below (infra 4.2), the rule of precedent is not a single rule, but a set of rules that to a certain extent contains rules of all three types. The impor- tant point here is that according to Hart (1998: 35), secondary rules are char- acterized by the consequence associated with the failure to follow them:24 the act being invalidated. If, as argued above, the most frequent and normal conse- quence associated with the failure to follow the rule of precedent is the nullity of the decision,25 there appears to be good reason to define it as a constitutive rule, not a prescription. (ii) The second reason is that it is possible to reconstruct, based on von Wright, the distinction between prescriptive and constitutive norms as an ex- haustive and exclusive division. As is well known, in Norm and Action, von Wright distinguishes between six types of norms, differentiating these into two groups: primary and secondary.26 The first group features prescriptive norms, the defining rules (herein referred to as constitutive norms), and the technical norms. The second group contains moral, ideal, and customary laws. The second group of norms can be directly ruled out as part of an exhaustive and exclusive distinction of types of rules because such rules are characterized either by their origin (customary) or their content (ideals and morals), whereas the first group is characterized by their structure. Therefore, it would not be difficult to imagine, for example, prescriptive norms that are simultaneously prescriptive, moral, and customary. Consequently, the second group should be 24 Hart’s distinction is by no means unambiguous, as he sets forth three different criteria to dif- ferentiate between them. First, the distinction is comparable to the difference between norms and meta-norms; second, according to the addressee, the former would be addressed to citi- zens whereas the latter would target bodies creating and applying the law; third, based on the consequences associated with not following them. See Guastini 2014: 103-104. 25 However, invalidity is only one of the possible consequences associated with a failure to fol- low precedent. Not following precedent may only mean, for instance, authorisation for the parties to the process where precedent was not followed to file an appeal, or simply annul the decision. That said, the above are consequences associated with the constitutive rules, not prescriptive norms. 26 Von Wright 1970: 26 ff. Truth be told, it is unclear whether von Wright put forward these types of norms as a classification, and not simply as a set of examples of norm meanings. This is a significant difference because in this sense, distinguishing between the norms would be impossible. Therefore, my argument seeks to go even further. REVUS 46.indd 53 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 54 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Álvaro Núñez Vaquero ruled out, as I say, as an exhaustive and exclusive division in relation to the first group. The first group includes the prescriptive, constitutive, and technical norms. According to von Wright’s definition, technical norms do not exactly guide be- haviour in the same way as prescriptive and constitutive norms, as they are in- structions intended for those seeking to achieve a certain predetermined goal.27 A simple example serves to demonstrate this: to cook a paella, a recipe must be followed, otherwise the goal will not be achieved, but such norm (the recipe) does not mean that paella must be cooked. In this sense, technical norms presuppose anankastic statements – state- ments describing causal relationships between events in the empirical world. However, it could be argued that instead of a statement defining the world as it is, a technical norm presupposes a statement of what ought-to-be: an anankas- tic-constitutive statement (Azzoni 1986). Again, a couple of simple examples help demonstrate this: if you want to comply with traffic rules, do not break the speed limit; or, have witnesses if you want your marriage to be valid. This possibility could imply that the distinction between constitutive and prescriptive norms is not exhaustive, although it may be exclusive. However, the problem is that this type of technical norm of the world of what ought-to-be pre- supposes precisely the norms of the other two types. Whereas the first technical norm presupposes the existence of a prescriptive rule (e.g., it is forbidden to drive over 120 km/h), the second assumes the constitutive rule under which for a mar- riage to be valid, there must be (a necessary condition of a sufficient condition) (Alarcón Cabrera 1991: 284) witnesses when the marriage takes place. It would therefore seem that technical norms that do not presuppose anankastic state- ments, but norms cannot themselves be considered norms in the same sense as prescriptive or constitutive norms, given that these underpin technical norms.28 Based on the above, it can be concluded that prescriptive and constitutive norms, being the only types that do not presuppose other sets of norms,29 form an exhaustive and exclusive set of the types of norms. It can therefore be con- cluded that if the rule of precedent really is or presupposes a norm (or a set thereof), and if this norm or a set of norms is not prescriptive, then it/they must be constitutive. 27 This is because certain purposes are assumed, which would be normative in the traditional sense of the term. See von Wright 1970: 34 ff. 28 The discussion about the ontological independence between the different types of constitu- tive norms is complex and superfluous to the purposes of this paper. For further insight, see Roversi 2011. 29 There would, of course, be a discussion about the autonomy of prescriptive norms from con- stitutive ones, and vice versa. I argue here, however, that at least from a structural perspective, these are independent. REVUS 46.indd 54 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 55 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Constitutive rules of precedent. A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis Although a criterion has already been put forward to distinguish between the two types of norms (the legal consequences associated with not following precedent), this may be insufficient for determining which type the rule of prec- edent corresponds to if there are no legal consequences laid down in the law,30 making it impossible to differentiate between them in an extensional sense. Therefore, it might not be clear that, in the absence of legal consequences, the rule of precedent is a constitutive norm. There is, however, another criterion – structural in nature – to distinguish between the two types of norms. Whereas prescriptive rules correlate to a fac- tual situation (regulated behaviour) with a deontic operator (prohibited, per- mitted, mandatory, or optional), constitutive rules correlate a factual situation (regulated behaviour) with another factual situation (Moreso and Vilajosana 2004: 74). For instance, whereas the prescriptive norm correlates a prohibition with exceeding 120 km/h, constitutive norms correlate the validity of marriage with the presence of witnesses, even if only as a necessary condition (or as a necessary condition for a sufficient condition). The structural difference seems to shape the difference between prescriptive and constitutive norms as a major distinction. Therefore, if following precedent is associated with the validity (applicability, regularity, or any other property that is not a deontic operator) of the decision – even if, as will be shown below, the condition is not always necessary or sufficient – it can be concluded that the rule of precedent is a rule of a constitutive nature. 4.2 A set of constitutive rules of precedent After establishing that the rule of precedent is a constitutive norm, the next step is to define the type of constitutive norm it would be. There are a wide variety of constitutive norms: competence norms, applicability norms, interpre- tative norms, validity norms, renvoi norms, etc. (Guastini 2017: 58). I will not explore the specific content of constitutive norms here because they depend on the content of each legal system and are therefore contingent. However, I shall demonstrate the typical content of the rule of precedent, showing how a prec- edent system can (or cannot) function without them.31 30 It is often believed that a failure to follow constitutive norms, if ‘follow’ is the correct term for complying with such rules, means the act is invalid. However, this implies that all constitutive rules are necessary conditions for the validity of the act. Nevertheless, it is possible and com- mon for constitutive norms to be sufficient or contributing conditions (see Alarcón Cabrera 1991; Azzoni 1986; Roversi 2011). Whether such norms are in fact fragments of rules, is an- other matter I shall not delve into here. 31 As one of the reviewers rightly points out, it is possible that the rule of precedent contemplates as regulated behaviour something different from following the ratio decidendi. Indeed, this is possible as in the case where, for example, past decisions are simply cited. However, this is not the most common scenario. REVUS 46.indd 55 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 56 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Álvaro Núñez Vaquero Having clarified the above, the rule of precedent (or stare decisis rule) can be reconstructed as a set of at least three norms. The first is the norm establishing which decisions are precedents (4.2.1). The second is a rule that makes the va- lidity of legal decisions conditional on following precedent, thus limiting their competence (4.2.2). The third gives certain bodies the power to overturn deci- sions from other judges where precedent has not been followed (4.2.3). 4.2.1 A rule of competence (to set precedent) The first norm involved in the rule of precedent (or stare decisis rule) grants competence to the courts (or at least some of them) to set precedent. For exam- ple, Article VII of the Peruvian Code of Constitutional Procedure recognises the competence of the Constitutional Court of the Andean nation to set precedent.32 However, although it is increasingly more frequent for a body to be expressly granted competence to set precedent, this trend is not yet very widespread. It is far more common for the rule to be implicit. Still, stating that the courts have competence to issue general rules, valid or applicable for resolving future cases, while intuitive, is not entirely correct (Magaloni Kerpel 2001: 31 and 38). This is because courts sometimes have no pretence that their rationes decidendi be val- id, applicable, or binding for subsequent cases. This may occur in two different ways. The first is because the court setting the precedent intended the rule (or linguistic fragment) considered ratio decidendi to be different from the norm subsequently considered as such. The second is because the court’s decision did not seek to set precedent. Indeed, it is perfectly possible for a court to issue a judicial decision without claiming it contains a norm (ratio decidendi) with binding effect for subsequent cases, even if legal practice considers it as such. This possibility is more relevant than it might seem. While we can clearly talk about exercising a competence when the court intends to exercise it, things change when no such intention exists.33 Of course, it makes perfect sense to state that certain bodies have the competence to set precedent. However, saying that the rule of precedent always constitutes a norm granting judges compe- tence to set precedent may be limiting, as courts could issue a judicial decision with no intention of setting a precedent and yet have the decision considered 32 Article VII of the Code of Constitutional Procedure: “Decisions of the Constitutional Court that acquire the authority of res judicata constitute binding precedents when the ruling so states, specifying the scope of their regulatory effect.” 33 I am assuming here, following Raz or MacCormick, that the notion of competence is linked to the idea of intention. The thesis is debatable in theoretical terms, as we can reconstruct the notion of competence irrespective of any type of intention. I must thank María Beatriz Ar- riagada for her comments on this point. However, it seems clear to me that jurisdiction rules emerge, in historical terms, to give institutional relevance to intentional acts. See the work of Arriagada Cáceres 2021 and Mañalich 2021a and Mañalich 2021b. In any case, settling this matter would require further analysis beyond the scope of this paper. REVUS 46.indd 56 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 57 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Constitutive rules of precedent. A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis as such. In other words, for a judgement to count as precedent, it is not always necessary for the issuing body to intentionally set a precedent.34 In light of the foregoing, rather than asserting that this initial aspect of the rule of precedent grants judges’ the competence to set precedent (source act), it would be more accurate to state that, while in some legal systems there is a spe- cific rule conferring jurisdiction, in many others, certain jurisdictional decisions are simply recognized as precedent (source fact), and in others, both occur. To paraphrase Hart: instead of a rule of change, which enables norms to be added to the legal system, in some jurisdictions, the rule of precedent would resemble the rule of recognition but be limited to the scope of judicial decisions. Therefore, the rule of precedent, which may be an (express or implied) norm that grants certain bodies the competence to issue rules within the framework of a legal pro- cedure, may also simply recognise certain decisions as precedent irrespective of whether the issuing body intended the judicial decision to set a precedent or not. If this is the case, this first rule (whether it provides for jurisdiction or only recognises past decisions as precedents) implied in the rule of precedent, is a minimum or necessary rule in any precedent system. Without a rule identifying which court decisions count as precedent (either by identifying such decisions or by giving jurisdiction to bodies to issue them), a system of precedents is im- possible. However, this does not mean there are no gaps in the criteria enabling identification of which past decisions count as precedent (Kelsen 2017; Núñez Vaquero & Arriagada Cáceres 2020). That said, a system silent on which deci- sions count as precedent would be a system without precedent. The rule iden- tifying certain rulings as precedent setting constitutes the practice of precedent to the extent of identifying the applicable precedents. 4.2.2 A rule of validity (to limit the competence) As seen above when we rejected the notion that the rule of precedent is a prescriptive rule that classifies the following of precedent as mandatory or per- mitted, the most common and normal consequence of not following precedent is the nullity or revocability of the legal decision. In this sense, it seems plausible to state that the rule of precedent limits the competence of judges to issue valid judicial decisions, while it also conditions the validity of such decision to the fact that precedent has been followed. It is worth clarifying what we mean by the validity of the court decision be- ing conditional on following precedent. First, because the term “validity” is suf- ficiently ambiguous to require clarification about its intended meaning. Second, 34 Furthermore, the case may arise whereby, when the judicial decision is issued, there is no rule on precedent and subsequently such a rule is created, and the judicial decision becomes a precedent. These would be the unintended consequences (creation of precedent) of inten- tional acts (sentencing) (Barberis 2015: 71). REVUS 46.indd 57 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 58 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Álvaro Núñez Vaquero because the fact that the rule of precedent conditions the judicial decision’s va- lidity does not mean it must condition it. (i) Initially, the term “validity” may refer to multiple properties advocated for different objects. On the one hand, validity is included both in normative texts – legislative and, of interest here, judicial – and in the norms set forth therein. On the other hand, validity may at least mean regularity (issued pursu- ant to the rules) and applicability, belonging, existence, and mandatory. Analysing the combinations of the different objects with the different mean- ings of validity would be too lengthy a discussion, so I will specifically explore the concept of validity in only two of its different meanings, each concerning a different purpose. First, it could be said that the rule of precedent conditions the validity, un- derstood as regularity, i.e., production under the norms, of the legal decision following precedent or not. Second, the rule of precedent conditions the valid- ity of the individual norm constituting the decisum of the judicial decision ap- plying precedent (or not). In this case, validity is understood not merely as reg- ularity but also as applicability. In the latter sense, the rule of precedent would establish conditions whereby the individual rule contained in the operative part of the judicial decision following precedent (or not) is applicable in subsequent proceedings.35 This means the individual rule that the judge issues may be used in a subsequent proceeding or applied coercively by the competent bodies. Second, stating that following precedent conditions the validity of subsequent judicial decisions – as described above as applicability of the individual rule – does not mean that it is a necessary condition for the subsequent decision to be valid. There are logically at least five types of conditions: a necessary condition, a sufficient condition, a necessary and sufficient condition, a necessary condition of a sufficient condition, and a sufficient condition of a necessary condition. The way that following precedent may condition the validity of subsequent judicial decisions is relevant, as it demonstrates the different manners the rule of precedent may operate in, and how failure to follow precedent might not entail any consequences. Indeed, it is logically possible that following precedent is a necessary condition for the judicial decision to be valid. However, few legal systems provide for such a requirement, only providing for downstream vertical precedents. 35 Applicability is often understood as the obligation or permission for judges to use a norm to justify a decision. As can be easily observed, such a definition is structured based on prescriptive norms. See Moreso & Navarro 1996. However, applicability should be redefined in constitutive terms, as it is not a case of whether judges can or should use such norms, but instead that the use of such rules is a condition for the regularity of their decisions. Another issue concerns which consequences (if any) this has on the regularity or irregularity of the decision. REVUS 46.indd 58 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 59 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Constitutive rules of precedent. A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis Far more frequently, following precedent is a contributing condition, i.e., a necessary condition of a sufficient condition, or a sufficient condition to the sub- sequent decision’s validity. In other words, it is either a necessary element for one way for the condition (sufficient condition) to be considered valid, or merely citing a precedent is itself a condition sufficient to consider the decision justified. However, if the rule of precedent can establish that following precedents is a sufficient condition36 (or a necessary condition of a sufficient condition) for judicial decisions to be valid, then failure to follow precedents alone would not entail any legal consequences, or at least not in this type of precedent system. This means that whether following precedent (or not) is a necessary condition is just one possibility from several (and not the most common). Therefore, sys- tems of relevant precedent are required, where failure to follow precedent en- tails no consequences, but following precedent renders a judicial decision valid. Again, this is a necessary rule irrespective of its specific content (necessary, sufficient condition, etc.) for a system of precedents. This is because a system of precedent without any relevance is impossible, precisely because of how prec- edent has been defined above – as a past decision containing a general rule rel- evant to similar subsequent cases. If using a past decision for a similar case to justify the subsequent court’s decision does not in any way condition the validity thereof, it could be said that there is no system of precedent in such a legal system. 4.2.3 A rule of competence (to control the following of precedent) The third norm often added to the set of rules of precedent, confers com- petence to certain bodies to overturn a decision precisely because it does not follow precedent. However, before attempting to clarify the status of this third rule of precedent, it is important to highlight, as detailed above, that a rule of precedent can establish the following of past rationes decidendi not only as a necessary condition, but also as a sufficient (or contributing) condition for the validity of the subsequent decision. The norm conferring certain courts the power to annul judicial decisions on the basis that they do not follow precedent is therefore contingent. This is obviously relevant if we are to establish whether a system of prec- edent requires that a body has the competence to verify the following of prec- edent. While there may well be a body responsible for controlling the validity of judicial decisions in general, in a system in which the following of precedent constitutes a sufficient condition of validity of a judicial decision (or a necessary 36 According to Azzoni (1986: 173-174), these would be metathetic constitutive rules, i.e., adding a sufficient condition of validity. REVUS 46.indd 59 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 60 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Álvaro Núñez Vaquero condition of a sufficient condition) there is no specific control of the following of precedent, but only of the justification of the judicial decision.37 This leads to the conclusion that there is room for a system of relevant prec- edents without any specific body having the jurisdiction to annul decisions on the grounds that they do not follow precedents. This, in turn, enables the self- precedent of courts of final appeal at each legal level to be shown in a different light. Indeed, nothing prevents a legal system from laying down, for instance, that following its own decisions is a sufficient condition to render decisions passed down by its own constitutional court valid. For example, this would be the case for the norm enabling, particularly courts of final appeal, to reject cer- tain appeals on the grounds they have already ruled on the matter, exclusively basing their decision on past judicial decisions. A system of precedents therefore seems possible without requiring a body to control their being followed. This is because the rule on following precedent and the jurisdiction to control such following are not mutually involved. In par- ticular, although the norm conferring a body competence to control the fol- lowing of precedent does require (to ensure the legal system does not contain a technical loophole) a rule determining that the following of precedent is a condition for the validity of the subsequent legal sentence, the norm establish- ing such a condition does not necessarily confer controlling powers to a body. However, neither does the fact that this is a court of final appeal mean that a precedent following control system cannot be established. First, there is nothing to stop such body from controlling the validity of its own decisions.38 Second, however, there is nothing to prevent another body from being granted limited competence to determine the validity of the court of final appeal’s judicial deci- sion based exclusively on following its own precedents. 5 CONCLUSIONS It can be concluded that establishing the rule of precedent as a prescriptive norm is not a plausible way of reconstructing the rule of precedent. Indeed, it is rare for following precedent to be qualified in a deontic sense, and for the consequence (if any) of not following precedent to be a sanction. Moreover, a prescriptive reconstruction of the rule of precedent either turns out to be incon- sistent with the goals pursued by a precedent system (that is, if the rule is taken to make the following of precedent mandatory) or makes following precedent 37 The same can be said regarding a specific system of procedural resources for not following precedent: a system of precedents without specific procedural remedies for failing to follow precedent is perfectly possible. See, in this regard, Gonçalves 2020. 38 For example, see the work compiled in Castillo Cordova 2015 on the reviewability of the Constitutional Court of Peru’s rulings. REVUS 46.indd 60 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 61 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Constitutive rules of precedent. A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis irrelevant (if the rule is taken to be one of permission). As we have seen, there may be a prescriptive norm of mandatory compliance stating that precedent must be followed, but such a norm does not explain a system of precedent. It has also been demonstrated that, if the rule of precedent cannot be defined as a prescriptive norm, the only option is to establish it as a constitutive norm. However, it would be somewhat reductive to think of the rule of precedent as a single constitutive norm. Instead, I have argued, any system of precedent is estab- lished by a set of rules of precedent, which necessarily includes (a) one constitu- tive rule identifying a set of jurisdictional decisions as precedents and/or grants certain bodies the power to set precedent, and (b) another constitutive rule con- ditioning the validity of the subsequent decision applying (or not) the past ratio. Finally, a set of rules of precedent can establish different types of conditions for the validity of the subsequent decision: from necessary to merely contribu- tory. This, in turn, means, as I have tried to show, that the rule conferring pow- ers to a body to control the following of precedent is contingent rather than necessary for the existence of a system of precedents. References: Aarnio, A. (1996). I precedenti e la loro validità. Ragion pratica, 6, 9-18. Aguiló, J. (2009). Fuentes del derecho y normas de origen judicial. Revista general de derecho y juris- prundencia, 3, 447-470. Alarcón Cabrera, C. (1991). Sobre el concepto y ti- pología de normas constitutivas. Anuario de Fi- losofía del Derecho, VIII, 273-295. Alchourrón, C. & Bulygin, E. (2012). Sistemas nor- mativos. Introducción a la metodología de la cien- cias jurídicas. Astrea. Alexander, L. & Sherwin, E. (2004). Precedent (U San Diego Legal Studies Research Paper No. 05- 14). URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=591666 Andrés Ibáñez, P. (2019). La independencia judi- cial y los altos tribunales. In Nieva Fenoll, J. and Oteiza, E. (eds.), La independencia judicial: un constante siege (pp. 165-184). Marcial Pons. Arriagada Cáceres, M. B. (2021). Las dos caras del precedente vinculante (The two sides of the binding precedent). In Núñez Vaquero, A., Arriagada Cáceres M. Bª and Hunter Ampuero, I. (coordinators.), Teoría y práctica del precedente (pp. 365-400). Tirant lo Blanch. Azzoni, G. (1986). Condizioni constitutive. Rivista internazionale di filosofia del diritto, 63, 160-195. Barberis, M. (2015). Contro il creazionismo giurid- ico. Quaderni fiorentini per la storia del pensiero giuridico, 44, 67-101. Bernal Pulido, C. (2008). El precedente en Co- lombia. Revista Derecho del Estado, 21, 81-94. Bordalí Salamanca, A. (2003). Independencia y re- sponsabilidad de los jueces. Revista de Derecho (Valdivia), 14(1), 159-174. Bulygin, E. (ed.) (2020). El libro de los permisos. Marcial Pons. Bustamante, T. (2016). El precedente judicial. Edi- ciones Legales. Castillo Córdova, L. (coord.) (2015). ¿Son anula- bles las sentencias del Tribunal Constitucional? Palestra. Chiassoni, P. (2012). ¿Son vinculantes los prec- edentes judiciales civiles? In Desencantos para abogados realistas (pp. 211-265). Universidad Externado de Colombia. Consejo General del Poder Judicial (2016-2020). Actuaciones disciplinarias del Consejo general del poder judicial. CGPJ. URL: https://www.poder- judicial.es/cgpj/es/Temas/Estadistica-Judicial/ Estadistica-por-temas/Estructura-judicial-y- recursos-humanos--en-la-administracion-de- justicia/Actuaciones-disciplinarias/Actuaciones- disciplinarias-del-Consejo-General-del-Poder- Judicial/. Ferreres, V. (2010). El carácter vinculante de la juris- prudencia. Fundación Coloquio Jurídico Euro- peo de Madrid. Garay, A. F. (2013). La doctrina del precedente en la Corte Suprema. Abeledo-Perrot. REVUS 46.indd 61 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 62 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Álvaro Núñez Vaquero Gascón Abellán, M. (1993). La técnica del precedente y la argumentación racional. Tecnos. Gascón Abellán, M. & Núñez Vaquero, A. (eds.) (2020), La práctica del precedente en el civil law. Atelier. Gómora Juárez, S. (2018). Un análisis conceptual del precedente judicial. UNAM. Gonçalves, R. (2020). La regla del precedente en el sistema de justicia civil brasileño. Un mod- elo sui generis (A sui generis model). In Gascón Abellán, M. and Núñez Vaquero, A. (eds.), La práctica del precedente en el civil law (pp.137 -162). Atelier. Guastini, R. (2014). Releyendo a Hart. Doxa, 37, 99- 110. Guastini, R. (2017). La sintaxis del derecho. Marcial Pons. Guastini, R. (2018). Ensayos escépticos sobre la inter- pretación. Zela. Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law. Clarendon Press. Horty, J. (2011). Rules and reasons in the theory of precedent. Legal Theory, 17, 1-33. Hunter Ampuero, I. (2021). Precedentes admin- istrativos. In Núñez Vaquero, A., Arriagada Cáceres M. B. and Hunter Ampuero, I. (coordi- nators.), Teoría y práctica del precedente en Chile y Latinoamérica. Tirant lo Blanch. Iturralde, M. V. (2014). Precedente judicial. Eunomia, 4, 194-201. Kelsen, H. (2017). ¿Se convertirá la sentencia del juicio de Núremeberg en un precedente para el derecho internacional? Universidad Externado de Colombia. Lamond, G. (2005). Do Precedents Create Rules? Legal Theory, 11. 1–26. Magaloni Kerpel, A. L. (2001) El precedente judicial en el sistema constitucional judicial norteameri- cano. Mac-Graw Hill. Mañalich, J. P. (2021a). La clausura de los sistemas de sanción penal como sistemas de reglas con- stitutivas. Revus. Journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law, 44, 27-55. Mañalich, J. P. (2021b). The closure of criminal sanc- tion systems as constitutive rule systems. Revus. Journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law, 44, 57-83. Moreso, J. J. & Navarro P. (1996). Aplicabilidad y eficacia de las normas jurídicas. Isonomia, 5, 119-139. Moreso, J. J. & Vilajosana, J. M. (2004). Intro ducción a la teoría del derecho. Marcial Pons. Ortiz Pulido, F. E. (2019). Jueces y reglas. Universidad La Sabana. Peczenik, A. (1997). The binding force of precedent. In MacCormick, N. and Summers, R. (coordi- nators). Interpreting Precedents (pp. 461-480). Ashgate. Poggi, F. (2004). Norme permissive. Giappichelli. Re, R. (2021). Precedent as permission (Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Paper Series 2020-66). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abst ract_id=3555144 Roversi, C. (2011). Regolare e costituire. Analisi e diritto, 2011, 1-27. Siltala, R. (2000). A Theory of Precedent. From Ana- lytical Positivism to a Post-Analytical Philosophy of Law. Hart Publishing. Taruffo, M. (2014). La jurisprudencia entre casuís- tica y uniformidad. Revista Derecho de Valdivia, 27(2) 9-19. Von Wright, G. (1970). Norma y acción. Tecnos. Wróblewski, J. (2012). Sentido y hecho en el derecho. Fontamara. Zanetti, H. Jr. (2015). El valor vinculante de los prec- edentes. Raguel. REVUS 46.indd 62 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 63 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Claudina Orunesu* Control de convencionalidad y supremacía de los tribunales internacionales Algunas reflexiones sobre el control de convencionalidad en el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos Según la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos, la Corte Interamericana es el órgano competente para “conocer de todos los casos relativos a la interpretación y aplicación de las disposiciones de [la] Convención que le sean sometidos”. En este marco normativo, la Corte Interamericana introdujo en 2006 la llamada doctrina del control de convencionalidad. Al hacerlo, no se limitó a sostener que los jueces nacionales deben controlar la compatibilidad de las leyes con el texto de la Convención Americana, sino que sostuvo que también deben tener en cuenta “la interpretación que de ella haga la Corte Interamericana, que es el intérprete último de la Convención Americana”. Esta visión del control de convencionalidad, que implica también una noción particular- mente fuerte de la supremacía judicial internacional, constituye una doctrina consoli- dada del tribunal internacional. Sin embargo, parecen surgir ciertas objeciones en torno a la doctrina y al estilo particular con que la Corte Interamericana la ejerce. Este trabajo pretende mostrar que el fundamento de la doctrina del control de convencionalidad en su configuración actual, es decir, la supremacía tanto del derecho convencional como de los criterios interpretativos fijados por la Corte Interamericana, puede conducir a consecuencias paradójicas y plantea dudas sobre el papel que la Corte Interamericana desempeña hoy en el proceso de adjudicación de la Convención. Por último, teniendo en cuenta una reciente y desafiante decisión de la Corte Suprema de Argentina, se ex- plorarán algunas reformulaciones de la doctrina del control de convencionalidad. Parablas clave: Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, control de convencionalidad, supremacía judicial, interpretación jurídica, diálogo judicial 1 EL CONTROL DE CONVENCIONALIDAD El proceso de internacionalización de los mecanismos de tutela de los dere- chos humanos ha constituido sin lugar a dudas una muy significativa conquis- ta de la humanidad. En particular, el sistema interamericano de protección de los derechos humanos introdujo un procedimiento mediante el cual se trata de garantizar un equilibrio entre los Estados parte para la tutela del goce de los derechos humanos, comprometiéndose cada uno de ellos a respetar un plexo de derechos plasmado en la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos, y * corunesu@fibertel.com.ar | Profesora de filosofía del derecho, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata (Argentina). Parte del análisis aquí desarrollado fue expuesto con anterioridad en Orunesu & Rodríguez 2017. Agradezco los comentarios y sugerencias de dos árbitros anóni- mos. revus (2022) 46, 63–81 REVUS 46.indd 63 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 64 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Claudina Orunesu reconociendo los Estados parte la competencia de ciertos órganos supranacio- nales (la Comisión y la Corte interamericanas) encargados de revisar la efectiva vigencia de tales derechos en la jurisdicción local.1 En ese esquema, la doctrina del denominado control de convencionalidad ha sido ideada como una herramienta para asegurar la aplicación armónica del derecho vigente y preservar la primacía del orden jurídico internacional de los derechos humanos en sede interna.2 La Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos establece que la Corte Interamericana es el órgano competente para “conocer de cualquier caso relativo a la interpretación y aplicación” de las normas de la Convención que le sea so- metido a juzgamiento.3 La Corte Interamericana está habilitada para declarar si ha existido una violación de alguna de las cláusulas de la Convención y, para el caso de que ello sucediera, puede ordenar que se garantice al afectado el goce de los derechos conculcados, se reparen las consecuencias de la medida o situación que vulneraron los derechos de que se trate y, si correspondiere, que se proceda a pagar una justa indemnización.4 En ese contexto normativo, en el año 2006 la Corte Interamericana en pleno hizo referencia por primera vez al denominado control de convencionalidad. En el caso “Almonacid Arellano y otros vs. Chile” el tribunal sostuvo: La Corte es consciente que los jueces y tribunales internos están sujetos al imperio de la ley y, por ello, están obligados a aplicar las disposiciones vigentes en el ordenami- ento jurídico. Pero cuando un Estado ha ratificado un tratado internacional como la Convención Americana, sus jueces, como parte del aparato del Estado, también están sometidos a ella, lo que obliga a velar porque los efectos de las disposiciones de la Convención no se vean mermadas por la aplicación de leyes contrarias a su objeto y fin, y que desde un inicio carecen de efectos jurídicos. En otras palabras, el Poder Judicial debe ejercer una especie de “control de convencionalidad” entre las normas jurídicas internas que aplican en los casos concretos y la Convención Americana so- bre Derechos Humanos. En esa tarea, el Poder Judicial debe tener en cuenta no so- lamente el tratado, sino también la interpretación que del mismo ha hecho la Corte Interamericana, intérprete última de la Convención Americana.5 1 Cf. Albanese 2008: 17; Gozaíni 2008: 81. 2 Cf. Mac Gregor 2015; Sagüés 2010b: 134. 3 CADH: artículo 62. 4 CADH: artículo 63. 5 Caso “Almonacid Arellano y otros vs. Gobierno de Chile”, sentencia del 26 de septiembre de 2006, serie C, número 154, considerando 124. Dicho criterio fue ratificado por la Corte In- teramericana en los casos “Trabajadores Cesados del Congreso (Aguado Alfaro y otros) vs. Perú”, sentencia del 24 de noviembre de 2006, serie C, número 158, párrafo 128; “La Cantuta vs. Perú”, sentencia del 29 de noviembre de 2006, serie C, número 162, párrafo 173; “Boyce y otros vs. Barbados”, sentencia del 20 de noviembre de 2007, serie C, número 169, párrafo 78; caso “Heliodoro Portugal vs. Panamá”, sentencia del 12 de agosto de 2008, serie C, número 186, párrafo 180. Con anterioridad se había utilizado esta expresión de forma aislada. Véase caso REVUS 46.indd 64 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 65 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Conventionality control and international judicial supremacy: Some reflections on the Inter-American system of human rights En síntesis, según el tribunal, para garantizar la supremacía de la Convención Americana los jueces nacionales, como integrantes del Estado, deben efectuar un control de adecuación de las normas del derecho interno a fin de verificar que ellas no contraríen a las normas convencionales. Y la razón por la que se les asigna tal deber consiste en sostener que si deben aplicar cierto conjunto de normas y entre ellas se cuenta la Convención, deben resolver los posibles con- flictos que se detecten dentro de dicho conjunto, preservando la supremacía de la Convención.6 Pero obsérvese que la Corte Interamericana no se ha limitado a sostener que los jueces deben controlar la compatibilidad de las leyes internas con el texto del Pacto de San José de Costa Rica, sino que además deben tener en cuenta a tal fin “la interpretación que del mismo ha hecho la Corte Interamericana, intérprete última de la Convención Americana”. Esta visión del control de convencionalidad, que involucra además una no- ción particularmente fuerte de supremacía judicial internacional, fue consoli- dándose con el correr de los años y podría decirse que constituye en la actua- lidad una doctrina consolidada del tribunal internacional. Sin embargo en los últimos tiempos ciertas objeciones parecen estar surgiendo en torno al con- trol de convencionalidad y al particular estilo con que la Corte Interamericana lo ejerce.7 Por ello a continuación analizaré los fundamentos que sustentan la doctrina del control de convencionalidad en su configuración actual, esto es la supremacía del derecho convencional y la obligatoriedad de los criterios in- terpretativos impuestos por la Corte interamericana. La exploración mostrará que algunas versiones de esta doctrina pueden conducir a consecuencias pa- radójicas y sembrar algunos interrogantes concernientes al papel que la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos desempeña en el proceso de adjudica- “Myrna Mack Chang vs. Guatemala”, sentencia del 25 de noviembre de 2003, serie C, número 101 y caso “Tibi vs. Ecuador”, sentencia del 7 de septiembre de 2004, serie C, número 114. 6 Este razonamiento es muy semejante al que dos siglos antes utilizó la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en el caso “Marbury vs. Madison” para la justificación del control de constitu- cionalidad por parte de los jueces, potestad que no figuraba expresamente en el texto consti- tucional de 1787, como tampoco figura en el texto de la Convención el control de convencio- nalidad. La Corte Interamericana fue precisando en sucesivos fallos quienes eran los órganos encargados de ejercer el control de convencionalidad, indicando que los “órganos del Poder Judicial deben ejercer no sólo un control de constitucionalidad, sino también “de convencio- nalidad” ex officio entre las normas internas y la Convención Americana, evidentemente en el marco de sus respectivas competencias y de las regulaciones procesales correspondientes”, Caso “Trabajadores Cesados del Congreso (Aguado Alfaro y otros) vs. Perú. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas”. Sentencia de 24 de noviembre de 2006, Caso “Cabrera García y Montiel Flores vs. México. Excepción Preliminar, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas”. Sentencia de 26 de noviembre de 2010. En Caso “Gelman vs. Uruguay. Fondo y Re- paraciones”. Sentencia de 24 de febrero de 2011, agregó que “es función y tarea de cualquier autoridad pública y no sólo del Poder Judicial”. 7 Veasé, por ejemplo, Dulitzky 2015, Gargarella 2015, Contesse 2018. REVUS 46.indd 65 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 66 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Claudina Orunesu ción de la Convención.8 Luego evaluaré la posibilidad de su reformulación aten- diendo el desafío impuesto el pasado año en una decisión de la Corte Suprema Argentina. 2 LA SUPREMACÍA DEL DERECHO CONVENCIONAL Como se señaló, el control de convencionalidad proclamado por la Corte Interamericana tiene por objeto garantizar la supremacía de las convenciones de tutela de los derechos humanos sobre el derecho interno. El argumento consiste en sostener que, como los jueces tienen el deber de aplicar su derecho, y dado que eso supone interpretarlo, si un Estado ha ratificado la Convención Americana, entonces sus jueces están también obligados a garantizar que sus disposiciones prevalezcan sobre las normas internas que se encuentren en conflicto con ella. Esto importa una toma de posición de la Corte Interamericana respecto del nivel jerárquico que debe asignársele a las normas convencionales en sede inter- na, una tesis que es susceptible de una lectura débil y no problemática y de otra fuerte y, cuanto menos, polémica. De acuerdo con la primera, el deber de llevar a cabo el control de convencionalidad por parte de los órganos jurisdiccionales de los Estados parte implica que las normas convencionales deben prevalecer en sede interna sobre las leyes ordinarias, de manera que debe acordárseles je- rarquía supralegal y, quizás, incluso jerarquía constitucional. De acuerdo con la segunda, la doctrina del control de convencionalidad, ateniéndose a la letra de su formulación, se referiría a la supremacía de las normas convencionales sobre “las normas jurídicas internas”, sin establecer ninguna salvedad, en particular respecto de sus normas constitucionales. Sobre tales bases se ha sostenido que “la tesis del control de convencionalidad quiere que siempre prevalezca el Pacto […] respecto de […] la Constitución y que ésta sea interpretada ‘conforme’ y no contra el Pacto. Ello importa la domesticación de la Constitución por el Pacto”.9 El fundamento para esta segunda lectura –las normas convencionales tienen supremacía sobre cualquier disposición de derecho interno, incluso constitu- cional– ha pretendido encontrarse en normas de la Convención de Viena sobre derecho de los Tratados como el artículo 26 que establece el principio “pacta sunt servanda” y el 27 de acuerdo con el cual un Estado no podría oponer como excusa para incumplir sus obligaciones derivadas de un tratado internacional el cumplimiento de una disposición de derecho interno.10 Sin embargo, la cláusu- 8 Véase respecto de las tensiones que han surgido últimamente respecto del papel que asume y debe asumir de la Corte Interamericana véase Contesse 2016 y Contesse 2018. 9 Sagüés 2010a; véase asimismo Hitters 2009, Mac Gregor 2015, Nash Rojas 2013. 10 Este fue el argumento utilizado en el caso Almonacid Arellano por la Corte Interamericana. Para una reconstrucción de los alcances que los redactores de la Convención de Viena asigna- REVUS 46.indd 66 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 67 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Conventionality control and international judicial supremacy: Some reflections on the Inter-American system of human rights la en cuestión resulta igualmente aplicable a tratados bilaterales, de modo que su alcance se circunscribe al ámbito internacional y no tiene en sí misma nin- guna implicancia respecto de la jerarquía normativa de la Convención en sede interna, pues de lo contrario debería aceptarse igualmente que cualquier trata- do bilateral también posee un alcance supraconstitucional, lo cual es absurdo. Y eso sin mencionar que la Convención de Viena es ella misma una convención internacional, de modo que cualquier pretensión de justificar en una de sus dis- posiciones la jerarquía que debe asignarse en sede interna a las convenciones internacionales está irremediablemente condenada al fracaso por constituir una petición de principio. Si distinguimos en principio dos niveles jerárquicos dentro de un sistema ju- rídico nacional, el constitucional y el legal, la recepción del derecho convencional en sede interna podría tener a) nivel infralegal; b) nivel legal; c) nivel supralegal pero infraconstitucional; d) nivel constitucional o e) nivel supraconstitucional. De estas alternativas, el reconocimiento del control de convencionalidad solo resulta en sentido estricto incompatible con las dos primeras, pero per- fectamente congeniable con cualquiera de las restantes. Sin embargo, la falta de toda distinción en la argumentación de la Corte Interamericana, y el conte- nido de algunos de sus pronunciamientos –como en el fallo “La última tenta- ción de Cristo”–,11 parecen dar apoyo a la interpretación fuerte según la cual la Corte Interamericana exigiría que se asigne a las disposiciones convencionales la máxima jerarquía normativa, incluso por sobre las normas constitucionales. Si se tratara de normas internacionales de otra fuente quizás esta idea no resultaría tan problemática. Pero en el caso del derecho convencional, es muy difícil aceptar que pueda asignársele en el orden interno una jerarquía superior incluso a la de aquellas normas que acuerdan a los órganos internos la potestad de celebrar, en representación del Estado, tratados internacionales, puesto que en tal caso las relaciones de validez –entendida como la creación normativa re- gular– entre la Convención y el derecho interno se tornarían circulares. En efec- to: la validez de la Convención, como la de cualquier convención internacional, depende por su carácter de la voluntad concurrente de los Estados nacionales que la suscriban, pero ahora el control de convencionalidad vendría a consagrar ron a esos artículos, que se alejan bastante del sentido que le ha atribuido la Corte Interame- ricana, véase Contesse 2018: 1175-1176. 11 Caso “La última tentación de Cristo (Olmedo Bustos y otros) vs. Chile”, sentencia del 5 de fe- brero de 2001. En el mismo sentido véase Caso “Almonacid Arellano y otros vs. Chile. Excep- ciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas”, sentencia de 26 de septiembre de 2006, Caso “Mendoza y otros vs. Argentina. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo y Reparaciones”, sen- tencia de 14 de mayo de 2013. REVUS 46.indd 67 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 68 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Claudina Orunesu que la validez de todo el derecho interno de cada Estado parte depende, a su vez, de su conformidad con las disposiciones de la Convención.12 El carácter paradójico de esta conclusión se pone de manifiesto cuando se examinan las disposiciones internas que receptan las normas convencionales. Por supuesto, puede ocurrir que la propia constitución de un Estado confiera supremacía a todas o algunas normas convencionales de tutela de los derechos humanos sobre la totalidad del derecho interno, tal como ocurre en Colombia y Guatemala.13 Pero también puede acontecer que ello no sea así. Para citar un único ejemplo, en Argentina con la reforma constitucional de 1994 se le ha reconocido a las disposiciones de la Convención “jerarquía constitucional”, si bien con ciertas restricciones (“en las condiciones de su vigencia /.../ no derogan artículo alguno de la primera parte de esta Constitución y deben entenderse com- plementarios de los derechos y garantías por ella reconocidos”).14 Pero ahora, si se acepta la lectura fuerte de la construcción de la Corte Interamericana sobre el control de convencionalidad, esa cláusula de la constitución se vería fulminada como anticonvencional y, por ello, debería considerarse que “desde un inicio carece de efectos jurídicos”.15 El presupuesto implícito que parece asumirse cuando se sostiene una tesis tan fuerte es que la Convención tutela de manera más amplia y favorable los derechos humanos que los ordenamientos nacionales. Esto puede ser usual- mente verdadero, pero no es necesariamente verdadero. Es más: ese presupuesto resulta expresamente contradicho por los propios términos de la Convención, cuando en el inciso b del artículo 29 se establece que Ninguna disposición de la presente Convención puede ser interpretada en el sentido de […] b) limitar el goce y ejercicio de cualquier derecho o libertad que pueda estar reconocido de acuerdo con las leyes de cualquiera de los Estados Partes[.] En conclusión, parece enteramente inviable interpretar que el control de convencionalidad implica reconocer la supremacía de la Convención por sobre 12 Sobre las diferentes lecturas de las que resultan susceptibles las tesis monistas y dualistas res- pecto de las relaciones entre el derecho internacional y los derechos nacionales, véase Rodrí- guez & Vicente 2009. 13 Véase el artículo 93 de la constitución colombiana y el artículo 46 de la constitución guate- malteca. Las cortes constitucionales de ambos países, en un intento por armonzar las normas internacionales con las constitucionales, han elaborado la doctrna del bloque de constitu- cionalidad. Para un panorama acerca de esta cuestión veáse Chehtman 2022, Urueña 2019, Ochoa Escriba 2018. 14 Sobre el alcance de tales restricciones véanse, por todos, Vanossi & Dalla Vía 2000: 322 ss; Rosatti 2012. La Corte Suprema Argentina reinterpretaría estas normas a partir del caso Gi- roldi Horacio y otro s/recurso de casación” (1995, CSJN Fallos 318:514) asumiendo aún antes del caso Almonacid Arellano la obligatoriedad de los criterios interpretativos de los órganos internacionales. 15 Caso “Almonacid Arellano y otros vs. Gobierno de Chile”, sentencia del 26 de septiembre de 2006, serie C, número 154. REVUS 46.indd 68 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 69 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Conventionality control and international judicial supremacy: Some reflections on the Inter-American system of human rights las disposiciones constitucionales de los Estados parte. No existe ningún artícu- lo de la Convención que le asigne semejante jerarquía, y una mera construcción de la Corte Interamericana no puede tener tal efecto, ya que la Corte no posee competencia alguna para modificar el derecho interno de los Estados parte, me- nos si se trata de sus preceptos constitucionales. 3 EL CARÁCTER VINCULANTE DE LOS CRITERIOS INTERPRETATIVOS DE LA CORTE IDH El segundo problema que suscita la consideración del control de conven- cionalidad es que la Corte Interamericana no se ha limitado a sostener que los jueces deben controlar la compatibilidad de las leyes internas con el texto del Pacto de San José de Costa Rica, sino que además deben tener en cuenta a tal fin “la interpretación que del mismo ha hecho la Corte Interamericana, intérprete última de la Convención Americana”.16 Nuevamente, tenemos aquí al menos dos posibles lecturas de esta directiva impartida por la Corte Interamericana, una débil y perfectamente sensata, y otra fuerte y problemática. De conformidad con la primera de ellas, los jueces al controlar la compatibilidad del derecho interno con la Convención, han de “tener en cuenta” las interpretaciones de la Corte Interamericana, en el sentido de que no pueden ignorarlas, de modo que, si existe jurisprudencia relevante de la Corte Interamericana sobre el punto a resolver en el caso, los jueces internos tienen que hacer mérito de ella, y si deciden apartarse de la lectura ofrecida por la Corte Interamericana de las cláusulas de la Convención, deben ofrecer argu- mentos para justificar tal actitud. Más detalladamente, el razonamiento que los jueces deben efectuar en situaciones semejantes podría sintetizarse del siguien- te modo: a) deben verificar si existe jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana sobre el punto a resolver; b) deben determinar cuál es la doctrina o razón sub- yacente que se desprende de sus decisiones; c) deben examinar la aplicabili- dad de esa doctrina al caso concreto; d) deben determinar si existen razones jurídicas internas que se opongan a la aplicabilidad de la doctrina derivada de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana, en cuyo caso e) deberán decidir si en el caso concreto corresponde seguirla o no, proporcionando en cualquier caso una debida fundamentación de su decisión.17 En este sentido, la interpretación de la Corte Interamericana debe “servir de guía” o pauta para nuestros tribunales en lo que hace a la interpretación de los 16 Caso “Almonacid Arellano y otros vs. Gobierno de Chile”, sentencia del 26 de septiembre de 2006, serie C, número 154. 17 Este fue el criterio de la Procuración General de la Nación en el caso “Jorge E. Acosta”, del 10 de marzo de 2010, expediente 93/2009, letra A. REVUS 46.indd 69 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 70 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Claudina Orunesu preceptos de la Convención18 o en otras palabras que su jurisprudencia cuando resuelve un caso concreto es vinculante pero no obligatoria para situaciones si- milares: vinculante porque, en la medida en que un Estado parte haya aceptado la competencia de la Corte debe tenerla en cuenta, pero no obligatoria en tanto no se trate de un caso en el cual el Estado se encuentre directamente involucra- do como denunciado.19 La lectura fuerte de esta tesis entiende que sus interpretaciones deben ser seguidas por los Estados parte no solo en aquellas causas en las que han sido de- nunciados,20 sino también en cualquier otra, y no solo cuando ellas son vertidas en sentencias sino también en opiniones consultivas. En consecuencia, lo que sostiene esta lectura fuerte de la tesis del carácter vinculante de las interpreta- ciones de la Corte Interamericana es que ella le atribuye a sus propios pronun- ciamientos el valor de precedentes con efecto erga omnes, al modo del alcance de stare decisis que la Corte Suprema estadounidense atribuye a los suyos.21 Para decirlo con la terminología de Joseph Raz, la diferencia entre las dos variantes de la tesis bajo análisis consistiría en que, mientras de acuerdo con la versión débil los precedentes de la Corte Interamericana serían vinculantes en el sentido de ofrecer una razón de primer orden para la acción, esto es, un factor que contaría a favor de –en nuestro caso– seguir la interpretación de la Convención ofrecida por el tribunal, de acuerdo con la versión fuerte ellos se- rían vinculantes en el sentido de ofrecer una razón protegida para la acción, esto es, una combinación de una razón de primer orden para seguir la inter- 18 Tal como lo señalara la Corte Suprema de Justicia Argentina respecto de la Comisión Intera- mericana en su considerando 15 in re “Bramajo, Hernán Javier s/ incidente de excarcelación - causa n° 44.891” (1996, CSJN, Fallos 319: 1840). 19 Cf. Gozaíni 2008: 104. En el caso “Gelman vs. Uruguay”, la Corte Interamericana sostuvo que sus interpretaciones generaban diferente vinculación dependiendo de si el Estado había sido parte material o no en el proceso internacional. En el primer caso el Estado estaría obligado a cumplir y aplicar la sentencia; en el segundo, en cambio, la Corte se limitó a decir que todas las autoridades del Estado “(…) están obligadas por el Tratado debiéndoselo acatar y consi- derar los precedentes y lineamientos judiciales del Tribunal Interamericano”. (Caso “Gelman vs. Uruguay. Supervisión de cumplimiento de sentencia”, resolución del 20 de marzo de 2013). Como puede apreciarse, la expresión “considerar los precedentes del Tribunal” es perfecta- mente compatible con la lectura débil antes considerada. 20 Se sigue con claridad a partir del artículo 68 de la Convención. 21 La Corte Interamericana ha sostenido que “el Poder Judicial debe tener en cuenta no sola- mente el tratado, sino también la interpretación que del mismo ha hecho la Corte Interame- ricana, intérprete última de la Convención Americana…De tal manera, es necesario que las interpretaciones constitucionales y legislativas referidas a los criterios de competencia mate- rial y personal de la jurisdicción militar en México, se adecuen a los principios establecidos en la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal”, Caso Radilla Pacheco vs. México. Excepciones Preli- minares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 23 de noviembre de 2009. Ver también Caso Atala Riffo y Niñas vs. Chile. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia del 24 de febrero de 2012, Caso Norín Catrimán y otros (Dirigentes, miembros y activista del Pueblo Indígena Mapuche) vs. Chile. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 29 de mayo de 2014. REVUS 46.indd 70 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 71 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Conventionality control and international judicial supremacy: Some reflections on the Inter-American system of human rights pretación de la Corte Interamericana y una razón de segundo orden de carácter excluyente que exigiría dejar de lado otras interpretaciones que pudieran entrar en conflicto con la primera.22 La dificultad fundamental que plantea la lectura fuerte de la tesis del ca- rácter vinculante de las interpretaciones de la Corte Interamericana es que ella conlleva una correlativa y severa limitación de las facultades de interpretación de los jueces nacionales,23 puesto que según este punto de vista, al ejercer el control de convencionalidad los jueces no podrían asignarle a las disposicio- nes de la Convención otra interpretación que aquella que les haya atribuido la Corte Interamericana. Sin embargo, recuérdese que el argumento justificato- rio del control de convencionalidad consistía en que los jueces deben controlar la supremacía de la Convención porque ellos tienen el deber de aplicar, entre otras, sus disposiciones y en caso de conflicto deben privilegiar las de mayor jerarquía, para lo cual las deben interpretar. Es más: tal como lúcidamente se ha sostenido, no es posible controlar sin interpretar, razón por la cual el derecho constitucional ha elaborado el contenido y alcance del control de constituciona- lidad a través de la interpretación de la Constitución.24 La Corte Interamericana puede, por cierto, justificar su propio ejercicio del control de convencionalidad en los casos que se le someten a decisión con ar- gumentos como el comentado y, paralelamente, pretender que su jurispruden- cia sea obligatoria en el sentido fuerte que estamos analizando. También puede extender el argumento para justificar el control de convencionalidad por parte de los jueces internos, pero sosteniendo la versión débil del carácter vinculante de sus decisiones. No obstante, fundar el deber de cualquier juez de controlar la convencionalidad de las normas internas en sus potestades de interpretación y aplicación del derecho y, paralelamente, limitar sus competencias para interpre- tar las normas convencionales es, cuanto menos, una inconsistencia pragmática. El presupuesto que se encuentra implícito en esta lectura fuerte de la te- sis bajo consideración es que la Corte Interamericana está, por alguna razón o plexo de razones, en mejor posición para determinar el contenido y alcance de los derechos humanos que los órganos jurisdiccionales internos, lo que se asocia con la idea de que la Corte es el “intérprete final” de la Convención, con apoyo en el artículo 62 inciso 1 de esta última. Sin embargo, es importante en este punto no confundir el carácter definitivo con el carácter infalible de una decisión judicial, tal como certeramente lo advirtiera Herbert Hart.25 Una cosa 22 Cf. Raz 1990: 35-48 y 73-84. Para una presentación breve de las muchas dificultades que ofrece la idea raziana de razón excluyente, véase Rodríguez 2012: 127-145. 23 Cf. Sagüés 2010b. 24 Cf. Albanese 2008b: 14, citando a Bidart Campos 1996: 333 ss. 25 Cf. Hart 1961: 176-183. REVUS 46.indd 71 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 72 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Claudina Orunesu es sostener que los pronunciamientos de la Corte Interamericana son finales o últimos en el sentido de definitivos, esto es, que no pueden ser cuestionados ante ningún otro órgano, tal como resulta de lo preceptuado por el artículo 67 de la Convención (“El fallo de la Corte será definitivo e inapelable”); una cosa diferente es sostener que ellos son infalibles. El carácter definitivo de un cierto pronunciamiento no le acuerda necesariamente corrección, ya que las pautas de corrección de una decisión judicial son independientes del carácter final o definitivo que ella pueda poseer. Sin embargo, por muy absurdo que pueda parecer, eso fue exactamente lo que hizo la propia Corte Suprema Argentina en el caso “Espósito”,26 en el cual consideró que no correspondía aplicar las disposiciones comunes en materia de prescripción en la causa por entender que ello resultaría lesivo de la interpreta- ción que hiciera la Corte Interamericana del derecho a la protección judicial de las víctimas en el caso “Bulacio vs. Argentina”,27 lo que podría dar lugar a res- ponsabilidad internacional de nuestro país. Lo sorprendente de este caso es que la Corte Suprema aclaró que no compartía el criterio restrictivo del derecho de defensa que se desprendía de la resolución de la Corte Interamericana, no obs- tante lo cual, en lugar de resolver en consecuencia, lo hizo siguiendo el criterio de este último tribunal, sosteniendo: [S]e plantea la paradoja de que sólo es posible cumplir con los deberes impuestos al Estado argentino por la jurisdicción internacional en materia de derechos humanos, restringiendo fuertemente los derechos de defensa y a un pronunciamiento en un plazo razonable, garantizados al imputado por la Convención Americana. Dado que tales restricciones, empero, fueron dispuestas por el propio tribunal internacional a cargo de asegurar el efectivo cumplimiento de los derechos reconocidos por dicha Convención, a pesar de las reservas señaladas, es deber de esta Corte, como parte del Estado argentino, darle cumplimiento en el marco de su potestad jurisdiccional.28 En otras palabras, la Corte Suprema Argentina consideró que la Corte Interamericana se equivocó, no obstante lo cual, a fin de evitar incurrir en res- ponsabilidad internacional, estima que debe seguir en el ámbito interno las in- terpretaciones de la Corte Interamericana incluso cuando son equivocadas y la Corte Suprema sabe que lo son.29 26 “Espósito, Miguel Ángel s/ incidente de prescripción de la acción penal promovido por su defensa” (CSJN, 2004, Fallos 327: 5668). 27 Caso “Bulacio vs. Argentina”, sentencia del 18 de setiembre de 2003, serie C, número 100. 28 “Espósito, Miguel Ángel s/ incidente de prescripción de la acción penal promovido por su defensa” (CSJN, 2004, Fallos 327: 5668). 29 En 2011 se planteó una situación similar en el caso “Derecho, René”, donde la Corte Suprema argentina aceptó por mayoría revocar su fallo como resultas de la condena en sede interna- cional, para lo cual debió dejar sin efecto la prescripción definitiva y afectar los derechos del procesado. La minoría, integrado por los Dres. Fayt y Argibay, sostuvo que “Si bien está fuera de discusión el carácter vinculante de las decisiones de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos a los efectos de resguardar las obligaciones asumidas por el Estado Argentino, acep- REVUS 46.indd 72 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 73 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Conventionality control and international judicial supremacy: Some reflections on the Inter-American system of human rights 4 UN DESAFÍO PARA EL CONTROL DE CONVENCIONALIDAD La doctrina de control de convencionalidad Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos está siendo objeto de escrutinio en la actualidad e incluso algunas decisiones de cortes nacionales parecen alejarse de su versión más fuer- te.30 En este sentido, Argentina ofrece un ejemplo paradigmático para el análisis. Como se indicó más arriba, Argentina durante muchos años abrazó a tra- vés de diferentes decisiones, prácticamente sin condicionamientos, la doc- trina del control de convencionalidad tal como fuera postulada por la Corte Interamericana. Sin embargo, en un sorpresivo fallo, en 2017, esa posición pa- rece haber variado. La Corte Suprema Argentina en el año 2001 había confirmado el fallo de segunda instancia por la que se hizo lugar a la demanda entablada por el ex presidente Carlos Menem, a la Editorial Perfil y dos de sus directivos Jorge Fontevecchia y Héctor D’Amico por daños y perjuicios ocasionados por la pu- blicación de dos artículos en el año 1995 en la Revista Noticias que se referían a un presunto hijo no reconocido del entonces primer mandatario fijando en consecuencia el pago de un monto indemnizatorio.31 Los condenados lleva- ron el caso al sistema interamericano de protección de derechos humanos. La Corte Interamericana determinó que la decisión de la Corte Suprema que con- firmó la condena civil constituía una violación del artículo 13 de la Convención Americana, ya que se había afectado el derecho a la libertad de expresión”.32 tar que ello tenga consecuencias como las que pretende el recurrente implicaría asumir que la Corte Interamericana puede decidir sobre la responsabilidad penal de un individuo en con- creto, que no ha sido parte en el proceso internacional y respecto del cual el tribunal interame- ricano no declaró, ni pudo declarar, su responsabilidad… En tales condiciones, una decisión como la que se pretende no sólo implicaría una afectación al derecho de defensa del imputado (que no ha estado presente ni ha sido escuchado en el proceso ante la Corte Interamericana) sino que además colocaría al Estado Argentino en la paradójica situación de cumplir con sus obligaciones internacionales a costa de una nueva afectación de derechos y garantías indivi- duales reconocidos en la Constitución Nacional y los tratados de derechos humanos que la integran”, CSJN Derecho René, disidencia Dres Fayt y Argibay, considerando 8. 30 Véase, por ejemplo, la decisión TC/0256/14 de la Corte Constitucional de la Republica domi- nicana y la Contradicción de tesis 293/1. Para un análisis de diversos desacuerdos con las decisions de la Corte Interamericana véase Soley y Steininger 2018. En abril de 2019 Argen- tina, Brasil, Chile, Colombia y Paraguay emitieron una dirigida a la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos humanos que enfatizaba el papel que el principio de subsidiariedad y la doctrina del margen de apreciación debería cumplir en el sistema interamericano. 31 “Menem, Carlos c/Editorial Perfil S.A. y otros s/ daños y perjuicios” (2001, CSJN, Fallos 324: 2895). 32 Corte IDH, “Caso Fontevecchia y D’amico vs. Argentina”, Serie C no. 238. El tribunal aclara que “no fue la norma en sí misma la que determinó el resultado lesivo e incompatible con la Convención Americana, sino su aplicación en el caso concreto por las autoridades judiciales del Estado, la cual no observó los criterios de necesidad mencionados”. REVUS 46.indd 73 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 74 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Claudina Orunesu Por ello dispuso, entre otras resoluciones que el estado debía “dejar sin efecto la condena civil impuesta a los señores Jorge Fontevecchia y Hector D’Amico así como todas sus consecuencias”.33 En 2016, en la segunda supervisión de sen- tencia, la Corte IDH consideró que si bien el estado argentino había acatado la mayoría de los mandatos de la sentencia de la Corte restaba aún dejar sin efecto la condena civil.34 Frente a este requerimiento, en febrero de 2017 la Corte Argentina, por ma- yoría, sostuvo que ella no puede ser obligada a acatar el fallo supranacional de “dejar sin efecto” un pronunciamiento doméstico. Afirmó que el tribunal intera- mericano no es una cuarta instancia que revisa o anula decisiones judiciales estatales dado que su jurisdicción es subsidiaria, coadyuvante y complementa- ria. “Dejar sin efecto” -añadió- equivale a “revocar” y agregó que “ese trámite está fuera de la competencia convencional.”35 Y afirmó que “dejar sin efecto la sentencia de esta Corte pasada en autoridad de cosa juzgada es uno de los su- puestos en los que la restitución resulta jurídicamente imposible a la luz de los principios fundamentales del derecho público argentino”. Sin embargo la Corte se preocupa en aclarar que esta decisión “no implica negar carácter vinculante a las decisiones de la Corte Interamericana, sino tan solo entender que la obliga- toriedad que surge del art. 68.1. debe circunscribirse a aquella materia sobre la cual tiene competencia el tribunal internacional”.36 En la siguiente resolución sobre Supervisión de cumplimiento de sentencia del 18 de octubre de 2017 la Corte interamericana respondió duramente a los argumentos de la Corte argentina afirmando que los Estados Parte en la Convención no pueden invocar disposiciones del derecho con- stitucional u otros aspectos del derecho interno para justificar una falta de cumpli- 33 En concepto de reparaciones la Corte interamericana dispuso además que la sentencia consti- tuía per se una forma de reparación, que el Estado debía realizar las publicaciones dispuestas en la Sentencia de Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, de conformidad con lo establecido en el párrafo 108 de la misma y que debía entregar los montos referidos en los párrafos 105, 128 y 129 de la Sentencia de Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, dentro del plazo de un año contado a partir de su notificación. Cf. Corte IDH, “Caso Fontevecchia y D’amico vs. Argentina, Serie C no. 238”. 34 Corte IDH, “Caso Fontevecchia y D’Amico vs. Argentina, Supervisión de Cumplimiento de Sentencia”, Resolución de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos de 22 de noviembre de 2016. La anterior supervisión había sido el 19 de septiembre de 2015 donde se dejó asen- tado que el gobierno argentino había incumplido con su obligación de informar acerca del acatamiento de la sentencia. Corte IDH, Caso Fontevecchia Supervisión de Cumplimiento, Resolución de 1 de septiembre de 2015. 35 “Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto s/informe sentencia dictada en el caso «Fon- tevecchia y D’Amico vs. Argentina» por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos”, considerando 11 voto de la mayoría. Más grave es el distanciamiento que planteó la Corte Constitucional de República Dominicana en el año 2014 al declarar que el instrumento de ratificación de la CADH era inconstitucional, y por ende las decisiones de la Corte Interame- ricana dejaban de ser vinculantes. Sentencia TC/0256/14. 36 Considerando 20 voto de la mayoría. REVUS 46.indd 74 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 75 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Conventionality control and international judicial supremacy: Some reflections on the Inter-American system of human rights miento de las obligaciones contenidas en dicho tratado…. no se trata de resolver el problema de la supremacía del derecho internacional sobre el nacional en el orden interno, sino únicamente de hacer cumplir aquello a lo que los Estados soberanamen- te se comprometieron.37 Sin embargo, efectuó una sugestiva aclaración respecto de los alcances de la expresión “dejar sin efecto” utilizada en su decisión. Afirmó que “al ordenar esta reparación la Corte Interamericana no indicó que para cumplir el Estado tuvie- ra necesariamente que “revocar” dichos fallos”. Y agrego que “el Estado podría adoptar algún otro tipo de acto jurídico, diferente a la revisión de la sentencia, para dar cumplimiento a la medida, como por ejemplo la eliminación de su publicación de la páginas web de la Corte Suprema de Justicia y del Centro de Información Judicial, o que se mantenga su publicación pero se le realice algún tipo de anotación indicando que esa sentencia fue declarada violatoria de la Convención Americana por la Corte Interamericana”.38 La Corte Argentina finalmente tomó este camino y procedió a dejar asen- tada la siguiente leyenda “Esta sentencia fue declarada incompatible con la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos por la Corte Interamericana (sentencia del 21 de noviembre de 2011)”.39 No voy a analizar todos los argumentos, méritos y deméritos de las deci- siones de ambos tribunales aquí.40 Me interesa mostrarlo como un síntoma de la necesidad de repensar no solo el ejercicio sino sobre todo los fundamentos desde los cuales se ha legitimado la particular versión del control de convencio- nalidad existente hoy en el sistema interamericano. Es claro que en el terreno del control de convencionalidad se magnifica ex- ponencialmente la clásica objeción contramayoritaria contra el control judicial de constitucionalidad.41 En primer lugar, porque si bien respecto del control de constitucionalidad se podría replicar a los críticos que la constitución fue votada democráticamente y, con ello, tanto la formulación de la carta de derechos como la competencia asignada a los jueces para interpretarlos tendría origen demo- crático, en el caso del control de convencionalidad, el sistema de aprobación y sanción de la Convención sería mucho más cuestionable en cuanto a su legitimi- dad democrática de origen, y la potestad para controlar la compatibilidad de las disposiciones del derecho interno con las de la Convención, tal como ya hemos 37 Resolución de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 18 de octubre de 2017, Caso “Fontevecchia y D’Amico vs. Argentina. Supervisión de cumplimiento de sentencia”, par. 14. 38 Resolución de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 18 de octubre de 2017, Caso Fontevecchia y D’Amico vs. Argentina. Supervisión de cumplimiento de sentencia, par. 21. 39 Resolución 4015/17, 5/12/2017. 40 Los trabajos existentes al respecto son numerosos. Véase, por ejemplo, Abramovich 2017, Alegre 2017, Clerico 2018, Saba 2017. 41 Cf. Bickel 1962. Véase también Waldron 2006. Sobre los límites de la objeción contramayori- taria al control judicial de constitucionalidad véase Orunesu 2012. REVUS 46.indd 75 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 76 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Claudina Orunesu visto, ni siquiera estaría contemplada expresamente en su texto sino que deven- dría de una construcción doctrinaria elaborada por un órgano internacional. En segundo lugar, la posibilidad de que los jueces en general invaliden nor- mas del derecho interno con fundamento en disposiciones convencionales sig- nificaría no solo la imposición de un límite contramayoritario a la legislación ordinaria sino que, en sus versiones más extremas, tal como se examinó, podría incluso llegar a la invalidación de cláusulas constitucionales. En tercer lugar, el control de convencionalidad ejercido por la propia Corte Interamericana, e incluso el ejercido por los órganos jurisdiccionales internos si es que se acepta la lectura fuerte del carácter vinculante de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana, potencia igualmente la objeción de la dictadura de los jueces, ahora de los jueces internacionales. La democracia constitucional en los países del sistema interamericano sería, de acuerdo con esta crítica “lo que decida la mayoría, siempre que no vulnere lo que los jueces interamerica- nos entiendan que constituye el contenido de los derechos básicos”. Y si esto se conecta con la forma de selección que se prevé para los miembros del tribunal internacional, la objeción contramayoritaria cobra todavía mayor peso.42 Por supuesto, aun reconociendo este déficit democrático, se podría argu- mentar que existen otras razones de igual o mayor peso que dan fundamento al control de convencionalidad tal como lo ha construido la práctica de la Corte. En cierto sentido ese el camino que escogió la Corte Interamericana. Obsérvese decisiones como las del caso Gelman, donde la Corte Interamericano quitó toda relevancia al proceso deliberativo que condujo al estado uruguayo a dictar la denominado Ley de Caducidad sosteniendo que la protección de los derechos humanos constituye un límite infranqueable a la regla de mayorías, es decir, a la esfera de lo “susceptible de ser decidido” por parte de las mayorías en instancias democráticas, en las cuales también debe primar un “control de convencionalidad” (supra párr. 193), que es función y tarea de cualquier autoridad pública y no sólo del Poder Judicial.43 Si a esta visión le sumamos la particular visión del carácter obligatorio que el tribunal le atribuye a sus interpretaciones se podría sostener que la Corte Interamericana asume algún tipo de versión de la teoría del coto vedado que protege ciertos valores, bienes, derechos, que se consideran fundamentales y la 42 Los jueces de la Corte son elegidos a partir de ternas que proponen los Estados parte de la Convención, mediante una votación secreta y por mayoría absoluta entre los Estados parte. El aspecto deficitario en términos de credenciales democráticas del mecanismo de selección es manifiesto de la sola lectura de la normativa que lo regula. El Estatuto no exige siquiera que en la formación de la terna participen los parlamentos de los países miembros. 43 Corte IDH, Caso Gelman vs. Uruguay, Sentencia de 24 de febrero de 2011, par. 239. REVUS 46.indd 76 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 77 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Conventionality control and international judicial supremacy: Some reflections on the Inter-American system of human rights Corte interamericana es el intérprete y defensor privilegiado de los mismos.44 Esta forma de legitimar el control de convencionalidad es claramente sustanti- vo, donde o bien se presupone algún tipo de objetividad moral que torna a los valores que el control defiende verdaderos y accesibles o bien porque se da por sentado que cuentan con el respaldo de todos. Sin embargo esta estrategia tiene sus límites. Al respecto Waldron ha señalado que: [la] legitimidad sustantiva elude el arduo trabajo que realmente tiene que desempeñar la legitimidad. La legitimidad sustantiva persuade a aquellas personas que respaldan el resultado de la decisión judicial y que comparten los méritos sustanciales de la misma. Sin embargo, la legitimidad tiene que hacer su trabajo más complejo con aquellos que se oponen sustantivamente al resultado de la decisión del juez. Y, por definición, lo que hemos llamado legitimidad sustantiva es incapaz de desarrollar esta labor.45 Creo que este es el problema que saca a la luz un caso como Fontevecchia. Quizás haya que pensar que la legitimidad del control de convencionalidad exi- ge que se tome en consideración la aptitud que tiene, en tanto diseño y práctica, para lograr que otros acepten y respalden sus decisiones incluso cuando puede darse el caso que se esté en desacuerdo con ellas.46 En otras palabras, la legitimi- dad que se requiere es de naturaleza procedimental. La reivindicación que hace la Corte argentina al margen de apreciación nacional puede ser en este sentido una estrategia viable. La doctrina del margen de apreciación nacional tiene su origen en la juris- prudencia del Tribunal europeo de derechos humanos a fin de otorgar un grado de deferencia a los estados a la hora de garantizar los derechos garantizados por la CEDH.47 En el caso Fontevecchia ese concepto es definido en el voto concu- rrente del juez Rosatti como una esfera de reserva soberana que implica que “no es posible hacer prevalecer automáticamente, sin escrutinio alguno el derecho internacional-sea de fuente normativa o jurisprudencial- sobre el ordenamien- to constitucional.”48 44 Sobre el concepto de coto vedado veáse Garzón Valdez 1989. Sobre las dificultades que tiene esta justificación para enfrentar la objeción democrática véase Orunesu 2012: cap. 3. 45 Waldron 2018: 18. 46 Cf. Waldron 2018: 16. 47 Sobre este concepto y sus alcances véase, entre otros, Brauch 2012, Clérico 2018, Acosta Al- varado & Nuñez Poblete 2012, Føllesdal 2016, Føllesdal 2018, Krisch 2008, López Alfonsin 2017, Iglesias Vila 2017. 48 Considerando 5. En el voto conjunto de Lorenzetti, Highton y Rosenkratz se hace referencia al margen de apreciación nacional conectándolo con el principio de subsidiariedad. Creo que el concepto de subsidiaridad que utiliza aquí la Corte argentina es diferente al que privilegia la Corte Interamericana. Para la Corte interamericana, según lo expresado en su resolución de Supervisión la subsidiariedad es entendida en términos puramente procedimentales: el sistema interamericano es subsidiario en la medida que entra a operar una vez agotadas las instancias nacionales. El sentido que parecen invocar en el fallo de la mayoría es la que parece solaparse con el concepto de margen de apreciación nacional, donde subsidiariedad se asimila a defe- REVUS 46.indd 77 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 78 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Claudina Orunesu Por supuesto, aquí es importante identificar sobre qué aspectos puede recaer el escrutinio. El escrutinio puede referirse en primer lugar sobre los significados atribuidos a las formulaciones normativas en juego y/o sobre la operación de subsunción del caso individual en los casos genéricos definidos por las formu- laciones normativas interpretadas. En este sentido el margen de apreciación se- ría particularmente útil para aquellos casos donde el cumplimiento automático de una decisión del tribunal internacional colisione con otro derecho de rango constitucional o convencional que se considera particularmente valioso. También el margen de apreciación nacional puede habilitarse respecto de la determinación de los remedios requeridos para la reparación de un derecho cuya violación se ha constatado en sede internacional.49 En este contexto podría ubicarse la resolución de la última supervisión de la Corte Interamericana en el caso Fontevecchia. Sin embargo, más allá de admitir la posibilidad de elección de remedios, la Corte interamericana no ha sido receptiva frente a la posibilidad de admitir algún margen de apreciación nacional. Y ello es consistente con su insistencia en afirmar el carácter obligatorio de sus criterios interpretativos. Es ilustrativa a este respecto lo afirmado por el ex Juez de la Corte Interamericana Cançado Trinidade: [L]a doctrina del llamado ‘margen de apreciación’ floreció... en la aplicación de la Convención Europea de Derechos Humanos, como una deferencia a la supuesta ‘sabi- duría’ de los órganos del Estado en cuanto a la mejor manera de dar efecto a las deci- siones de los órganos convencionales de protección en el ámbito del derecho interno. Esta doctrina presupone la existencia de Estados verdaderamente democráticos, con un Poder Judicial indudablemente autónomo…Esta doctrina sólo podría haberse de- sarrollado en un sistema europeo de protección que se creía ejemplar, propio de una Europa occidental (antes de 1989) relativamente homogénea en cuanto a sus percepci- ones de una experiencia histórica común…Ya no se puede presuponer, con la misma seguridad aparente del pasado, que todos los Estados que integran su sistema regional de protección sean verdaderos Estados de Derecho. Siendo así, la doctrina del “mar- gen de apreciación” pasa a requerir una seria reconsideración. Afortunadamente tal rencia. Gargarella sugiere que tanto el principio de subsidiariedad y el margen de apreciación nacional serían en cierto sentido lo mismo esto es reconocer un cierto margen de deferencia frente a ciertos actores estatales, solo que el de subsidiariedad sería un principio pensado para las legislaturas en tanto que la doctrina del margen de apreciación estaría pensada para la tarea de adjudicación (Cf. Gargarella 2016). Sobre los diferentes sentidos del principio de subsi- diariedad véase, entre otros, Jachtenfuchs & Krisch 2015, Føllesdall 2016, Iglesias Vila 2017. 49 Por supuesto a esto habría que agregar que también se puede reconocer el margen de apre- ciación respecto de la aplicación entendida como las decisiones institucionales del estado nacional que traducen las normas convencionales en normas internas (por ejemplo incorpo- rando su texto a la jerarquía constitucional a través de una reforma constitucional, o dictando normas específicas que reglamenten algunos de sus derechos). Este sentido está reconocido en la propia normativa de la convención. REVUS 46.indd 78 20. 06. 2023 18:20:40 79 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Conventionality control and international judicial supremacy: Some reflections on the Inter-American system of human rights doctrina no ha encontrado un desarrollo paralelo explícito en la jurisprudencia bajo la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos.50 Parecería que la razón subyacente al rechazo del margen de apreciación na- cional reside pensar que la admisión de cierto margen de apreciación nacional necesariamente equivale a habilitar zonas de no cumplimiento de los derechos tutelados por la convención. Sin embargo, creo es posible explorar una lectura alternativa. La admisión del margen de apreciación nacional en todos sus nive- les, y en especial en el nivel de identificación de normas, podría verse como una oportunidad para habilitar la participación en la discusión torno a los alcances de nuestros derechos en el sistema interamericano. Las cada vez más frecuentes invocaciones a la necesidad de un diálogo in- tercortes como herramienta para paliar las deficiencias de legitimidad demo- cráticas de origen y ejercicio en la práctica interamericana por parte de la Corte Interamericana requeriría el abandono de la tesis fuerte en torno a la obligato- riedad de sus criterios interpretativos.51 Además se requiere que los tribunales nacionales al invocar el margen de apreciación, no lo asimilen a una simple fór- mula de no acatamiento, sino que tomen en serio las opiniones de los órganos del sistema interamericano, ofrezcan sólidos argumentos para su apartamiento y estén dispuestos a ofrecer salidas alternativas. En una aproximación de estas características la articulación del control de convencionalidad con márgenes de apreciación podría dar la oportunidad de reconstruir la práctica del sistema in- teramericano de tal forma que no vea al proceso de tutela de derechos humanos en el nivel de la adjudicación en una lectura adversarial –cortes vs. cortes, siste- ma interamericano vs. estados– sino como parte de una construcción común. 50 Cancado Trinidade 2001: 386. Para una evaluación de los posibles usos de la doctrina del margen de apreciación véase Føllesdal 2017. 51 El propio fallo Fontevecchia invoca este argumento. Véase también Gargarella 2016. Bibliografía: Acosta Alvarado, P. & Nuñez Poblete, M. (Ed.). (2012). El margen de apreciación en el sistema in- teramericano de derechos humanos: proyecciones regionales y nacionales. Unam. Albanese, S. (Ed.). (2008). La internalización del derecho constitucional y la constitucionalización del derecho internacional. In S. Albanese (Ed.), El control de convencionalidad (pp. 13-46). Ediar. Abramovich, V. (2017). Comentarios sobre “Fonte- vecchia”, la autoridad de las sentencias de la Corte Interamericana y los principios de derecho público argentino. Pensar en Derecho, 10, 9-25. Alegre, M. (2017). Monismo en serio: “Fontevecchia” y el argumento democrático. Pensar en Derecho, 10, 27-38. Bayón, J. (2000). Derechos, democracia y con- stitución. Discusiones, 1, 65-94. Bickel, A. (1986). The Least Dangerous Branch. The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (2nd ed.). Yale University Press. Brauch, J. (2005). The Margin of Appreciation and the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Threat to the Rule of Law. Co- lumbia Journal of European Law, 11(1), 113-150. Bidart Campos, G. (1996). Manual de la Constitución Reformada. Ediar. Cancado Trindade, A. (2001). El Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos en el siglo XXI. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Jurídica de Chile. Chethman, A. (2022). Constitutions and Inter- REVUS 46.indd 79 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 80 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Claudina Orunesu national Law. In C. Hübner Mendes & R. Gargarella (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Constitutional Law in Latin America (pp. 533- 551). Oxford University Press. Clérico, L. (2018). La enunciación del margen de apreciación: Fontevecchia 2017 desde los márgenes. Redea. Derechos en acción, 7, 294-317. Contesse, J. (2016). Contestation and Deference in the Inter-American Human Rights System. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79, 122-145. Contesse, J. (2018). The International Authority of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: A Critique of the Conventionality Control Doctrine. International Journal of Human Rights, 22(9), 1168-1191. Dulytzky, A. (2015). An Alternative Approach to the Conventionality Control Doctrine. American Journal of International Law Unbound, 109, 110- 118. Ferrajoli, L. (2007). Principia Iuris: Teoria del dirit- to e della democrazia, vol. II, Roma/Bari, Italy: Laterza. Føllesdal A. (2016). Subsidiarity and International Human Rights Courts: respecting Self- governance and Protecting Human Rights- or neither? Law and Contemporary Problems, 79, 147-163. Føllesdal A. (2017). Exporting the margin of ap- preciation: Lessons for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15(2), 359–371. Føllesdal A. (2018). Appreciating the Margin of Appreciation. In A. Etinson, Human Rights: Moral or Political? (pp. 269-293). Oxford University Press. Gargarella, R. (2015). Democracy and Rights in Gelman v. Uruguay. American Journal of Inter- national Law Unbound, 109, 115-119. Gargarella, R. (2016). Tribunales internacionales y democracia: enfoques deferentes o de inter- ferencia. Revista Latinoamericana de Derecho Internacional, 4. Garzón Valdéz, E. (1989). Algo más acerca del coto vedado. Doxa. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 6, 209-213. Gozaini, O. (2008). El impacto de la jurisprudencia del sistema interamericano en el derecho in- terno. In S. Albanese (Ed.). El control de conven- cionalidad (pp. 81-112). Ediar. Hart, H.L.A. (1994). The Concept of Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Hitters, J. (2009). Control de constitucionalidad y control de convencionalidad. Comparación (criterios fijados por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos). Revista Estudios Consti- tucionales, 7(2), 109-128. Iglesias Vila, M. (2017). Subsidiarity, margin of ap- preciation and international adjudication within a cooperative conception of human rights. Inter- national Journal of Constitutional Law, 15(2), 393–413. Jachtenfuchs, M. & Krisch, N. (2016). Subsidiarity in Global Governance. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79, 1-26. Krisch, N. (2008). The Open Architecture of Euro- pean Human Rights Law. Modern Law Review, 71(2), 183-216. López Alfonsín, M. (2017). La doctrina del mar- gen de apreciación nacional. Su recepción en el Sistema Europeo de Derechos Humanos, en el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos y en Argentina, en relación con los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales. Lex, 19, 53-76. Mac-Gregor, E.F. (2015). Conventionality Control the New Doctrine of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. American Journal of Inter- national Law Unbound, 109, 93-99. Nash Rojas, C. (2013). Control de convencionalidad. Precisiones conceptuales y desafíos a la luz de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Anuario de Derecho Consti- tucional Latinoamericano, XIX, 489-509. Ochoa Escriba, D. (2018). Constitución política de la República de Guatemala con notas de juris- prudencia. Guatemala: Instituto de Justicia Con- stitucional. Orunesu, C. (2012). Positivismo jurídico y siste- mas constitucionales. Madrid/Barcelona, Spain: Marcial Pons. Orunesu, C. & Rodríguez, J. (2017). Tres para- dojas sobre el control de convencionalidad. In J. Rodríguez & C. Orunesu (Eds.), Derecho Nacional y Derecho Internacional. Paradojas en su articulación (pp. 119-148). Eudem. Raz, J. (Ed.). (1990). Authority. New York University Press. Rodríguez, J. (2012). Normas y razones: Un dilema entre la irracionalidad y la irrelevancia. Revista Jurídica de la Facultad de Derecho (Universidad de Palermo, Argentina), 13(1), 127-145. Rodríguez, J. & Vicente, D. (2009). Aplicabilidad y validez de las normas del Derecho Internacional. Doxa. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 32, 177-204. Rosatti, H. (2012). El llamado ‘control de conven- cionalidad’ y el ‘control de constitucionalidad’ en la Argentina. La Ley, Suplemento de Derecho Constitucional, 13/2/2012, 1. Saba, R. (2017). No huir de los tratados. Pensar en Derecho, 10, 111-164. Sagüés, N. (2010a). Dificultades operativas del “control de convencionalidad” en el Sistema Interamericano. La Ley, 2010-D, 1245. Sagüés, N. (2010b). Obligaciones internacionales y control de convencionalidad. Estudios Consti- tucionales, 8(1), 117-136. REVUS 46.indd 80 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 81 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Conventionality control and international judicial supremacy: Some reflections on the Inter-American system of human rights Soley, X., & Steininger, S. (2018). Parting Ways or Lashing Back? Withdrawals, Backlash and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Inter- national Journal of Law in Context, 14(2), 237– 257. Urueña, R. (2019). Domestic application of interna- tional law in Latin America. In C. Bradley (Ed.), The Oxford Hadbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law (pp. 565-581). Oxford University Press. Vanossi, J., & Dalla Vía, A. (2000). Régimen constitu- cional de los tratados. Abeledo-Perrot. Waldron, J. (2006). The Core of the Case against Judicial Review. The Yale Law Journal, 115, 1345- 1346. Waldron, J. (2018). Control de constitucionalidad y legitimidad política. Dikaion, 27, 7-28. DOI: 10.5294/dika.2018.27.1.1. REVUS 46.indd 81 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 REVUS 46.indd 82 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 83 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Marisa Iglesias Vila* The conventionality control and the Fontevecchia case: Is the margin of appreciation the panacea? In the paper I comment on some of Claudina Orunesu’s claims in her article “Conven- tionality control and international judicial supremacy”. Orunesu offers a critical analysis of how the Inter-American Court of Human Rights justifies and develops its convention- ality control principle. She draws on the Argentine Supreme Court judgment in the Fon- tevecchia case to support her claim that the I/A Court should combine the requirement of an internal conventionality control with the European doctrine of the national margin of appreciation. Taking on board the Fontevecchia holding, I engage in a critical review of her proposal by arguing that a reasonable margin of appreciation doctrine would lead to questioning the reasoning of the Argentine Supreme Court in this case. Instead of assuming an adversarial rationale that put the focus on democratic concerns, I suggest approaching the Inter-American institutional framework in cooperative and systemic terms. Once we follow a cooperative logic, deference to national authorities is generally justified when domestic institutions are better situated than an international court for decision-making on human rights. However, the strength of the better situated argument is conditioned on the state’s reliability as a cooperative actor in the Inter-American sys- tem. And this reliability is in turn conditioned on the state’s demonstrating its capacity to meet its cooperative duties within the framework of the Convention. In the paper I focus on three such cooperative responsibilities: the duty of impartiality, the duty to adopt a culture of justification, and the duty to embrace a conventional perspective. Keywords: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Fontevecchia case, systemic legitimacy, margin of appreciation, cooperation, culture of justification 1 INTRODUCTION In this paper I comment on some of Claudina Orunesu’s claims in her arti- cle “Conventionality control and international judicial supremacy”.1 Orunesu offers a critical analysis of how the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (from now on the I/A Court H.R., or the I/A Court) justifies and develops its conventionality control principle. Her criticism focuses on the strong version of this doctrine, which requires national judges, on the one hand, to give strict precedence to conventional norms and holdings over domestic decisions, and, on the other hand, to do this task by following the interpretative criteria fixed by the I/A Court H.R. * marisa.iglesias@upf.edu | Associate Professor of Legal Philosophy at Pompeu Fabra Uni- versity, Barcelona (Spain). This paper was possible thanks to the research project PID2020- 115041GB-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 (MCIU/AEI). 1 See Orunesu 2020: 45-62. Also Orunesu 2022 (in Spanish). revus (2022) 46, 83–94 REVUS 46.indd 83 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 84 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Marisa Iglesias Vila Her three main arguments against a strong conventionality control run as follows: (a) Such a strong demand on national judges exceeds the legal powers of the I/A Court and lacks textual support in the wording of the American Convention on Human Rights (from now on the Convention, or the Pact of San José). (b) In some cases, this doctrine might entail the invalidity of constitutional clau- ses, with the paradoxical effect of settling the supremacy of convention norms over national constitutions, despite the pluralism found in member states as to the provisions concerning the constitutional status of international treaties. According to Orunesu, conventional supremacy is thus problematic in terms of hierarchy. (c) The strong version of the doctrine has problems of democratic legitimacy, sin- ce it may promote a dictatorship of judges, in this case the dictatorship of the justices of an international court (whose selection procedure is, in addition, far from satisfactory). Orunesu’s proposal is to combine the requirement of an internal convention- ality control with the European doctrine of the national margin of appreciation. Bringing together both doctrines would facilitate states’ participation in the in- terpretation of convention rights and enhance judicial dialogue, with the effect of making up for the democratic deficit of the I/A Court. This will be so insofar as national judges (1) do not use the margin of appreciation as an excuse for non-compliance, (2) take the Court’s opinions seriously, (3) offer strong argu- ments for dismissing its opinions, and (4) come up with reasonable alternatives.2 Generally speaking, I agree with Orunesu’s suggestion. I also find that the I/A Court should have a more flexible reading of the domestic conventionality control. Nonetheless, I have difficulties in determining the scope of our agree- ment, as her paper does not get to the heart of the rationale and foundations of the margin of appreciation doctrine. In fact, we disagree on our assessment of the Argentine Supreme Court judgment in the Fontevecchia case, where the Court dismissed the request submitted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Culture to implement the holding of the I/A Court.3 Orunesu draws on this case to support her claim that the I/A Court should introduce the national mar- gin of appreciation in its jurisprudence. I would instead say that a reasonable margin of appreciation doctrine would lead to questioning the reasoning of the Argentine Supreme Court in this case. I will first elaborate on this doctrine, and then come back afterwards to the Fontevecchia case, in order to check the ex- tent of our differences as to the dynamics of the margin of appreciation. 2 Orunesu 2020: 60. 3 Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación (National Supreme Court of Justice), 14 February 2017, “Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores y Culto s/ informe sentencia dictada en el caso ‘Fontevecchia y D’Amico vs. Argentina’ por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos”. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C No. 238. REVUS 46.indd 84 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 85 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 The conventionality control and the Fontevecchia case: Is the margin of appreciation the panacea? 2 THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION DOCTRINE The European Court of Human Rights (from now on the ECtHR, or the Strasbourg Court) has adopted this doctrine in order to grant a degree of defer- ence to member states’ standards in protecting convention rights.4 The ECtHR has offered various reasons to justify such deference. First, it has noted that the system of human rights protection in Europe is the product of a division of labour between the member states and the ECtHR. States hold the primary re- sponsibility for such protection, and the Strasbourg Court only intervenes in a subsidiary fashion, by entering a particular controversy once internal remedies have been exhausted. Second, when culturally sensitive issues such as morality or religion are at stake, there is no consensus among member countries as to their regulation, and national authorities may be better positioned to appreciate relevant social circumstances and manage internal tensions (since they are clos- er to the daily reality of their citizens). Nevertheless, according to the ECtHR itself, this margin is limited, subject to Strasbourg supervision, and will vary as a function of sensitive cultural considerations, the right in question, the nature of the interest alleged by the national authorities, and the state of the European consensus on the matter.5 Under this doctrine, the Court tends to avoid engaging in abstract examina- tions of compatibility between state measures and the European Convention, and focuses instead on reviewing whether national authorities have exceeded their margin of appreciation in rights protection. This leads to a contextualized assessment of the denounced breach of the Convention, which accommodates the internal stakes as well as the legal, political, and social circumstances of each country. Such a contextual assessment of compatibility with the Convention al- lows the ECtHR to offer distinct decisions on similar cases occurring in diverse national settings. From this general overview we may extract some initial remarks applicable to the Inter-American system of human rights. First, the margin of appreciation does not work as a tool to allocate powers, but instead offers guidance as to how the jurisdictional power of the international court should be exercised. Second, the logic of this European doctrine is not entirely applicable to disagreements on the determination of remedies and on the execution of the judgments of the I/A Court, since those issues involve technical aspects, and, additionally, in the Strasbourg system the execution of the Court’s judgments tends to be left to the discretion of each member state. But still, it pays to rethink those issues from the perspective of the margin of appreciation doctrine. 4 For a general characterization of the European margin of appreciation doctrine, see Arai- Takahashi 2002; Letsas 2006; Legg 2012. 5 Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72, Eur. Ct. H.R., December 7, 1976, par. 48 and 49. REVUS 46.indd 85 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 86 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Marisa Iglesias Vila Orunesu conceives of the national margin through the concurring opinion of Justice Rosatti with respect to the Argentine Supreme Court’s judgment in the Fontevecchia case. Here Rosatti links the margin to a sphere of sovereign reservation, which implies that “it is impossible for international law—either of normative or jurisprudential source—to prevail automatically, without scrutiny, over the constitutional order.”6 In my opinion, this way of understanding the idea of the margin operates within an adversarial rationale—states versus the Inter-American system, na- tional courts versus international courts—which Orunesu herself rejects in her article. This adversarial logic is also evidenced in Orunesu’s focus on the counter- majoritarian objection, which creates a certain tension in her reasoning. To avoid this tension, one option would be to pay less attention to democratic concerns, and to view the Inter-American institutional framework in cooperative and sys- temic terms. My suggestion is to approach the margin of appreciation doctrine by considering the normative framework endorsed by Allen Buchanan, in par- ticular his understanding of legitimacy in a human rights system as an ecological issue.7 I will refer to the idea of “systemic legitimacy” to capture this view.8 3 SYSTEMIC LEGITIMACY AND MEMBER STATES’ COOPERATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES According to Buchanan, the legitimacy of institutions at the international level is an ecological matter.9 A system of human rights operates through the coordinated action of various institutions committed to achieving certain com- mon goals. The effective operation of this system demands mutual recognition between the actors involved. In turn, this recognition makes such coopera- tion possible, and a cooperative undertaking is what is needed to achieve the shared goals. On this basis, we cannot determine whether any institution of this network is legitimate simply by looking at the characteristics of the institu- tion itself. Instead one must understand how it interacts with the other actors. What I will call “systemic legitimacy” values the moral authority of each institu- tion in interactional terms and asks what kinds of relationship and functional specialization would reinforce and improve the legitimacy of each implicated actor and of the system as a whole. Thus national actors and their measures may have democratic legitimacy without having systemic legitimacy, and the 6 Par. 5 of Judge Rossati’s opinion. 7 Buchanan 2013. 8 I follow here Carlos Rosenkrantz’s suggestion that “systemic legitimacy” is a more suitable expression than “ecological legitimacy” for referring to this approach to legitimacy issues. 9 Buchanan 2013: 219. REVUS 46.indd 86 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 87 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 The conventionality control and the Fontevecchia case: Is the margin of appreciation the panacea? international body and its decisions may have systemic legitimacy even without democratic credentials. Along these lines, I suggest understanding the margin of appreciation as the degree of deference to national authorities that contributes to the systemic le- gitimacy, in this case, of the Inter-American system and its actors. Now, the margin is tied up with a normative question: how the division of labour in the implementation of the Convention should be organized, given that member states have the primary responsibility to ensure convention rights while the Inter-American system complements such national protection. Once we follow a cooperative logic, perhaps the strongest reason for defer- ence to national authorities is the fact that, in plural settings, domestic institu- tions may be better situated than an international court for decision-making on human rights.10 When it can be argued that the state is better situated, because a particular controversy cannot be adequately resolved without a profound understanding of the particular circumstances in a given society, we may have reasons of systemic legitimacy to support deference. Otherwise, we might be asking the international court to do something that another institution is better equipped to do, at the expense of the general efficacy of the system. Within the Pact of San José framework, the traditional reluctance to grant a national margin of appreciation has been mainly based on the history of dicta- torships and the democratic fragility experienced in many states of the region. This argument has been used to question whether the states are better situated than the I/A Court and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (from now on the IACHR) for decision-making on human rights issues. As cit- ed by Orunesu, this is the reasoning of the former Judge Cançado Trindade to justify his bold rejection of incorporating the margin of appreciation doctrine into the Inter-American system.11 In recent years, however, the role of the Inter-American System bodies and, in particular, the I/A Court’s traditional reluctance to adopt the margin of appreciation doctrine are under pressure. In April 2019, the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Paraguay issued a significant Joint Declaration to the Inter-American system of Human Rights. Here the signatory states mention the principle of subsidiarity, demand respect for their legitimate space of autonomy in the protection of convention rights through their own democratic processes, and emphasize the state’s margin of appreciation in the fulfilment of its convention duties. These statements react to an interventionist Court whose maximalist approach has been subject to criticism. 10 In the rest of the paper, I will focus my comments on this reason. For the connection between the margin of appreciation and the best situation of national authorities, see, for example, Spielmann 2012. 11 Orunesu 2020: 59. On this reluctance see also Barbosa 2012. REVUS 46.indd 87 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 88 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Marisa Iglesias Vila Jorge Contesse, for instance, objects to such an interventionist stance by paying attention to the evolution in the subject matter submitted to the I/A Court jurisdiction, which runs parallel to the region’s political transforma- tion.12 Contesse points out that mass human rights violations perpetrated by authoritarian regimes are being replaced by matters pertaining to the relatively commonplace violations witnessed in stable democratic systems. He argues that this change demands a shift in the I/A Court’s approach, from one tending to- wards a maximalist and expansive reasoning to one anchored in the principle of subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation doctrine. Even if we assume that the democratic fragility argument is running out of steam against the margin of appreciation doctrine in Latin America, what we are thereby ruling out is only a general argument against including the doctrine in the I/A Court’s reasoning. We still have no answer as to when the state, in case of a complaint of a violation of convention rights, is better situated to re- solve its internal human rights controversy. In my view, the strength of the better situated argument depends not only on the type of case or situation at stake, but also has to do with the state’s reliability as a cooperative actor in the Inter-American system. And this reliability is in turn conditioned on the state’s demonstrating its capacity to meet its obligations within the framework of the Convention. Beyond the generic duties of effective respect and protection, in a cooperative system of human rights, states shall be subject to three conventional obligations. (a) The first is a duty of impartiality or neutrality in human rights protection, which is compromised when the state, for example, tends to privilege certain social groups, adopts comprehensive doctrines, or yields to the dominant morality. In these cases, the state ceases to be better positioned to resolve internal conflicts than international bodies, since its lack of impartiality is part of the conflict. In such instances, the state’s restriction of rights calls for strict scrutiny on the part of the international court. (b) The second is the duty to adopt what has been labelled as a “culture of justification”, which subjects any public institution (administrative, leg- islative, or judicial) to demands of justification centred on the aim of protecting basic rights.13 This responsibility has two dimensions: a pas- sive one, in which the political power has the burden of proving that its 12 Contesse 2016: 124-145. 13 According to Dyzenhaus (2015: 425-426): “A culture of justification is not only one in which parliamentarians offer political justifications to the electorate for their laws, but is also one in which they offer legal justifications in terms of the values set out in the bill of rights. That is a kind of political justification. But it is more than a justification of why one policy is better than another since it is also a justification of why the policy is consistent with the legally protected rights of those it affects. Moreover, it is a justification not only to citizens but also to courts, a feature inherent in the structure of a bill of rights that permits rights to be limited.” REVUS 46.indd 88 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 89 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 The conventionality control and the Fontevecchia case: Is the margin of appreciation the panacea? governmental policy is not incompatible with human rights, and an ac- tive one, in which the political power has to prove that its policies and legal instruments actually advance those rights. A sound culture of justification (which goes beyond confirming the democratic character of the state, or the fact that the measure in question is the product of a democratic institution) contributes to the trustworthiness of national authorities. For this reason, we may say, following Roberto Gargarella, that the deliberative quality of the measure in question, that is, the degree of intensity and the depth of the internal debate surrounding its national adoption, should become a central factor in expanding or reducing the national margin of appreciation.14 (c) The third duty is the adoption of a conventional perspective. A state’s being better positioned to decide should depend on the capacity of its national authorities to espouse an external perspective in its everyday in- stitutional activity, that is, on the state’s capacity to self-regulate as a co- operative actor in a human rights system. This “convention perspective” does not belong to the international court but is rather shared by all the institutions that work together to enhance the effectiveness of the system. As noted by Jean-Marc Sauvé, states must retain a double perspective: national characteristics and traditions, and also international standards and consensus.15 National authorities meet this responsibility in different ways, for instance, when public powers show their willingness to allow external controls to correct deficiencies in their democratic functioning (especially those affecting minori- ties), or when they seek advice from human rights committees or expert bodies. The duality demand is also attended when, in addition to integrating the juris- prudence of the international court, national judiciary exercise a conventional- ity control, at least as a duty with regard to the result (leaving in the state’s hands the means to bring it about according to its judicial traditions and domestic structures). If Orunesu were to agree on the crucial role of those three responsibilities for a margin of appreciation doctrine, and on the relevance of meeting them to test the strength of the better situated argument, perhaps she would also be more re- luctant to use the 2017 holding of the Argentine Supreme Court to support her general criticism of the I/A Court. I will devote the next few pages to explaining why my approach to the margin of appreciation leads to this conclusion. 14 Gargarella 2016. On the relevance of deliberative quality to the scope of the margin of appre- ciation, see Spano 2014. 15 Sauvé 2015: 23. REVUS 46.indd 89 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 90 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Marisa Iglesias Vila 4 THE CHALLENGE MADE BY THE ARGENTINE SUPREME COURT: IS THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION THE PANACEA? The refusal of the Argentine Supreme Court (from now on, the AS Court) to overturn the civil conviction rests on two main considerations. The AS Court argues, on the one hand, that the I/A Court is exceeding its authority, and, on the other hand, that attending to such a demand would contravene the constitu- tional principles of the Argentine legal system. To defend the lack of jurisdiction, the AS Court deploys textual and func- tional reasons. Regardless of the general usefulness of textual claims to this type of debate (which I doubt), the AS Court’s textual arguments are unconvincing. It is true that the literal wording of the Convention does not state that the I/A Court has the authority to request a national Supreme Court to revoke a final judgment, but article 63.1 of the Convention enables the I/A Court to “rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was vio- lated”, and “to rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situa- tion that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied”. Therefore, the provision does not entail by itself that a general requirement of rendering the judgment ineffective exceeds the powers assigned to the I/A Court. The AS Court supports the lack of jurisdiction claim on additional grounds: on the one hand, the fourth instance doctrine—that is, the claim that the I/A Court is not a fourth instance with the power to invalidate internal judicial de- cisions—and on the other hand, the national margin of appreciation, grounded in the principle of subsidiarity (following Føllesdal’s words, a principle of power allocation that establishes a “rebuttable presumption for the local”).16 Its rea- soning, however, here has the same adversarial character as in its textual analy- sis of the Convention. My general impression is that the AS Court adopts a statist reading of the subsidiarity principle.17 In contrast with the cooperative view favoured by systemic legitimacy, such a statist conception, aside from pro- moting the Westphalian rendition of the international system, steps away from a cooperative view because: (a) it focuses on just one aspect of this institutional relationship; (b) it assumes both that national authorities have primary and independent legitimacy and that democratic pedigree is a necessary element of institutional legitimacy in a human rights system;18 and (c) it ignores the fact that subsidiarity does not simply constrain the international court’s powers vis-à-vis states but also fixes the responsibilities of national authorities within 16 Føllesdal 2016: 148. 17 For a general criticism of a statist reading of the principle of subsidiarity, see Iglesias Vila 2017. 18 For a criticism of this assumption, see, especially, Buchanan 2013: 193-195. REVUS 46.indd 90 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 91 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 The conventionality control and the Fontevecchia case: Is the margin of appreciation the panacea? the framework of the Convention.19 Accordingly, while it is true, as Orunesu claims, that the legitimacy of the conventionality control required by the I/A Court depends on its aptitude “to persuade others to accept and support its de- cisions even when they disagree with them”,20 the legitimacy of the AS Court’s reaction in this context also depends on its aptitude to persuade others to ac- cept and support its decisions even when they disagree with them. What we are debating here is not whether there has been a breach of the right to freedom of expression, nor what weight must be given to the national opinion as to the scope of that right. Our concern is rather the enforcement of a I/A hold- ing which includes, again, a general requirement to render the domestic final judgment ineffective, since this judgment has led to the state’s breach of a con- vention right. Taking on board systemic legitimacy, we may claim that, in the ex- ecution stage, the state, being better placed for technical reasons, should have a margin of discretion to determine the appropriate forms of redress. At this stage, however, we may still require national authorities to have an impartial decision- making process with both deliberative quality and a conventional perspective. As a cooperative actor, the AS Court should have borne in mind the conse- quences of unreservedly dismissing a request to implement a judgment of the I/A Court, simply on the grounds that the Argentine state’s international obliga- tions cannot include overruling a domestic final judgment. On the one hand, this dismissal sets a dangerous precedent for any future cases where the I/A Court may rule that the Argentine state has acted in breach of the Convention. Since the Inter-American system only operates once all do- mestic remedies have been exhausted, the judgment of the I/A Court will typi- cally meet a domestic final judgment. The AS Court might continue using the same argument in increasingly clear breaches of its cooperative responsibilities, and, in criminal cases, such a view might have very serious effects in terms of human rights. A similar situation might have occurred (also with a general re- quirement to overturn a final judgment) in a case of a criminal sentence with the plaintiff in prison. Here, the stance of the AS Court would involve the claim that no international responsibilities are being infringed by upholding the criminal conviction, which is an unreasonable conclusion to draw once we take ecologi- cal legitimacy seriously. Therefore, an inflexible stance on this matter may lead to an evident step forward in human rights protection with the sole consequence for the state of having to pay a fair compensation to the injured party.21 19 See, for instance, Nowbray 2015. 20 Orunesu 2020: 58. 21 As for the idea that the 2017 AS Court Judgment creates a precedent that could have conse- quences for the constitutional value of human rights, see, for instance, Abramovich 2017. For a more nuanced criticism, which also pays attention to the limited risk that this judgment will affect the AS Court’s future decisions regarding the enforcement of the I/A Court’s holdings, see Alegre 2017: 34. REVUS 46.indd 91 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 92 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Marisa Iglesias Vila On the other hand, the AS Court’s stance may have a negative spillover effect on neighbouring countries of the region, undermining the auctoritas of the in- ternational court vis-à-vis those national institutions with whom the I/A Court must cooperate to ensure the system’s efficacy. It strikes me that, from a cooperative rationale, technical impracticability is the only compelling argument for dismissing a generic requirement to render the judgment ineffective. It is true that the AS Court takes on board the impos- sibility argument, but, again, in an adversarial fashion. The AS Court grounds the legal impossibility of complying with the requirement in the principles of the Argentine Constitution, particularly in those principles which settle the hi- erarchical authority structure and the supreme character of the AS Court as the head of the judicial branch. A reasoning of technical feasibility would be of a different nature. The AS Court would have checked the available mechanisms to enforce the I/A Court judgment, examining their legal alignment and offering solutions, or showing its willingness to find alternative remedies. If no balanced solution were avail- able, then the AS Court, at the very least, might have assumed that not having an effective procedural channel to implement the I/A Court’s general require- ment posed an internal problem for the Argentine state, and that addressing this problem (in the short to medium term) fell under the cooperative commitments the state made by signing the Convention. By reasoning in this manner, the AS Court would have shown the duality that a convention perspective calls for. At the same time, undertaking this argumentative effort would have warranted the impartiality and the deliberative quality required by a culture of justification. I shall not go into how this technical difficulty, which is faced by many do- mestic legal systems, is to be corrected. Commentators and judicial case law have examined several options: enforcement ex oficio by the national Supreme Court; or, now at the request of a party, interpreting the holding of an interna- tional court as a new fact that affects the principle of res judicata; or channelling the judicial enforcement through a writ of protection or by using a nullity inci- dental plea. In Spain, for instance, it took many years to legislate a procedural mechanism to enforce Strasbourg’s judgments of conviction. It was not until 2015 that the Organic Law on Judicial Power was amended to include the fact of a judgment of conviction by the ECtHR as grounds for an appeal for reversal. The AS Court had the opportunity to urge the legislative branch, as the Spanish Constitutional Court did in 1991, to establish a procedural mechanism for solving such technical difficulties.22 But the AS Court did not pursue this line of reasoning and, in my view, its general stance on this issue amounts to a failure to comply with its conventional obligations. 22 Judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court, STC 245/1991, 16 December. REVUS 46.indd 92 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 93 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 The conventionality control and the Fontevecchia case: Is the margin of appreciation the panacea? Admittedly, the initial challenge of the AS Court’s 2007 holding was finally overcome through a compromise solution. As the I/A Court confirms in its or- der of 11 May 2020 on compliance with the judgment, the following note was added to the register of the AS Court ruling of 25 September 2001: “This judg- ment was declared incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights by the Inter-American Court (judgment of 29 November 2011)”. Such a compromise solution might be understood as a form of dialogue be- tween the two courts. However, from the cooperative perspective I am defend- ing, this conclusion is not warranted. In the cooperative undertaking I have in mind, the actors involved share the same concern with the effective protection of human rights within their regional setting, and institutional reliability, mu- tual recognition and long-term cooperation are instrumental to that end. The question here is whether the AS Court challenge amounts to a disagreement regarding the most effective way to restore the violated rights, taking account of what is technically possible or, in a more general fashion, regarding how to ensure the protective efficacy of the system. As commented below, the AS Court does not pursue this line of reasoning, and therefore my intuition is that the compromise solution is better described as a successful statist resistance than as an effective institutional dialogue. To sum up, given the requirements that Orunesu points out to combine the domestic conventionality control with the margin of appreciation—which are, again, (1) that national judges do not use the margin of appreciation as a non- compliance excuse, (2) that they take the opinions of the Court seriously, (3) that they offer strong arguments for dismissing its opinions, and (4) that they come up with reasonable alternatives—it would not be a hasty judgment to con- clude that the 2017 AS Court has not fulfilled them. In the end, for the margin of appreciation doctrine to be a powerful tool for the cooperative protection of human rights, we must ensure that member states contribute to a common construction, to use Orunesu’s last words. References: Abramovich, V. (2017). Comentarios sobre “Fonte- vecchia”, la autoridad de las sentencias de la Corte Interamericana y los principios de derecho público argentino. Pensar el Derecho, 10, 9-25. Alegre, M. (2017). Monismo en serio: «Fonte- vecchia» y el argumento democrático. Pensar en Derecho, 10, 27-35. Arai-Takahashi, Y. (2002). The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR. Intersetia. Barbosa, F. (2012). El margen nacional de apre- ciación en el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos: entre el Estado de derecho y la sociedad democrática. In M. Núñez & P. Acosta (Eds.). El Margen de Apreciación en el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos: Proyecciones Regionales y Nacionales (pp. 51-75). UNAM. Buchanan, A. (2013). The Heart of Human Rights. Oxford University Press. Clérico, L. (2018). La Enunciación del Margen de Apreciación: Fontevecchia 2017 desde los Márgenes. Derechos en Acción, 7, 295-317. Contesse, J. (2016). Contestation and Deference in the Inter-American Human Rights System. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79(2), 124-145. Dyzenhaus, D. (2015). What is a ‘Democratic Cul- REVUS 46.indd 93 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 94 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Marisa Iglesias Vila ture of Justification’? In M. Hunt, H. Cooper & P. Yowell (Eds.). Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the Democratic Deficit (pp. 425-446). Hart Publishing. Føllesdal, A. (2016). Subsidiarity and International Human-Rights Courts: Respecting Self-Gover- nance and Protecting Human Rights—Or Neither? Law and Contemporary Problems, 79(2), 147-163. Gargarella, R. (2016). Tribunales internacionales y democracia: enfoques deferentes o de interferen- cia. Revista Latinoamericana de derecho interna- cional, 4. Iglesias Vila, M. (2017). Subsidiarity, margin of ap- preciation and international adjudication with- in a cooperative conception of human rights. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15(2), 393-413. Legg, A. (2012). The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law: Deference and Proportionality. Oxford University Press. Letsas, G. (2006). Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(4), 705-732. Mowbray, A. (2015). Subsidiarity and the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 15(2), 313-341. Orunesu, C. (2020). Conventionality Control and International Judicial Supremacy. Revus – Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 40, 45-62. Orunesu, C. (2022). Control de convencionalidad y supremacia de tribunales internacionales. Revus – Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 46, 63-81. Sauvé, J. M. (2015). Statement. In European Court of human Rights, Subsidiarity: a Two-Sided Coin? Dialogue Between Judges 2015 (pp. 23-32). Council of Europe. Spano, R. (2014). Universality or Diversity of Human Rights? Strasbourg in the Age of Subsidiarity. Human Rights Law Review, 14(3), 487-502. Spielmann, D. (2012). Allowing the Right Margin the European Court of Human Rights and the National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review? Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 14, 381-418. REVUS 46.indd 94 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 95 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Ángeles Ródenas* La vida secreta de los conceptos (O sobre el arte de decantar conceptos) El objeto de este trabajo es someter a examen crítico la concepción de los conceptos jurídicos del positivismo normativista defendida por Cristina Redondo, así como plan- tear algunas posibles estrategias de defensa por parte de las otras dos concepciones de los conceptos jurídicos criticadas por Redondo: el interpretativismo dworkiniano y el reduccionismo rossiano. Parablas claves: Redondo (María Cristina), la teoría de los conceptos jurídicos, el positi- vismo normativista, Ross (Alf ), Dworkin (Ronald), conceptos institucionales, propiedades necesarias de los conceptos, jurisprudencia de conceptos, instituciones jurídicas 1 INTRODUCCIÓN En su trabajo “Institutional Concepts: A Critical View on the Reductionist and Interpretive Approaches”1 Cristina Redondo lleva a cabo una sugerente re- flexión sobre tres enfoques de análisis de los conceptos jurídicos, a los que de- nomina, respectivamente, el enfoque reduccionista, el enfoque interpretativista y el enfoque del positivismo jurídico normativista. Redondo expone con gran claridad estas tres aproximaciones y, además, lleva a cabo una valoración crítica de las dos primeras, contraponiendo sus inconvenientes a las ventajas que pre- senta el enfoque del positivismo jurídico normativista. Aunque Redondo insiste en que los tres enfoques no resultan incompatibles, ya que versan sobre diferen- tes objetos y tiene diferentes finalidades, tanto del subtítulo de su trabajo –una crítica a las posiciones reduccionistas e interpretativistas– como de su defensa del enfoque del positivismo jurídico normativista cabe inferir cierta predilec- ción de la autora por este último. Precisamente el objeto de este trabajo es someter a examen crítico la defen- sa de la concepción de los conceptos jurídicos institucionales del positivismo normativista de Redondo. En el apartado 2 –Tres enfoques sobre los conceptos jurídicos institucionales– presentaré de la manera más sintética posible la re- construcción que Redondo lleva a cabo de los tres enfoques antes mencionados. En el apartado 3 –La prueba de la brujería– expondré brevemente la forma en la que Redondo evalúa los logros de estos tres enfoques, poniendo a prueba su capacidad para reconstruir “el concepto jurídico de brujería” y, asimismo, apun- * angeles.rodenas@ua.es | Profesora titular de Filosofía del derecho, Universidad de Alicante (España). 1 Redondo 2020: 103-127. revus (2022) 46, 95–107 REVUS 46.indd 95 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 96 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ángeles Ródenas taré algunas posibles estrategias defensivas del enfoque reduccionista y del in- terpretativista frente a las críticas de Redondo. Pero el núcleo de mis diferencias con Redondo se condensa en los dos últimos apartados. En el apartado 4 –El arte de decantar conceptos– me plantearé cómo puede el positivismo jurídico normativista “identificar las propiedades distintivas y necesarias de los concep- tos”. Finalmente, concluiré en el apartado 5 –La esencia del positivismo jurídico normativista– cuestionaré las supuestas ventajas que Redondo atribuye al enfo- que del positivismo normativista a la hora de analizar los conceptos jurídicos institucionales. 2 TRES ENFOQUES SOBRE LOS CONCEPTOS JURÍDICOS INSTITUCIONALES Como acabo de señalar, Redondo lleva a cabo un análisis de tres posibles enfoques relativos a los conceptos jurídicos institucionales, a los que denomina, respectivamente, el enfoque reduccionista, el enfoque interpretativista y el en- foque del positivismo jurídico normativista. 2.1 El enfoque interpretativista de Dworkin Redondo toma como referente del enfoque interpretativista a Dworkin. Como es sabido, Dworkin distingue entre tres tipos de conceptos: conceptos criteriológicos (criterial concepts), conceptos de clase natural (natural kind con- cepts) y conceptos interpretativos (intepretative concepts).2 Tanto los conceptos criteriológicos como los de clase natural proporcionan un test para la correcta aplicación de los mismos: en los conceptos criteriológicos dicho test depende de los acuerdos o convenciones existentes en el uso del concepto; mientras que en los conceptos de clase natural el test depende de cuál sea la esencia o estruc- tura natural (física o biológica) de los ejemplos o instancias del concepto en cuestión. A diferencia de los conceptos criteriológicos y de los de clase natural, los conceptos interpretativos, como el de Derecho, son sensibles a los valores que quienes los usan atribuyen a aquello a lo que los conceptos se aplica. Así, por ejemplo, toda teoría jurídica, aun cuando no siempre lo identifique y anali- ce explícitamente, usa un concepto de Derecho. Aunque Dworkin únicamente se preocupa del concepto de Derecho, y no de conceptos jurídicos más especí- ficos como los de jurisdicción, república, familia, etc., Redondo defiende -a mi juicio acertadamente- que este interpretativismo dworkiniano sería extensible a estas instituciones normativas más circunscriptas, puesto que la extensión a e las mismas presupone el mismo tipo de actitud interpretativa que subyace al Derecho en general. 2 Dworkin 2006: 9-12; Dworkin 2011: 158-163. REVUS 46.indd 96 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 97 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 La vida secreta de los conceptos 2.2 El enfoque reduccionista de Ross El segundo enfoque del que se ocupa Redondo en su trabajo es el que deno- mina reduccionista o realista y considera como su exponente a Ross3. Como es sabido, Ross sostiene que algunos conceptos jurídicos como el de “propiedad” carecen de referente, ya que su función es operar como término de enlace, re- emplazando, en ciertas ocasiones, una disyunción de hechos condicionantes y, en otras, una conjunción de consecuencias normativas. Concretamente, cuan- do decimos: “El propietario puede percibir los frutos y disponer de los mismos”, la palabra “propietario” sustituye y resume la disyunción de hechos que, según un determinado sistema jurídico, condicionan las consecuencias normativas mencionadas (el permiso de percibir y disponer de los frutos). En otras ocasio- nes, el término “propiedad” o “propietario” sirve para reemplazar el conjunto de consecuencias normativas previstas. Por ejemplo, cuando decimos: “quien recibe una cosa por compra, herencia o prescripción es el propietario de la mis- ma”. En este caso, lo que hacemos es usar la palabra “propietario” en lugar de enumerar la lista entera de obligaciones, prohibiciones y permisos establecida por el sistema jurídico para este tipo de casos. A juicio de Redondo, los conceptos jurídicos así entendidos no identifican un tipo o clase general de institución (o de entidad, propiedad o hecho institucio- nal), sino instituciones concretas, i.e. conjuntos de normas vigentes en un lugar y tiempo determinados. Los conceptos jurídicos son solo un resumen o una forma breve de presentación de las normas que configuran una determinada institu- ción. Asímismo Redondo sostiene que desde un planteamiento como el de Ross, intentar describir o seleccionar las características más relevantes de esta aparente “realidad” institucional es una empresa absurda que se apoya en la falsa presupo- sición de que hay algo que puede ser objeto de tal descripción o individuación. Analizar un concepto jurídico institucional consiste en mostrar cómo éste se re- duce a un conjunto de normas existentes en un tiempo y lugar determinados. Algo más adelante volveré sobre el enfoque de Ross para tratar de ofrecer una reconstrucción (algo más caritativa de la de Redondo) que muestre toda la potencialidad de este enfoque, dejando al margen la cuestión de si es o no más coherente con las intenciones originales de Ross. 2.3 El enfoque del positivismo normativista de Raz (y Redondo) El tercer enfoque del que se ocupa Redondo es el del positivismo normati- vista, tomando como referente de dicho enfoque a Raz. Conforme al PJN, según Redondo, es posible identificar conceptos que definen tipos de instituciones jurídicas. Por ejemplo, instituciones jurídicas específicas como el dinero, la monarquía, la propie- 3 Ross 1957: 818-821. REVUS 46.indd 97 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 98 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ángeles Ródenas dad, como así también, la institución jurídica más general que llamamos “Derecho” u “ordenamiento jurídico”. Un concepto, tal como lo entiende esta posición, es un co- njunto de propiedades distintivas que los ejemplos (o al menos los ejemplos paradi- gmáticos) que recaen en su ámbito de aplicación necesariamente satisfacen.4 Desde esta perspectiva “un concepto jurídico institucional constituye un ejemplo o caso específico de institución lingüística. Es una institución lingüís- tica que delimita un tipo de institución jurídica y cuyas instancias de aplicación son específicos ejemplos de instituciones jurídicas”.5 3 LA PRUEBA DE LA BRUJERÍA Para evaluar los logros de estas tres concepciones, Redondo pone a prueba la capacidad de cada una de ellas de reconstruir “el concepto de jurídico de brujería”. Seguidamente expondré brevemente los inconvenientes que Redondo atribuye a los dos primeros enfoques y las ventajas que Redondo ve en el positi- vismo jurídico normativista. 3.1 El localismo y escepticismo de Ross De acuerdo con Redondo, una propuesta como la de Ross adolecería de dos grandes dificultades que le impedirían dar cuenta del concepto institucional ge- neral de “bruja” o “brujería”. Por un lado, tal concepto colapsaría con “el contingente contenido que un ejemplo de esta institución tiene en un momento y lugar específicos”, lo que, a su vez, “oculta el hecho de que es el concepto general el que permite identificar la existencia de ejemplos de instituciones del mismo tipo”.6 Llamaré a esta pri- mera objeción de Redondo contra Ross la objeción del localismo. Por otro lado, Ross, en su trabajo de 1951 asocia la aceptación de entidades, propiedades o hechos institucionales a la aceptación de entidades, propieda- des, o hechos meramente aparentes, generados por supersticiones primitivas. Concretamente, Alf Ross compara nuestras creencias de que bajo ciertas cir- cunstancias existen ciertos hechos o propiedades institucionales con las creen- cias de los integrantes de una tribu primitiva en que, bajo ciertas circunstan- cias, un individuo deviene tû-tû pueden perfectamente explicarse sobre bases empíricas compatibles con nuestro conocimiento científico, con la aceptación y la justificación de enunciados referidos a entidades de carácter mágico, cuya admisión puede considerase sistemáticamente falsa, y que deberíamos rechazar. Al hacer esta analogía, asimila la aceptación y la justificación de enunciados 4 Redondo 2020: 111. 5 Redondo 2020: 112. 6 Redondo 2020: 119. REVUS 46.indd 98 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 99 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 La vida secreta de los conceptos referidos a entidades o propiedades institucionales, que pueden perfectamente explicarse sobre bases empíricas compatibles con nuestro conocimiento cien- tífico, con la aceptación y la justificación de enunciados referidos a entidades de carácter mágico, cuya admisión puede considerase sistemáticamente falsa, y que deberíamos rechazar.7 Llamaré a esta segunda objeción de Redondo contra Ross la objeción del es- cepticismo. De la objeción del localismo voy a ocuparme en el apartado cuarto –El arte de decantar conceptos- en el que trataré de ofrecer una reconstrucción del enfo- que de Ross resistente a la crítica de Redondo. Aquí voy a ocuparme sólo de la objeción del escepticismo, para lo cual es esencial contextualizar su propuesta. Cuando Ross establece una analogía ente los términos estar tû-tû y ser propietario su punto de mira son las teorías basadas en las naturalezas jurídicas. Lo que Ross pretende criticar es la idea de que los conceptos jurídicos institucionales tengan una esencia, y, en su lugar, se propone explicarlos como términos de enlace entre hechos y actos condicionantes, de un lado, y consecuencias jurídicas, de otro. No conviene olvidar que la búsqueda de las esencias o naturalezas jurídicas constituye un resabio del pensamiento de la Escuela Histórica y de su heredera, la Jurisprudencia de Conceptos; un resabio que, como certeramente apuntaba Heck, “ha perdurado en la teoría jurídica de Europa Continental mucho después de que las banderas de aquel movimiento romántico fueran arriadas”8 y -cabría añadir- de que el segundo Ihering diese por finiquitada a la Jurisprudencia de Conceptos. Tomemos algunos ejemplos de cómo los propios implicados explicaban su em- presa de búsqueda de las naturalezas jurídicas. Por ejemplo, Esmein estipulaba: Toda institución, cualquiera que sea, lo mismo da que pertenezca al Derecho público o al Derecho privado, reposa sobre una idea general de la que es aplicación y desen- volvimiento. Tal idea es un principio rector, y la reglamentación que se le confiere consisdte sólo en las consecuencias que se deducen de aquel principio.9 En la misma línea de pensamiento, Du Pasquier postulaba La naturaleza de una institución jurídica estriba en los procedimientos técnicos, en las categorías jurídicas por cuya mediación el Derecho realiza y sanciona la idea general que a esa institución sirve de principio.10 En ese “cielo de los conceptos” (del que el segundo Ihering aconseja des- cender a los juristas11) los conceptos jurídicos son a priori y las instituciones jurídicas instanciaciones a posteriori de los conceptos esenciales. Como Heck apuntaba de manera crítica: 7 Redondo 2020: 119-120. 8 Heck 1948b: 99-256. 9 Esmein 1900: 492 y ss. (citado por Esteve 1956). 10 Du Pasquier 1942: 150 y ss. (citado por Esteve 1956). 11 Ihering 1933: 215-264. REVUS 46.indd 99 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 100 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ángeles Ródenas La jurisprudencia conceptual consideraba los conceptos científicos generales como conceptos causales fundamentales del Derecho, es decir, como causa de las normas jurídicas… Esta antigua teoría causal está hoy desechada. Aun cuando discrepen mu- cho las opiniones sobre el origen del Derecho, en el fondo están todos de acuerdo en que los preceptos jurídicos son históricamente anteriores a su ordenación en los conceptos generales.12 En línea con la objeción de Heck, Genaro Carrió, hace ya más de cincuenta años, formulaba una crítica clara y rotunda a la búsqueda de las naturalezas jurídicas: Las discusiones sobre supuestas naturalezas jurídicas, en cuanto los contendientes no se hacen claramente cargo de lo que están buscando, ni de la verdadera causa de su desacuerdo, son a la vez estériles e insolubles. El despilfarro de esfuerzos se origina, en este caso, en lo siguiente: se piensa que cada vez que un conjunto de reglas se presenta con una determinada unidad, que lo hace acreedor de una designación unificadora, esa designación es el nombre de una entidad sui géneris, poseedora de alguna carac- terística o propiedad central de las que derivan, como quien dice en forma genérica, todas las reglas del sector en cuestión y también otras que, si bien no están contenidas expresamente en él, son “engendradas” –al igual que las primeras- por la fecunda idea central, o naturaleza jurídica.13 ¿Es posible que la propuesta de Redondo sea un intento de resurrección del primer Ihering? Recordemos que Redondo defiende que el positivismo jurídico normativista hace depender las instituciones jurídicas de instituciones más básicas a las que denomina instituciones lingüísticas, quedando las primeras subordinadas a estas últimas: Un punto fundamental de la propuesta del PJN es que las instituciones jurídicas pre- suponen y se construyen mediante instituciones más básicas: instituciones lingüísti- cas…En la visión del PJN puede decirse que existe una relación de estratificación en- tre estos dos tipos de instituciones…Un concepto jurídico institucional constituye un ejemplo o caso específico de institución lingüística. Es una institución lingüística que delimita un tipo de institución jurídica y cuyas instancias de aplicación son específicos ejemplos de instituciones jurídicas.14 Redondo continúa Es importante poner énfasis –prosigue Redondo- en que, entre los conceptos institu- cionales, por una parte, y las instituciones jurídicas, políticas o religiosas, por la otra, existe una relación de ejemplificación, que no es una relación inferencial, ni menos aún de identidad. Entre el contenido de un concepto institucional y la existencia de una determinada institución que recae en su ámbito de aplicación hay una relación necesa- 12 Heck 1948a: 527-528. 13 Carrió 1951:102-103. 14 Redondo 2020: 112-113 (los énfasis son míos). REVUS 46.indd 100 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 101 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 La vida secreta de los conceptos ria o constitutiva, i.e. el concepto establece un conjunto de criterios que todo caso de aplicación necesariamente satisface.15 Algo más adelante trataré de mostrar que si el positivismo jurídico norma- tivista pretende defender una tesis respecto de los conceptos jurídicos que no resulte trivial, y, por lo tanto, que justifique su pretensión de que se trata de un planteamiento alternativo, la única respuesta posible a mi pregunta sobre si Redondo intenta resucitar al primer Ihering tiene que ser afirmativa: Redondo va a necesitar asumir postulados metodológicos bastante próximos a los del modelo de ciencia jurídica del primer Ihering. Pero, antes de desarrollar esta idea, volvamos la mirada brevemente a la crítica de Redondo al interpretativis- mo de Dworkin y démosle al enfoque dworkiniano la oportunidad de presen- tarse bajo la mejor luz posible. 3.2 El dilema de Dworkin De acuerdo con Redondo, en casos como la brujería referidos a instituciones basadas en creencias sistemáticamente falsas, la propuesta de Dworkin puede ser reducida al absurdo: asumirla conduce inevitablemente a una con- tradicción pragmática. Ello porque no es posible adoptar una actitud interpretativa respecto de un tipo de institución y, contemporáneamente, sostener que ella carece de toda posible justificación. Lo cual, en un tipo de caso como el analizado, es lo que el teórico tiene razones para sostener.16 Llamaré a esta objeción de Redondo contra el interpretativismo el dilema de Dworkin. No creo que esta objeción de Redondo sitúe a Dworkin ante ningún verda- dero dilema. A lo largo de su obra Dworkin respondió muchas veces a objecio- nes semejantes. Por ejemplo, respecto del Derecho nazi Dworkin sostenía –y Redondo así lo refleja- que frente al Derecho nazi no cabía el desarrollo de una actitud interpretativa justificada.17 ¿Cómo podría entonces el interretativismo afrontar realidades jurídicas tan radicalmente injustas como el Derecho nazi o las normas que castigaban la brujería? Creo que el Dworkin de Law´s Empire diría que en ambos casos no sería posible pasar de la fase preinterpretativa (en la cual se identifican los materiales jurídicos) a las fases interpretativas y postin- terpretativas; el acceso a ambas fases, al estar guiadas por la racionalidad prác- tica, estarían vedadas tanto para el Derecho nazi como para la institución jurí- dica de la brujería. Pero el Dworkin de Justice in Robbes todavía podría ofrecer una respuesta más sofisticada: supuestos como el del Derecho nazi o la brujería muestran casos marginales en los que el nivel doctrinal del concepto dworki- niano de Derecho deviene impotente para ofrecer la mejor interpretación posi- 15 Redondo 2020: 113 (los énfasis son míos). 16 Redondo 2020: 124. 17 Dworkin 1986: 104-108. REVUS 46.indd 101 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 102 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ángeles Ródenas ble de estas prácticas jurídicas de acuerdo con la filosofía moral y política. Por lo tanto, en estos casos habría que acudir a lo que Dworkin denomina el nivel adjudicativo. Este es un último nivel de carácter residual en el concepto dwor- kiniano de Derecho, en el que la pregunta relevante ya no es ¿cuál es la mejor reconstrucción posible de la práctica de acuerdo con el Derecho?, sino ¿en qué casos es necesario apartarse de lo que el Derecho nos dice y aplicar, en su lugar, consideraciones de tipo moral? No puedo ocultar que mis simpatías estarían con esta hipotética recomendación de Dworkin al tribunal encargado de juzgar los delitos de brujería. 3.3 Las ventajas del positivismo jurídico normativista En contraste con las dificultades de Ross y de Dworkin, Redondo sostiene que el positivismo jurídico normativista se encuentra en una mejor posición para “identificar una institución y contemporáneamente sostener que no dispo- nemos con relación a ella de ninguna teoría adecuada, inteligible, o verdadera, capaz de justificarla”. 18 Con indudables resonancias del primer Ihering, Redondo entiende que “los enunciados conceptuales puros” pueden ser determinantes para obtener con- clusiones que permitan resolver problemas en los casos particulares: Aun no siendo traducible en enunciados sobre el contenido de las instituciones que permite identificar, todo concepto institucional delimita en un determinado modo una clase de institución y, consecuentemente, podremos llegar a conclusiones sustan- ciales muy distintas acerca de la misma según cómo hayamos identificado el concep- to… En todo caso, tomando nuevamente como ejemplo el concepto de Derecho, los enunciados conceptuales puros que identifican o analizan el contenido de este con- cepto pueden ser determinantes al momento de obtener conclusiones doctrinarias o judiciales en un caso en particular.19 4 EL ARTE DE DECANTAR CONCEPTOS Vayamos ahora al nudo gordiano del trabajo de Redondo. Redondo critica lo que denomina la tesis de la necesaria traducibilidad del contenido de las tesis meta teóricas conceptuales propias del positivismo normativista, o bien en tesis relativas al contenido de las instituciones jurídicas concretas, o bien en tesis re- lativas a su justificación. En su crítica a la tesis de la necesaria traducibilidad de los conceptos jurídicos, Cristina toma como aliado a Raz y asume la aproxima- ción propuesta por este último a los conceptos institucionales. Y es aquí donde empiezan mis mayores discrepancias. 18 Redondo 2020: p. 125 (el énfasis es mío). 19 Redondo 2020: p. 113-114 (los énfasis son míos). REVUS 46.indd 102 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 103 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 La vida secreta de los conceptos De acuerdo con Raz, podemos identificar significados criteriológicos que destacan un conjunto de propiedades necesarias y distintivas de instituciones sociales como el Derecho, la monarquía, la jurisdicción, sin necesidad de una explicación o teorización valorativa.20 El ‘análisis’, en este caso, tiene como pun- to de partida los rasgos necesarios y caracterizantes de un tipo de institución (i.e. un concepto criteriológico) tal como los participantes lo entienden, pero es independiente del contenido de las reglas en las que contingentemente dichas instituciones consisten. Pero ¿cómo identificar las propiedades necesarias y distintivas de los con- ceptos? ¿Cómo decantar los conceptos institucionales para desechar lo que en ellos hay de contingente y apropiarnos sólo de sus rasgos necesarios? Voy a sostener que, según qué sea lo que entendamos por propiedades ne- cesarias de un concepto institucional, el tamiz que usamos para cribar los con- ceptos institucionales y apropiarnos solo de sus rasgos necesarios será diferente: según qué sea lo que pretendemos obtener como resultado del cribado, vamos a seleccionar un tamiz u otro. Se me ocurren al menos tres formas básicas de entender lo que son las pro- piedades necesarias de los conceptos institucionales. Puede tratarse: (1) de pro- piedades éticamente necesarias; (2) de propiedades empíricamente necesarias, o bien (3) de propiedades lógicamente necesarias. Pues bien, según sean las pro- piedades necesarias de las que nos que nos interese apropiarnos, seleccionare- mos un tamiz distinto para cribar los conceptos.21 4.1 Las propiedades éticamente necesarias: el tamiz de la racionalidad práctica Comencemos por las propiedades éticamente necesarias. Si en nuestra apro- ximación a los conceptos institucionales lo que buscamos es captar aquellas propiedades que resultan justificadas desde el punto de vista de la racionali- dad práctica, parece imprescindible someter a los conceptos institucionales al cribado de la racionalidad moral y política. Por ejemplo, cuando afirmamos que la diferencia de sexo entre los dos cónyuges de un matrimonio no es una característica necesaria del concepto de matrimonio, no estamos negando que históricamente a las parejas del mismo sexo se les haya negado el acceso al ma- 20 Raz 1998: 249-282. 21 “I conclude that there are three distinct sources of necessity —the identity of things, the natural order, and the normative order— and that each gives rise to its own peculiar form of necessi- ty. The three main areas of human thought —metaphysics, science and ethics— should each give rise to their own form of necessity. Neither form of necessity can be subsumed, defined, or otherwise understood by reference to any other forms of necessity; and any other form of necessity, if my survey is complete, can be understood by reference to them. … I must admit to finding some satisfaction in the thought that the three main areas of human inquiry—metaphy- sics, science, and ethics—should each give rise to their own form of necessity” (Fine 2005: 260). REVUS 46.indd 103 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 104 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ángeles Ródenas trimonio; lo que pretendemos señalar es que no hay razones, desde el punto de vista de la racionalidad práctica o moral, para excluir de la institución a las parejas del mismo sexo.22 Pero, obviamente, este no puede ser método de cribado de los conceptos que Raz y Redondo defienden ya que llevaría, en último extremo, a incurrir en la primera de las dos reducciones criticadas por Redondo: supondría identificar las propiedades necesarias y distintivas de los conceptos institucionales pasán- dolos por un cribado de racionalidad práctica. 4.2 Las propiedades empíricamente necesarias: el tamiz de la constancia Alternativamente, otra forma de apropiarnos de los rasgos necesarios de los conceptos institucionales sería tratar de determinar lo que de empíricamente necesario hay en los mismos. Volviendo al ejemplo del matrimonio, cuando afirmamos que la pertenencia al género humano de los cónyuges es una carac- terística necesaria del concepto de matrimonio, podemos pretender señalar que ésta es una propiedad constante en todas las formas de matrimonio que se han generado a lo largo de la historia. Naturalmente, para determinar qué propiedades de un concepto institucio- nal resultan ser empíricamente necesarias no nos basta con la autocompresión de los sujetos involucrados en la práctica en un momento dado. Dicha auto- comprensión tiene que ser el punto de partida, pero, por utilizar un símil de las matemáticas, lo que precisamos es esclarecer el factor constante de los conceptos institucionales, despreciando los rasgos variables de dicha autocomprensión. ¿Cómo calcular entonces el factor constante de los conceptos instituciona- les? Recordemos que Redondo nos previene del localismo del método del posi- tivismo jurídico realista de Ross. En esta visión -señala Redondo- los hechos, propiedades o entidades institucionales, sencillamente no existen. En tal sentido, intentar describir o seleccionar las caracterí- sticas más relevantes de esta aparente ‘realidad’ institucional es una empresa absurda que se apoya en la falsa presuposición de que hay algo que puede ser objeto de tal descripción o individuación.23 Ahora bien, me parece que una visión algo más sofisticada de la metodo- logía Tû-Tû propuesta por Ross para el análisis de los conceptos jurídicos nos permitiría apropiarnos del factor constante de los conceptos institucionales, 22 Este es claramente el punto de vista de Dworkin, para quien –como Redondo nos recuerda en su trabajo– analizar o explicar este tipo de conceptos consiste en ofrecer una teoría sustantiva, en comprometerse con un conjunto de principios normativos que ofrezcan la mejor justifica- ción moral de las prácticas y normas concretas en las que consiste el tipo de institución a la que el concepto se aplica. 23 Redondo 2020: 110. REVUS 46.indd 104 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 105 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 La vida secreta de los conceptos sin renunciar por ello a una metodología empirista. Se trataría simplemente de superponer lo que intuimos que pueden ser diferentes instancias históricas de una misma institución tipo y descubrir los solapamientos en los antecedentes y en las consecuencias normativas asociadas. Por ejemplo, como he mencionado anteriormente, la pertenencia al género humano de los cónyuges es una propie- dad que permanece constante y, así, sería un rasgo empíricamente necesario del concepto institucional de matrimonio. ¿Sería para el positivismo normativista esta sofisticación del modelo Tû-Tû de Ross un tamiz adecuado para apropiarse de los rasgos necesarios de los con- ceptos institucionales? Sospecho que no. Al fin y al cabo esta versión del mode- lo de Ross, aunque ya no se limita al análisis de los conceptos jurídicos en un tiempo y lugar determinados, descansa también en una metodología empirista; asumir la versión que he propuesto nos llevaría a incurrir en la otra de las dos reducciones criticadas por Redondo: supondría inferir el contenido del concepto del contenido normativo constante de una serie histórica de sus concreciones. 4.3 Las propiedades lógicamente necesarias: el tamiz de la racionalidad conceptual En suma, al positivismo normativista no le interesa someter a los concep- tos institucionales ni al tamiz de la racionalidad práctica ni al de la constancia empírica para apropiarse de sus rasgos necesarios. Por el contrario, lo que al positivismo normativista le interesa son “instituciones lingüísticas de segundo nivel”, que son previas a las instituciones jurídico políticas reales, y de las que las instituciones reales constituyen instanciaciones. Y esto nos lleva a fijar la atención en la tercera forma de apropiarnos de los rasgos necesarios de los conceptos institucionales a las que antes he hecho alu- sión. Se trataría de determinar cuáles son sus propiedades lógicamente necesa- rias. Naturalmente, cuando aludo a las propiedades lógicamente necesarias de los conceptos no me estoy refiriendo a una necesidad lógica en sentido estricto, sino a una necesidad lógica en sentido amplio,24 en virtud de la cual, las propie- dades necesarias de los conceptos serían aquellas que de manera necesaria se infieren lógicamente de verdades conceptuales básicas. De ahí que este tipo de necesidad lógica en sentido amplio sea llamada también necesidad metafísica.25 24 “Given the notion of metaphysical necessity, the various narrower notions of can each be defined by restriction. Each of these other forms of necessity can, in other words, be regarded as a species of metaphysical necessity” (Fine 2005: 235 y ss.). 25 “Many philosophers of the ‘old school’ would take it to be that of logical necessity in the nar- row sense. This is the sense in which it is necessary that anything red is red, though not neces- sary that nothing red is green or that I am a person. The philosophers of the ‘new school’, on the other hand, would take the single underlying notion to be that of logical necessity in the broad sense or what is sometimes called ‘metaphysical’ necessity. This is the sense of necessity which obtains in virtue of the identity of things (broadly conceived).Thus in this sense not REVUS 46.indd 105 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 106 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ángeles Ródenas 5 LA ESENCIA DEL POSITIVISMO JURÍDICO NORMATIVISTA Si las propiedades necesarias de los conceptos que el positivismo norma- tivista anda buscando son aquellas que de manera lógicamente necesaria se infieren de verdades conceptuales básicas, cabe preguntarse hasta qué punto es coherente este esencialismo lingüístico con su programa positivista de cien- cia del Derecho. La Escuela de la Exégesis, la Jurisprudencia de Conceptos y el Formalismo Jurisprudencial ya transitaron hace más de un siglo por ese cami- no y su propuesta se dio de bruces con “la revuelta contra el formalismo”, un movimiento de reacción frente al carácter metafísico e idealista de las escuelas formalistas anteriores. El éxito del positivismo jurídico normativista supondría una repetición cíclica de la historia. Pero, sobre todo, cabe preguntarse por la utilidad de la empresa analítica del positivismo normativista. Redondo defiende la superioridad del enfoque del positivismo normativista –frente al positivismo jurídico realista y al enfoque interpretativista– debido a que el enfoque normativista permite, sin caer en contradicción, identificar una institución y contemporáneamente sostener que no disponemos con relación a ella de ninguna teoría adecuada, inteligi- ble, o verdadera, capaz de justificarla.26 Pero yo creo que un juicio de las características anteriores se obtiene de com- binar una aproximación a los conceptos institucionales de tipo empirista, que nos lleva a afirmar que instituciones como la brujería han existido, y una de tipo valorativo, que nos lleva a afirmar que no existe ninguna teoría capaz de justifi- carla. Por el contrario, no veo cómo el positivismo normativista podría sustentar ninguna de ambas afirmaciones (ni mucho menos la conjunción de las mismas): la empresa analítica del positivismo normativista, por sí misma, no permite dis- criminar ni (i) entre instituciones reales e instituciones imaginarias ni (ii) entre instituciones racionalmente justificadas y no justificadas (como la brujería). Naturalmente, nada de lo que hasta aquí he sostenido niega la necesidad de una empresa analítica de reconstrucción de los conceptos institucionales. Pero only is it necessary that anything red is red or that nothing is both red and green, but also that I am person or that 2 is a number” (Fine 2005: 235 y ss.). “Suppose one starts with the narrow notion of logical necessity (or with some other suitably narrow notion). The main problem will then be to define the broader notions of necessity; and the obvious way to do this is by relativization. Now let it be granted that there are some basic conceptual truths – perhaps given by the definitions of the various concepts - and that the class of such truths can be defined without appeal to any modal notions (besides logical ne- cessity). We might then define a proposition Q to be a conceptual necessity if it follows from the definitions, i.e. if the conditional, if P then Q, is logically necessary for some conjunction P of basic conceptual truths. The conceptually necessary truths, in other words, may be taken to be those that are logical necessary relative to or conditional upon the basic conceptual truths” (Fine 2005: 235 y ss.). 26 Redondo 2020: 125. REVUS 46.indd 106 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 107 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 La vida secreta de los conceptos pienso que esta empresa analítica sólo puede tener sentido como un enfoque auxiliar, coadyuvante de los otros dos enfoques –el planteamiento reduccionista no localista que he defendido y el interpretativista- que serían las perspectivas que ofrecen criterios para seleccionar las propiedades necesarias de los concep- tos institucionales. Si la empresa analítica se concibe como un enfoque auxiliar, no me parece que el positivismo jurídico normativista marque una diferencia significativa respecto del reduccionismo rossiano o el interpretativismo dworkiniano, hasta el extre- mo de justificar que el positivismo jurídico normativista pueda ser considerado como un enfoque sobre los conceptos jurídicos alternativo a los otros dos: si toda la propuesta analítica de reconstrucción de los conceptos institucionales del po- sitivismo jurídico se reduce al análisis lingüístico de los conceptos jurídicos, no parece existir nada propio y distintivo en este enfoque: ¡claro que para recons- truir conceptualmente una institución jurídica necesitamos del lenguaje!, pero este requerimiento está ya satisfecho por los enfoques de Dworkin y de Ross. En suma, creo que el enfoque del positivismo jurídico normativista presenta más inconvenientes que ventajas: si lo que el positivismo jurídico normativista propone es un criterio propio y diferenciado que permita identificar los rasgos necesarios de los conceptos jurídicos institucionales, no veo cómo puede esca- par a la acusación de esencialismo; pero, alternativamente, si renuncia a este criterio distintivo, y lo que simplemente sostiene es que a la hora de reconstruir conceptos jurídicos institucionales precisamos llevar a cabo análisis lingüísti- cos, entonces estamos ante una tesis verdadera, pero trivial. Bibliografía: Carrió, G. (1965). Notas sobre Derecho y lenguaje. Abeledo-Perrot. Du Pasquier (1942). Introduction à la théorie gé- nérale et a la philosophie du droit. Delachaux & Niestle Verlag. Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. Fontana Press. Dworkin, R. (2006). Justice in Robes. Harvard University Press. Dworkin, R. (2011). Justice for Hedgehogs. Harvard University Press. Esmein (1900). Le droit comparé et l’enseignement du droit. Revue historique de droit français et étranger, XXIV, 489-499. Esteve J.L. (1956). Sobre el concepto de “Naturaleza jurídica”. Anuario de filosofía del Derecho, 4, 159- 182. Fine, K. (2005). The Varieties of Necessity. En Modality and Tense: Philosophical Papers (pp. 235-260). Oxford University Press. Heck, P. (1948a). Jurisprudencia de Intereses (trad. de Manuel González Enríquez). Colegio notar- ial de Madrid. http://www.cnotarialmadrid.org/ nv1024/paginas/TOMOS_ACADEMIA/004-10- HECK_PHILIPP_04_1948.pdf Heck, P. (1948b). The Formation of Concepts and the Jurisprudence of Interest. En The Juris- prudence of Interests (pp. 99-256). Harvard Uni- versity Press. Raz, J. (1998). Two Views of the Nature of The Theory of Law. Legal Theory, 4, 249-282. Redondo, M. C. (2020). Institutional Concepts: A Critical View on the Reductionist and Inter- pretive Approaches, Revus. Journal for Consti- tutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 40, 103- 126. Ross, A. (1957). Tû-tû. Harvard Law Review, 70(5), 812-825. (Originally published in 1951.) von Jhering, R. (1933). En el cielo de los conceptos jurídicos. En Jurisprudencia en broma y en serio (pp. 215-264). Editorial Revista de derecho pri- vado. REVUS 46.indd 107 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 REVUS 46.indd 108 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 109 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 revus (2022) 46, 109–120 Ángeles Ródenas* The secret life of concepts (Or on the art of winnowing concepts) This paper aims to critically examine Redondo’s characterization of normative legal positivism’s theory of legal concepts, as well as to set forth some potential strategies for defending the two other theories of legal concepts that Redondo criticizes: Dworkinian interpretivism and Rossian reductionism. Keywords: Redondo (Maria Cristina), normative legal positivism, theory of legal concepts, Ross (Alf ), Dworkin (Ronald), institutional concepts, necessary properties of concepts, conceptual jurisprudence, legal institutions 1 INTRODUCTION In her article “Institutional concepts: A critical view on the reductionist and interpretive approaches”,1 Cristina Redondo reflects on three analytical ap- proaches to legal concepts, which she calls the reductionist approach, the in- terpretive approach, and the normative legal positivism approach, respectively. Redondo presents these three approaches very clearly and also conducts a criti- cal evaluation of the first two approaches, comparing their weaknesses with the strengths of the normative legal positivism approach. Although Redondo insists that these three approaches are not incompatible, since they employ dif- ferent objects of study to different ends, both the subtitle of her article—“A criti- cal view on the reductionist and interpretive approaches”—and her defence of normative legal positivism suggest her preference for this third approach. This paper aims to critically examine Redondo’s defence of normative posi- tivism’s theory of institutional legal concepts. In section 2, I will summarize, as concisely as possible, her description of the three approaches mentioned above. In section 3, I will briefly describe how she evaluates the achievements of these three approaches by testing their ability to reconstruct the legal concept of witchcraft, and at the same time I will present some potential strategies for defending the reductionist and interpretive approaches from her critiques. The core of my disagreement with Redondo then appears in the final two sections. In section 4, I explain how normative legal positivism can “identify the distinc- tive and necessary properties of concepts”. Finally, in section 5, I question the * angeles.rodenas@ua.es | Associate professor of Philosophy of Law, University of Alicante (Spain). 1 Redondo 2020: 103-127. REVUS 46.indd 109 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 110 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ángeles Ródenas supposed advantages that Redondo attributes to the normative positivism ap- proach to analysing institutional legal concepts. 2 THREE APPROACHES TO INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL CONCEPTS As mentioned in the introduction, Redondo carries out an analysis of three possible approaches to institutional legal concepts, which she calls the reduc- tionist approach, the interpretive approach, and the normative legal positivism approach, respectively. 2.1 Dworkin’s interpretive approach Redondo uses as a model of the interpretative approach Dworkin’s inter- pretive conception of law. As we know, Dworkin distinguishes between three types of concepts: criterial concepts, natural kind concepts, and interpretative concepts.2 Both criterial concepts and natural kind concepts provide a test for their own correct application. For criterial concepts, the test depends on the agreements or conventions existing in the use of the concept, while, for natural kind concepts, the test depends on the natural essence or structure (physical or biological) of the examples or instances of the concept at issue. Unlike criterial concepts and natural kind concepts, interpretative concepts, such as law, are sensitive to the values that those using them attribute to the objects to which the concepts are applied. Thus, for example, all legal theory, even when it does not identify or analyse it expressly, uses a concept of law. Although Dworkin was concerned only with the concept of law, and not with specific legal concepts like jurisdiction, the republic, the family, etc., Redondo argues—correctly, in my opinion—that Dworkinian interpretivism can be extended to these more limited normative institutions, since it presupposes the same type of interpreta- tive attitude that underlies the concept of law in general. 2.2 Ross’s reductionist approach The second approach that Redondo considers in her article is the reduction- ist or realist approach, which is based on the Rossian model.3 As we know, Ross argues that some legal concepts, such as “property”, lack a reference point, since their function is to operate as terms of connection, replacing, in some cases, a disjunction of determining facts and, in others, a conjunction of normative con- sequences. For example, when we say: “The owner can receive the fruits and dis- pose of them”, the word “owner” replaces and summarizes the disjunction of facts 2 Dworkin 2006: 9-12; Dworkin 2011: 158-163. 3 Ross 1957: 818-821. REVUS 46.indd 110 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 111 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 The secret life of concepts that, according to a specific legal system, condition the normative consequences there mentioned (i.e. the right to receive and dispose of the fruits). On other oc- casions, the term “property” or “owner” serves to replace a combination of fore- seen normative consequences. For example, when we say: “A person who receives something through sale, inheritance, or prescription is the owner of that thing.” In this case, we are using the word “owner” instead of reporting the entire list of duties, prohibitions, and rights established by the legal system for this type of case. In Redondo’s view, legal concepts thus understood do not identify a general type or class of institution (or entity, property, or institutional fact), but rather specific institutions, that is, combinations of norms that are in force in a set place and time. Legal concepts are only a summary or a brief manner of presenting the norms that make up a given institution. As such, Redondo argues that using Ross’s approach to try to describe or select the most relevant characteristics of this apparent institutional “reality” is an absurd task that is based on the false as- sumption that there is something that can be the object of such a description or individuation. Analysing a legal institutional concept consists in showing how it reduces to a combination of norms existing in a specific place and time. Later on, I will return to Ross’s approach in order to offer a reconstruction (one that is somewhat more charitable than Redondo’s reconstruction) that shows the full potential of this approach, leaving aside the question of whether or not it is more faithful to Ross’s original intent. 2.3 Raz’s (and Redondo’s) normative positivism approach The third approach that Redondo considers is normative positivism, for which she uses Raz as a model. According to normative legal positivism, Redondo writes, it is possible to identify concepts that define types of legal institutions. For example, specific legal institutions, such as money, the monarchy, property, as well as the more general legal institution that we call “law” or “legal order”. A concept, such as it is un- derstood by this position, is a group of distinctive properties which the examples (or at least the paradigmatic examples) that fall into its field of application necessarily satisfy.4 Viewed from this perspective, “a legal concept is a linguistic institution en- dowed with a semantic content that defines a kind of legal institution and refers to concrete legal institutions endowed with legal—political or moral—content”.5 3 THE WITCHCRAFT TEST To assess the achievements of these three approaches, Redondo tests their capacity to reconstruct the legal concept of “witchcraft”. In this section, I will 4 Redondo 2020: 111. 5 Redondo 2020: 112. REVUS 46.indd 111 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 112 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ángeles Ródenas briefly present the disadvantages that Redondo attributes to the first two ap- proaches, and the advantages that she sees in normative legal positivism. 3.1 Ross’s localism and scepticism According to Redondo, a proposal like Ross’s would suffer from two great difficulties that would prevent it from giving an account of the general institu- tional concept of “witch” or “witchcraft”. First, on the one hand, this concept would collapse into “the contingency con- tained within this example, of this institution having a specific time and place”, and that, “[a]t the same time, … the general concept that allows us to identify the existence of examples of institutions of the same type is hidden from view.”6 I will call this first objection raised by Redondo against Ross the localism objection. Second, on the other hand, Ross, in his 1951 work, associates the acceptance of entities as properties of institutional facts, to the acceptance of entities as prop- erties of merely apparent facts, generated by primitive superstitions. Specifically, Alf Ross compares our belief that under certain circumstances there are certain facts or institutional properties, to the belief of members of a primitive tribe where under certain circumstances an individual becomes tû-tû. In this analogy, he equates the acceptance and justification of statements referring to entities or institutional properties, which can be perfectly explained on empirical founda- tions compatible with our scientific knowledge, with the acceptance and justifi- cation of statements referring to entities of a magical nature, whose admission can be considered systematically false, and that should be rejected.7 I will call this second objection raised by Redondo against Ross the scepti- cism objection. I will address the localism objection in section 4, where I will attempt to offer a reconstruction of Ross’s approach that resists Redondo’s critique. Here, I ad- dress only the scepticism objection, and to do this it is necessary to contextualize his proposal. When Ross draws an analogy between being tû-tû and being an owner, his focus is on theories based on legal natures. What Ross intends to criticize is the idea that institutional legal concepts have an essence, and he pro- poses, instead, to explain them as terms that link conditioning facts and acts, on the one hand, and legal consequences, on the other. Let us not forget that the search for legal essences or natures is a flaw in the thinking of the Historical School and its heir, the Jurisprudence of Concepts; a flaw that, as Heck correctly points out, “has persisted in the legal theory of Continental Europe long since the flags of that romantic movement were 6 Redondo 2020: 119. 7 Redondo 2020: 119-120. REVUS 46.indd 112 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 113 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 The secret life of concepts lowered”8 and, one might add, since the second Jhering brought an end to the Jurisprudence of Concepts. Let’s examine some examples of how the people involved explain their search for legal natures. Esmein, for example, writes: Every institution, no matter which one, whether belonging to public law or private law, rests on a general idea of what is its application and development. This idea is a guiding principle and the rules that it confers consist only of the consequences that are deduced from that principle.9 Similarly, Du Pasquier writes: The nature of a legal institution consists of technical procedures: legal categories thro- ugh whose mediation the law achieves and sanctions the general idea that serves as a principle for that institution.10 In that “Heaven of legal concepts” (from which the Jhering advises jurists to descend11) concepts are a priori and legal institutions are a posteriori instantia- tions of essential concepts. As Heck critically observes: Conceptual Jurisprudence considered general scientific concepts to be fundamental causal concepts of law, that is to say, as the cause of legal norms … Today, this old causal theory is rejected. Even when opinions about the origins of law differ greatly, at their core they all agree that legal prescriptions go before their organization in general concepts.12 In line with Heck’s objection, Genaro Carrió, now more than fifty years ago, formulated a clear and robust critique of the search for legal natures: Debates about supposed legal natures, when those arguing clearly take responsibility neither for what they are seeking nor for the true cause of their disagreement are at once fruitless and unsolvable. These wasted efforts are originated, in this case, in the following: it is thought that each time that a combination of laws is presented with a specific unity, which makes one believe in a unified designation, that designation is the name of a sui generis entity, possessing some characteristic or central property from which are derived, as they generally say, all the rules of the sector at issue, as well as others that, although they are not expressly contained in it, are “engendered”—as the first—by the productive central idea, or legal nature.13 Might Redondo’s proposal be an attempt to resurrect the first Jhering? Recall that Redondo argues that normative legal positivism makes the most basic legal institutions depend on what she calls linguistic institutions, leaving the former subordinate to the latter: 8 Heck 1948b: 99-256. 9 Esmein 1900: 492ff. (cited in Esteve 1956). 10 Du Pasquier 1942: 150ff. (cited in Esteve 1956). 11 Jhering 1933: 215-264. 12 Heck 1948a: 527-528. 13 Carrió 1951: 102-103. REVUS 46.indd 113 20. 06. 2023 18:20:41 114 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ángeles Ródenas A fundamental point of the NLP [normative legal positivism] proposal is that legal institutions presuppose and are built using more basic institutions—linguistic institu- tions … In the vision of NLP it can be said that a relationship of stratification exists between these two types of institutions … An institutional legal concept constitutes an example or specific case of a linguistic institution. It is a linguistic institution that de- limits a type of legal institution and whose instances of application are specific exam- ples of legal institutions.14 Redondo continues: It is important to emphasize that, among the institutional concepts on the one hand, and the legal, political, or religious institutions on the other, there is a relationship of exemplification that is not an inferential one; even less one of identity. Between the content of an institutional concept and the existence of a specific institution that falls within its field of application, there is a necessary or constitutive relationship, i.e., the concept establishes a group of criteria that all cases of application necessarily satisfy.15 Later, I will try to demonstrate that, if normative legal positivism plans to defend a thesis about legal concepts that is not trivial and, as such, justifies its aspiration to be treated as an alternative approach, then the only possible re- sponse to my question as to whether Redondo is attempting to revive the first Jhering is in the affirmative. Redondo will need to adopt methodological pos- tulates that are quite close to those of the first Jhering’s model of legal science. Before developing this idea, however, let’s return briefly to Redondo’s criticism of Dworkin’s interpretivism, and give that approach the opportunity to be pre- sented in the best possible light. 3.2 Dworkin’s dilemma According to Redondo, in cases such as witchcraft, referring to institutions based on systematically false beliefs, Dworkin’s proposal can be reduced to absurdity: assuming it leads inevitably to a pragmatic contradiction. That is because it is not possible to adopt an interpretative attitude with respect to that type of institution and at the same time argue that it lacks all possible justification, which is what the theorist has reasons to argue in the type of case that was analyzed.16 I will call this objection raised by Redondo against interpretivism the Dworkin dilemma. I do not believe that this objection places Dworkin in any real dilemma. Throughout his work, Dworkin often responds to similar criticisms. For exam- ple, with respect to Nazi law, Dworkin argues—as Redondo recognizes—that in the face of Nazi law it is not possible to develop a justified interpretive at- titude.17 How, then, could interpretivism confront legal realities as radically un- 14 Redondo 2020: 112-113 (my emphasis). 15 Redondo 2020: 113 (my emphasis). 16 Redondo 2020: 124. 17 Dworkin 1986: 104-108. REVUS 46.indd 114 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 115 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 The secret life of concepts just as Nazi law or norms that punish witchcraft? I believe that the Dworkin of Law’s Empire would say that in both cases it would not be possible to proceed beyond the pre-interpretive phase (in which the legal materials are identified) to the interpretive and post-interpretive phases: since these phases are guided by practical rationality, access to them would be prohibited both for Nazi law and for the legal institution of witchcraft. The Dworkin of Justice in Robes, how- ever, could offer an even more sophisticated answer: in marginal cases like Nazi law or witchcraft, the doctrinal level of the Dworkinian concept of law is power- less to offer the best possible interpretation of legal practices in accordance with moral and political philosophy. Therefore, in such cases it would be necessary to resort to what Dworkin calls the adjudicative level. This is an inessential last level in the Dworkinian concept of law, at which the relevant question is no longer which is the best possible reconstruction of the practice in accordance with the law, but instead: in which cases is it necessary to depart from what the law is, and apply in its place moral considerations? I must admit that my sym- pathies lie with this hypothetical recommendation from Dworkin to the court that is responsible for judging cases of witchcraft. 3.3 The advantages of normative legal positivism In contrast with the difficulties of Ross and Dworkin, Redondo argues that normative legal positivism finds itself in a better position “to identify an institu- tion, and at the same time argue that we don’t have, in relation to it, an adequate, intelligible, or true theory that is capable of justifying it”.18 Undeniably echoing the first Jhering, Redondo explains that “pure concep- tual statements” can be critical for obtaining conclusions that allow us to solve problems in particular cases: Even when they are not possible to translate into statements about the content of the institutions which they allow us to identify, all institutional concepts delimit in a spe- cific way a kind of institution, and consequently, we can reach substantial conclusions about it that are very different from each other, according to how we have identified the concept … In any case, taking again the concept of law as an example, the pure conceptual statements that identify or analyze the content of this concept can be criti- cal when obtaining doctrinal or legal conclusions in a specific case.19 4 THE ART OF WINNOWING CONCEPTS We have now arrived at the Gordian knot of Redondo’s work. Redondo criti- cizes what she calls the thesis of translatability of the content of meta-theoretical conceptual theses belonging to normative positivism, either in theses relating to 18 Redondo 2020: 125 (my emphasis). 19 Redondo 2020: 113-114. REVUS 46.indd 115 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 116 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ángeles Ródenas the content of concrete legal institutions or in theses relating to their justifica- tion. In her critique of the thesis of translatability of legal concepts, Redondo allies herself with Raz and adopts his approach to institutional concepts. Here is where my greatest differences begin. According to Raz, we can identify criteriological meanings that highlight a combination of necessary and distinctive properties of social institutions such as law, monarchy and jurisdiction, without needing any value-based explana- tion or theorization.20 The “analysis”, in this case, takes as its starting point the necessary and characteristic qualities of a type of institution (i.e. a criterial con- cept) as understood by the participants, but it is independent of the content of the rules that those institutions contingently consist in. But how can we identify the necessary and distinctive properties of con- cepts? How can we analyse institutional concepts, discarding what is superflu- ous and focusing only on their necessary characteristics? I will argue that, depending on what we understand to be the necessary properties of an institutional concept, the process that we use to winnow insti- tutional concepts down to just their necessary characteristics will be different. Depending on what we plan to gain as a result of this winnowing, we will select either one process or another. There are at least three basic methods for determining the necessary proper- ties of institutional concepts. The method can concern (1) ethically necessary properties, (2) empirically necessary properties, or (3) logically necessary prop- erties. Depending on which idea of necessity interests us, we will choose a dif- ferent process of winnowing down the concepts.21 4.1 Ethically necessary properties: The practical rationality sieve Let’s begin with properties that are ethically necessary. If, in our approach to institutional concepts, we are looking to capture those properties that are justi- fied from the perspective of practical rationality, it seems essential to winnow down the institutional concepts using moral and political rationality. For exam- ple, when we assert that the spouses’ being of different sexes is not a necessary characteristic of the concept of marriage, we are not denying that, historically, 20 Raz 1998: 249-282. 21 “I conclude that there are three distinct sources of necessity —the identity of things, the natural order, and the normative order— and that each gives rise to its own peculiar form of necessity. The three main areas of human thought —metaphysics, science and ethics— should each give rise to their own form of necessity. Neither form of necessity can be subsumed, defined, or oth- erwise understood by reference to any other forms of necessity; and any other form of necessity, if my survey is complete, can be understood by reference to them. … I must admit to finding some satisfaction in the thought that the three main areas of human inquiry—metaphysics, science, and ethics—should each give rise to their own form of necessity” (Fine 2005: 260). REVUS 46.indd 116 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 117 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 The secret life of concepts same-sex couples have been denied access to marriage. What we are trying to point out is that there are no reasons, from the point of view of practical or moral rationality, to exclude same-sex couples from this institution.22 But, obviously, this cannot be the method of winnowing down concepts that Raz and Redondo defend, since it would, at its extreme, fall victim to the first of Redondo’s objections mentioned above; that is, it would entail identifying the necessary and distinctive properties of institutional concepts by submitting them to a practical rationality sieve. 4.2 Empirically necessary properties: The unchanging factor sieve Alternatively, another way to find the necessary elements of institutional concepts would be to determine which of their properties are empirically neces- sary. Returning to the example of marriage, when we assert that the spouses’ belonging to the human race is a necessary characteristic of the concept of mar- riage, we may attempt to demonstrate that this is a property that is constantly found in all known real23 forms of marriage. Naturally, to determine which of an institutional concept’s properties are empirically necessary, the self-understanding of the subjects involved in a given moment is insufficient. Such self-understanding has to be the starting point, but, mathematically speaking, what we need is to clarify the constant factor of institutional concepts, disregarding the variable characteristics of our self-un- derstanding. How, then, do we calculate the constant factor of institutional concepts? Recall that Redondo warns us of the localism of Ross’s method of realist legal positivism. Redondo writes: In this view, institutional facts, properties, or entities simply do not exist. In that sense, trying to describe or select the most relevant characteristics of this apparent institutio- nal “reality” is an absurd undertaking supported by the false presupposition that there is something that can be the object of such description or individuation.24 It seems to me, however, that a somewhat more sophisticated vision of the Tû-Tû methodology proposed by Ross for the analysis of legal concepts would allow us to find the constant factor of institutional concepts, without abandon- ing an empirical methodology. This would simply require superimposing what 22 This is clearly the view of Dworkin, for whom —as Redondo reminds us in her article—analys- ing or explaining the type of concept consists in offering a substantive theory, which commits to a combination of normative principles that provide the best moral justification of the spe- cific practices and norms that exemplify the type of institution to which the concept is applied. 23 In classical (Greek and Roman) mythology, human beings are married and have children with gods and goddesses very often. 24 Redondo 2020: 110. REVUS 46.indd 117 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 118 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ángeles Ródenas we understand to be different historic examples of the same type of institution and discovering the overlap in their antecedents, and in the associated norma- tive consequences. For example, as I mentioned earlier, the spouses’ belonging to the human race is a constant characteristic and, as such, empirically neces- sary to the concept of marriage. Would this more sophisticated model of Ross’s Tû-Tû methodology be an ad- equate process for determining the necessary characteristics of institutional con- cepts for normative positivism? I suspect not. At the end of the day, this version of Ross’s model, although it is no longer limited in its analysis of legal concepts to a specific place and time, still rests on an empirical methodology. So adopt- ing the version that I have proposed would lead us to fall victim to the other of Redondo’s two objections; that is, it would entail inferring the content of the con- cept of the constant normative content from its historical series of instantiations. 4.3 Logically necessary properties: The conceptual rationality sieve In sum, normative positivism is not interested in subjecting institutional concepts to the practical rationality sieve, or the unchanging factor sieve, to determine their necessary qualities. On the contrary, normative positivism is interested in the “second-level linguistic institutions” that predate real political legal institutions, and of which real institutions are instantiations. This brings us to the third way of finding the necessary qualities of institu- tional concepts to which I alluded above. This method concerns which prop- erties are logically necessary. Naturally, when I refer to the logically necessary properties of concepts, I am not referring to logical necessity in a strict sense, but rather to logical necessity in a broad sense,25 by virtue of which the neces- sary properties of concepts would be those that are inferred logically from basic conceptual truths in a necessary manner. Accordingly, such broad logical ne- cessity is also called metaphysical necessity.26 25 “Given the notion of metaphysical necessity, the various narrower notions of necessity … can each be defined by restriction. Each of them can be regarded as a species of metaphysical necessity” (Fine 2005: 237). 26 “Many philosophers of the ‘old school’ would take it to be that of logical necessity in the nar- row sense. This is the sense in which it is necessary that anything red is red, though not neces- sary that nothing red is green or that I am a person. The philosophers of the ‘new school’, on the other hand, would take the single underlying notion to be that of logical necessity in the broad sense, or what is sometimes called ‘metaphysical’ necessity. This is the sense of necessity that obtains in virtue of the identity of things (broadly conceived). Thus, in this sense not only is it necessary that anything red is red or that nothing is both red and green, but also that I am person or that 2 is a number” (Fine 2005: 236). “Suppose one starts with the narrow notion of logical necessity (or with some other suitably narrow notion). The main problem will then be to define the broader notions of necessity; and the obvious way to do this is by relativization … Now let it be granted that there are some REVUS 46.indd 118 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 119 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 The secret life of concepts 5 THE ESSENCE OF NORMATIVE LEGAL POSITIVISM If the necessary properties of concepts that normative positivism seeks are those that are logically necessary, on the basis of inferences derived from basic conceptual truths, then one wonders to what extent this linguistic essentialism is coherent with the positivist agenda of legal science. The School of Exegesis, the Jurisprudence of Concepts, and Jurisprudential Formalism followed this path for more than a century, and their proposal fell flat on its face with “the re- volt against formalism”, a movement that rejected the metaphysical and idealis- tic character of the older formalist schools. The success of Redondo’s normative legal positivism would entail a cyclical repetition of history. Above all, however, one questions the usefulness of the analytical undertak- ing of normative positivism. Redondo argues that the normative positivism ap- proach is superior—as compared to realist legal positivism and the interpretive approach—because the normative approach allows us, without falling into a contradiction, to identify an institution, and at the same time argue that we don’t have, in relation to it, an adequate, intelligible, or true theory that is capable of justifying it.27 I believe, however, that a judgement of the previous characteristics is obtained from combining an empirical approach to institutional concepts, which leads us to assert that institutions such as witchcraft have existed, with a value-based ap- proach, which leads us to assert that there is no theory capable of justifying this institution. As for normative positivism, I do not see how it can support either of these assertions (let alone the combination of the two). The analytical under- taking of normative positivism, alone, does not permit a distinction either (i) between real institutions and imaginary institutions, or (ii) between rationally justified institutions and unjustified institutions (such as witchcraft). Naturally, none of what I have argued so far negates the need for the ana- lytical task of reconstructing institutional concepts. Nevertheless, I think that this analytical task can only make sense as a secondary approach, supporting the other two approaches —the non-local reductionist approach that I have de- fended, and the interpretive approach—which would be the perspectives that offer criteria to select the necessary properties of institutional concepts. basic conceptual truths—perhaps given by the definitions of the various concepts—and that the class of such truths can be defined without appeal to any modal notions (besides logical necessity). We might then define a proposition Q to be a conceptual necessity if it follows from the definitions: that is, if the conditional, ‘if P then Q’, is logically necessary for some conjunction P of basic conceptual truths. The conceptually necessary truths, in other words, may be taken to be those that are logical necessary relative to, or conditional upon, the basic conceptual truths” (Fine 2005: 236). 27 Redondo 2020: 125. REVUS 46.indd 119 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 120 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ángeles Ródenas If the analytical task is conceived as a secondary approach, then norma- tive legal positivism does not seem to me to make a significant difference—in comparison with Rossian reductionism and Dworkinian interpretivism—to the point that it could justifiably be considered an alternative approach to legal con- cepts. If the entire analytical proposal of reconstructing the institutional con- cepts of legal positivism is reduced to the linguistic analysis of legal concepts, then there does not seem to be anything unique or distinctive to this approach: of course we need language to reconstruct a legal institution conceptually! But this requirement is already satisfied by Dworkin and Ross’s approaches. In conclusion, I believe that the normative legal positivism approach has more disadvantages than advantages. If what normative legal positivism pro- poses is its own differentiated criterion that enables the identification of the necessary characteristics of institutional legal concepts, then I do not see how it can evade accusations of essentialism. Alternatively, if it renounces this dis- tinctive criterion and simply asserts that we need to conduct linguistic analyses when reconstructing institutional legal concepts, then we are faced with a thesis that is true, but trivial. References: Carrió, G. (1965). Notas sobre Derecho y lenguaje. Abeledo-Perrot. Du Pasquier (1942). Introduction à la théorie gé- nérale et a la philosophie du droit. Delachaux & Niestle Verlag. Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. Fontana Press. Dworkin, R. (2006). Justice in Robes. Harvard Uni- versity Press. Dworkin, R. (2011). Justice for Hedgehogs. Harvard University Press. Esmein (1900). Le droit comparé et l’enseignement du droit. Revue historique de droit français et étranger, XXIV, 489-499. Esteve J.L. (1956). Sobre el concepto de “Naturaleza jurídica”. Anuario de filosofía del Derecho, 4, 159- 182. Fine, K. (2005). The Varieties of Necessity. In Modality and Tense: Philosophical Papers (pp. 235-260). Oxford University Press. Heck, P. (1948a). Jurisprudencia de Intereses (trad. de Manuel González Enríquez). Colegio notar- ial de Madrid. http://www.cnotarialmadrid.org/ nv1024/paginas/TOMOS_ACADEMIA/004-10- HECK_PHILIPP_04_1948.pdf Heck, P. (1948b). The Formation of Concepts and the Jurisprudence of Interest. In The Jurisprudence of Interests (pp. 99-256). Harvard University Press. Raz, J. (1998). Two Views of the Nature of The Theory of Law. Legal Theory, 4, 249-282. Redondo, M. C. (2020). Institutional Concepts: A Critical View on the Reductionist and Inter- pretive Approaches. Revus. Journal for Consti- tutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, 40, 103- 126. Ross, A. (1957). Tû-tû. Harvard Law Review, 70(5), 812-825. (Originally published in 1951.) von Jhering, R. (1933). En el cielo de los conceptos jurídicos. In Jurisprudencia en broma y en serio (pp. 215-264). Editorial Revista de derecho pri- vado. REVUS 46.indd 120 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 Re vu so v fo ru m SYMPOSIUM ON VISIONS OF CONSTITUTIONALISM: THEORY Edited by Donald Bello and Ana Cannilla Constitutional scholars are concerned with the pressing issues that liberal democracies face today and thus strive to rethink and im- prove the theory and practice of constitutionalism accordingly. By bringing together leading experts in constitutional and political theory to discuss relevant issues of constitutional government and democratic theory, this symposium on Visions of Constitutionali- sm responds to that concern. Readers of Revus will enjoy a wide range of novel approaches to constitutionalism. Bringing fresh ideas to the fore, rethinking core debates and developing key ideas in constitutional theory and practice, the symposium unfolds in two issues of Revus. In this issue our contributors originally point out challenges and shortco- mings of contemporary constitutional theory, dealing with them in ways that develop fruitful new philosophical lines of constituti- onal thought. In the next issue, our authors pose urgent questions of institutional design and shed light on how to make different vi- ews of constitutionalism work, ranging from theoretical proposals on how to institutionalize different forms of constitutionalism to relevant analysis on the institutional instantiations of constitutio- nal theories presenting themselves as alternatives to more traditio- nal approaches which underscore the role of constitutions as curbs on majoritarian political power. We hope the symposium will help readers assess whether or to what extent our received views of constitutionalism and institu- tional design are fit for the purpose of tackling current political challenges to liberal democracies. Examining sundry relevant pro- blems of constitutional theory and practice, our contributors pre- sent an ample breadth of perspectives that will add to the existing literature on constitutionalism and contribute to pushing the field of constitutional thought forward in relevant and original ways. REVUS 46.indd 121 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 REVUS 46.indd 122 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 123 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 revus (2022) 46, 123–138 Eoin Daly* Contesting the idea of disagreement as the circumstance of politics Many political and legal philosophers believe that disagreement forms part of the “cir- cumstances of politics”, even to a point where we might say that disagreement is the definitive circumstance of politics. That is to say, disagreement is understood as a central problem of politics, with which the enterprise of constitutional design is centrally con- cerned. Disagreement is both insoluble and is constitutive and characteristic of politics as such. And, for the most part, liberal and republican theorists dispute only the subject or extent of disagreement, with Rawls emphasizing disagreement as to questions of the good amidst a presumed consensus on questions of right or of justice, but with Bellamy and Waldron arguing that disagreement extends to questions of right as well as good, and that constitutions should be designed accordingly. In turn, such framings of disa- greement underlie questions of institutional design, most notably the problem of judicial review and its relation to democratic legitimacy. The purpose of this paper is to challenge this dominant understanding of disagreement as such as being a definitive circumstance of politics, and therefore, as a central problem of constitutional design. I make this ar- gument with reference to two thinkers in particular, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Pierre Bourdieu. Drawing on Bourdieu, I will argue that ostensible disagreement – as expressed in competing assertions or claims as to the right or the good – need not necessarily be framed in propositional terms, but can rather be understood as socially performative and as exercises of symbolic and social power. Thus, disagreement as such is not antecedent to political and social order but is rather constituted and formatted by it. In turn, I will argue that Rousseau’s constitutional projects can be understood as reflecting a similar in- sight. In contrast to Rawlsian liberalism, the fundamental problem of political order, for Rousseau, is not a propositional one at all, concerning disagreement as to the right or the good. The starting point of political order is not the search for the good (or the right), but rather, the problem of, and the need for recognition, as the social context within which claims of right and good are asserted. A central challenge of politics, then, is how it is possible to constitute a shared symbolic universe in which political communication and political discourse can assume transparent and non-dominating forms. I will conclude by offering examples as to how constitutional design can account for this problem. Keywords: disagreement, Rawls (John), Rousseau (Jean Jacques), constitutional design 1 INTRODUCTION Political theorists contest the extent to which disagreement in political life is insoluble or intractable, and conversely as to the range of agreement or con- sensus that is aimed at or assumed. On the one hand, normativist liberals led by Rawls assume intractable disagreement as to the good life, but build their * eoin.daly@nuigalway.ie | National University of Ireland, Galway (Ireland). REVUS 46.indd 123 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 124 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Eoin Daly theories on an assumed agreement or consensus as to justice itself.1 On the other hand, those I will call the procedural republicans, led by Bellamy and Waldron, reject the idea of basing political unity or stability on substantive moral consen- sus, or on any “overlapping consensus” of comprehensive doctrines, and instead they contend that disagreement extends to questions of justice as well as ques- tions of the good.2 For a realist sensibility, it seems important to understand dis- agreement – as to the good and the right – as being part of, or even as defining the circumstances of politics, as the set of circumstances that define politics and make it necessary. However, I will argue that a better realist response to norma- tivist liberalism – compared with that exemplified by the procedural republicans – is not to contest the range or extent of disagreement and its insolubility in politics, but rather to challenge the centrality of agreement (and disagreement) as central concerns of statecraft and political thought. I will make this argument – for a different realist approach to agreement and disagreement – with refer- ence to two, ostensibly very different thinkers, Rousseau and Bourdieu. Both are skeptical, at least implicitly, as to the political relevance or centrality of disagree- ment, because both view political argument itself not primarily as propositional, but rather as socially performative, as an exercise of social and symbolic power and as a site of insidious domination. The suggests that the starting point of po- litical order is neither the search for agreement on the good (or the right), nor the establishment of an agreed decision-procedure in contexts of disagreement, but rather, the difficulty of establishing political communication in a social con- text defined by intractable inequalities of symbolic power. A central challenge of politics, then, is how it is possible to constitute a shared symbolic universe in which political communication and political discourse can assume transparent and non-dominating forms. I will conclude by offering examples as to how con- stitutional design can account for this problem. 2 SPEECH, ARGUMENT, DOMINATION: ROUSSEAUIAN INSIGHTS While Rawls suggests that reasonable pluralism3 – the coexistence of con- tradictory comprehensive doctrines – is the central problem and the starting point, so to speak of political theory and constitutional design, such considera- tions are curiously absent in Rousseau’s thought. In fact, he depicts the starting point of politics in a radically different way. The central problem of politics is not that citizens disagree about conceptions of the good, or indeed about justice 1 Rawls 1996. 2 E.g. Bellamy 2007; Waldron 2006. 3 Rawls 1996. REVUS 46.indd 124 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 125 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Contesting the idea of disagreement as the circumstance of politics either; it is not in fact that they disagree, as such, at all. It is, rather, that any such disagreements take place in a context of what we might now call symbolic pow- er and symbolic violence.4 And Rousseau’s constitutional preoccupations differ accordingly. The challenge of constitutional design is not to establish stability and consensus amidst disagreement as to the good; rather it is to constitute a shared symbolic universe in which political communication can occur in non- dominating ways.5 Thus political unity or stability can be grounded neither in a principled moral consensus nor in the agreement-procedure itself. 2.1 The genealogy of domination Rousseau’s skepticism as to reasonable pluralism is evident in the historical genealogy he sets out in the second Discourse, which speculatively describes the emergence of domination and servitude in different stages following man’s exit from “nature”.6 A key event in this genealogy is first the emergence, and then the inflammation of man’s amour-propre, a form of self-love that is consum- mated by external recognition. Rousseau hypothesises that when the first socie- ties formed, “a value came to be attached to public esteem ... [to] whoever sang or danced best, [or] was the most eloquent ... and this was the first step towards inequality”.7 Man’s “rank and condition” came to depend not only on his “prop- erty and power”, but also his “wit, beauty and talent” – including particularly his “eloquence” – an attribute which it became necessary to “possess or affect”.8 Thus with the emergence of both first property and then social complexity, so- ciety becomes a “frenzy for distinction”,9 as man’s psychological needs, and thus his propensity to both dominate and be dominated, grow exponentially. Thus the genesis of social domination lay not solely in brute coercion or even mate- rial inequality, but rather in the emergent need for recognition – as humans begin to “live in the opinion of others”.10 And Rousseau’s conjecture was that this corruptible sociability became inflamed in the world of the early moderns, as opportunities and incentives for insidious forms of self-distinction exponen- tially grow, in particular with the emergence of luxury and the refined arts. While Rousseau, like other republicans, understands domination as subjec- tion to the alien other condition of being subject to the powers of an alien other, he identifies domination, then, not just with dependency on the will of others, 4 Daly 2017. 5 Daly 2017. 6 Rousseau 1755/2008. 7 Rousseau 1755/2008: 141. 8 Rousseau 1755/2008: 141. 9 Rousseau 1755/2008: 142. 10 Rousseau 1755/2008: 142. REVUS 46.indd 125 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 126 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Eoin Daly but also with dependency on their recognition.11 And dependency on recogni- tion leads to domination in a number of respects. In particular, it means hier- archy and subordination become deeply insidious, compared with the earliest stages of society. Following the development and inflammation of amour-pro- pre, social hierarchy assumes symbolic forms; the “great and rich” distinguish themselves and cement their status by creating “a different symbolic universe” and “trapping the rest into believing”.12 Social power is increasingly exercised as symbolic power, and it is internalised by its subjects, leading to a form of what we might now call symbolic violence or symbolic domination. Ostensibly in- nocent pursuits, particularly culture and arts, become instruments of hierarchy, driven by a “desire for distinction”.13 For Rawls, by contrast, the historical context for the “political” conception of justice – the historical starting-point from which the need for such a concep- tion of justice is appraised – arises with the early-modern Wars of Religion, and relatedly, with the “fact of pluralism”.14 Thus, it is a conflict based on doc- trines and beliefs. The ‘circumstances of justice’ are predicated on a proposi- tional problem of disagreement, and it is around this presumed starting point on which much of liberal political though centres. For Rousseau, by contrast, the context for constitutional design arises much more primordially with the inflammation of amour-propre and the emergence of social distinctions and hi- erarchies that are based on symbolic power. The departure point of political theory, then, is not the propositional problem of disagreement, at all, but rather a problem of performativity, within social interaction and communication, that leads to symbolic domination. 2.2 Discourse as domination Rousseau’s pessimistic view of social practice, in liberal and commercial society, applies with particular force to political discourse. Notoriously, he is deeply apprehensive towards political deliberation and speech as potentially de- structive practices.15 Seeing dissensus and debate as signs of factionalism, he argued that, far from having an illuminating or emancipatory effect, political discussion would actually prevent citizens from discerning the “general will”. He suggests that the general will would emerge when citizens are informed but have “no communication with one another”; while “long debates, dissensions and tumult herald the rise of particular interests and the decline of the State”.16 11 E.g. Gauthier 2006. 12 Dobel 1986: 651. 13 Barber & Forman 1978: 547. 14 Rawls 1996: ch. 1. 15 E.g. Daly 2017: ch. 4. 16 Rousseau 1988/1762: II, ch. 3. REVUS 46.indd 126 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 127 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Contesting the idea of disagreement as the circumstance of politics When the general will prevails, “there are no embroilments or conflicts of inter- ests; the common good is everywhere clearly apparent, and only good sense is needed to perceive it”.17 Thus he prefers the solemn sanctity of voting itself, over deliberative processes which he views as susceptible to manipulation and abuse. Thus “there is no question of ploys (brigues) or eloquence in order to secure the passage into law of what every one has already decided to do”.18 Far from the act of voting being or disciplined by deliberation, it is protected from it, an insight which he illustrates with classical reference: As for the method of taking the vote, it was among the ancient Romans as simple as their mores, although not so simple as at Sparta. Everyone declared his vote aloud, and a clerk duly wrote it down; the majority in each tribe determined the vote of the tribe, the majority of the tribes that of the people, and so with curiæ and centuries. This custom was good as long as honesty prevailed among the citizens, and each man was ashamed to vote publicly in favour of an unjust proposal or an unworthy subject; but, when the people grew corrupt and votes were bought, it was fitting that voting should be secret in order that purchasers might be restrained by distrust, giving rogues the means of not being traitors.19 Certainly, other republican thinkers, ancient and modern, understood the potential abuses of different modes of political discourse – not only of “delib- eration” as it is now called, but especially of oratory, rhetoric and so on.20 But generally, deliberation, subject to constraint, is otherwise understood as a foil to political domination. What makes Rousseau’s view distinctive, then, is his understanding of discourse and deliberation as such – as processes centring os- tensibly on disagreement and agreement – as being inherently suspect. They are inherently suspect because they offer sources of distinction, and thus outlets for corrupted amour-propre and accordingly, represent sources of insidious social hierarchy and of domination. They are part of the performative theatricality of early-modern commercial societies, the world of the phoney bourgeois who is concerned with refinement and manners over virtue and action. For Arendt, by contrast, political speech is a form of political action, through which men insert themselves in the public realm, and for Atlanticist neo-republicans like Pettit, it is a way of subjecting public power to democratic control through the forma- tion of common interests, but for Rousseau, it is – in the liberal social universe – an instrument of artifice, of deception and ultimately of political domina- tion.21 In a sense, then, he rejects the kind of optimistic assumptions frequently made by deliberative-democracy theorists concerning the nature of delibera- tion itself as a social activity – that it can be rendered benign, sincere, egalitar- 17 Rousseau 1988/1762: II, ch. 3. 18 Rousseau 1988/1762: II, ch. 3. 19 Rousseau 1988/1762: IV, ch. 4. 20 E.g. Remer 1999. 21 Arendt 1977. REVUS 46.indd 127 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 128 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Eoin Daly ian and so on.22 Such theories imagine that Habermas’ idealised description of the 18th century bourgeois public sphere – an elite and solidaristic space – can realistically be extended across a heterogenous mass society.23 Instead, Rousseau understands political speech as offers a mechanism of dis- tinction and thus, of symbolic domination. Indeed, he explicitly associates the development of inequality with the emergence of “eloquence”, and thus of per- formativity in speech, in the first societies. And it is because amour-propre en- genders performativity-in-speech that Rousseau downplays the propositional aspect of speech in favour of its function in relation to recognition and social distinction. In terms of the social mechanics of political speech, Rousseau, like later thinkers, recognises that discussion and speech are not primarily cognitive, but rather social competences, and that speakers are evaluated on rationally arbitrary grounds, based on the mastery of speech as a social technique (what he refers to as “eloquence”), rather than as participants in an intellectual exercise. Speech, in this view, is appraised based on what Pierre Bourdieu calls the habitus,24 the set of unconsciously acquired techniques through which agents navigate “fields” of social power and acquire a “feel for the game”. And correspondingly, “domi- nated agents ... tend to attribute to themselves what the distribution [of value and status] attributes to them, reproducing in their verdict on themselves the verdict [pronounced] on them”.25 Like Rousseau, Bourdieu argues that the so- cial authority or efficacy of speech depends, in practice, on a morally arbitrary “articulatory style” – encompassing factors as ostensibly mundane as “accents, gestures, intonations, and other bodily techniques for speaking”.26 This view finds support in contemporary political theory. Hayward has shown that the persuasiveness of political speech depends on considerations of “form and “style”, that are linked to the dominant habitus – and that this inequality cannot be overcome by the safeguards that have sometimes been suggested by deliberative-democracy theorists.27 As Olson argues, “people of dominant identities are ascribed greater competence than others, and not co- incidentally those people are more likely to have political opinions and feel en- titled to express them” .28 Those unwilling or unable to deliberate, or who find themselves dominated in deliberation, may simply lack the required habitus; in Bourdieusian terms, “persons lacking the linguistic competences valorized 22 E.g. Chambers 2003. 23 Dryzek 2001. 24 Bourdieu 1987. 25 Bourdieu 1987: 452. 26 Olson 2011: 533. 27 Hayward 2004. 28 Olson 2011: 535. REVUS 46.indd 128 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 129 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Contesting the idea of disagreement as the circumstance of politics in particular social and institutional domains are de facto excluded from par- ticipation in them”.29 Notwithstanding formal processes for inclusion, people’s “linguistic-bodily competence” may represent a barrier to authoritative political speech. The social efficacy of speech has been shown to depend on arbitrary cri- teria that Bourdieu argues are efficacious because “they function below the level of consciousness and language, beyond the reach of introspective scrutiny”.30 Thus Rousseau presages a later branch of critical linguistics that “sought to explore and expose how language is used as a tool for power, a means of concealment and method of marginalisation”.31 Political speech may become “a weapon to leave individuals in a state of befuddled inferiority”.32 It is this sceptical view of political speech that underlies his disparaging reference to the “refined flourishes” of political speech,33 and his allusion in The Social Contract to those “political subtleties” – essentially, sophisticated forms of discourse – that he understands as undermining political equality.34 This invites us to reappraise the emancipatory potential of political speech. Topper argues that while Arendt focuses on the political consequences of cit- izens’ “loss of voice”, Bourdieu is more centrally concerned by “the often in- conspicuous ways in which language itself becomes a mechanism of silenc- ing, domination, or exclusion”.35 Arendt, Topper suggests, overlooks the po- litical significance of “social distinctions embodied in and expressed through speech”.36 Bourdieu, in contrast, shows that “domination and exclusion are en- acted through concrete linguistic exchanges.37 By contrast, liberalism and liberal neo-republicanism – theories that most tend to valorise disagreement, deliberation and speech – offer unconvincing explanations of why citizens decline to deliberatively participate. Philip Pettit, for example, suggests that while non-domination means we should be able to “eyeball” others – to look them in the eye without ingratiation or deference – we sometimes may simply decline to look others in the eye because of natural timidity38. From a Bourdieusian perspective, this overlooks the subtleties of so- 29 Topper 2011: 354. 30 Bourdieu 1987: 466. 31 Finlayson 201: 315. 32 Dobel 1986: 655. 33 Rousseau 1755/2008: 142. 34 Rousseau 1988/1762 : IV, ch. 1. 35 Topper 2011: 354. 36 Topper 2011: 357. 37 Topper 2011: 358. 38 Pettit 2013: 84-5, 169. REVUS 46.indd 129 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 130 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Eoin Daly cial domination, forgetting how the “ordinary violences” of social practice are “inconspicuous and gentle”.39 Moreover, liberals and liberal neo-republicans tend to overlook how, far from reconciling differences, deliberation itself constitutes distinctive but in- sidious grounds of social distinction. For Rousseau and Bourdieu, political ex- pression cannot be conceptualised primarily as a form of “identity disclosure”,40 because we do not use political speech primarily to disclose our identities in the Arendtian sense – or perhaps our conceptions of the good in the Rawlsian sense – but rather simply to distinguish ourselves. Both share the insight, described by Kohn, that “miscommunication and manipulation are not accidental ... but part of the nature of language itself ”.41 To conclude this section, Rousseau believes that a stable republican commu- nity is based not on discussion and agreement, on political speech or delibera- tion, or indeed on an intellectual consensus derived from or aimed at proposi- tional questions, at all. Rather it is based on austerity, which, in his understand- ing secures a transparent social universe and a communicative sphere free of encoded complexity and symbolic violence. He says: “honest (droit) and simple men are difficult to deceive because of their simplicity; illusions (leurres) and refined pretences (pretexts) fail to impose upon them, and they are not even subtle enough to be dupes.” Thus, effective political communication occurs not through complex deliberation or reason-giving but based on a wider social aus- terity that precludes subtle forms of domination. He continues: “When, among the happiest people in the world, bands of peasants are seen regulating affairs of State under an oak, and always acting wisely, can we help scorning the ingen- ious methods of other nations, which make themselves illustrious and wretched with so much art and mystery?42 2.3 Agreement, disagreement and political unity What can we conclude from this overview, then, regarding Rousseau’s un- derstanding of agreement and disagreement in politics? On the one hand, “reasonable pluralism” – or simply, the diversity of conceptions of the good in liberal society – cannot simply be understood as an exercise or expression, as Rawls claims,43 of man’s “moral powers”. Rather, such doctrines are held and performed within a corrupt moral universe that is structured around distinc- tion, symbolic power, and amour-propre. Therefore, a stable political conception of justice cannot be based on any overlapping consensus between comprehen- 39 Topper 2011: 355. 40 Topper 2011: 359. 41 Kohn 2000: 410. 42 Rousseau 1988/1762: Book IV, ch. 1. 43 Rawls 1996. REVUS 46.indd 130 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 131 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Contesting the idea of disagreement as the circumstance of politics sive doctrines, because these competing doctrines themselves emerge within the fragmented symbolic and social order of liberal society; such identities arise and are formed or formatted within competitive social “fields” that are struc- tured by the distribution of social, cultural and symbolic capital. More gener- ally, republican stability, then, cannot be founded on an intellectual consensus, because the world of ideas, for Rousseau, is not a source of political unity, but rather a source of distinction and performativity. Indeed, Larmore has argued that the Rawlsian idea of people living based on a “conception of the good” or “life plan” is a “procrustean habit of thought” pecu- liar to philosophers, and itself an affirmation about the form of a good life - and going further again, the idea of a life lived in such a (broadly speaking) philo- sophical way is itself something of a philosopher’s affectation, something that is fanciful in “real life”.44 And while theorists of agonistic politics argue that delib- erative democracy is “incapable of processing deep difference”,45 Rousseau is fo- cused more on the arbitrariness and contingency of moral identity itself, viewing intellectual differentiation itself as a product and site of moral corruption. And crucially, while Rousseau’s insights on symbolic power discount the idea of political stability being derived from intellectual or rational consensus, his theory implies that disagreement, equally, occurs, and is performed in a context of symbolic power and symbolic violence. On the one hand, Rousseau clearly rejects the Machiavellian idea of fractiousness and tumult as a source of republican energy, fearing instability and discord from any conflict of political factions. On the other hand, his positions cast doubt on the procedural repub- lican stance now associated with Bellamy and Waldron, which posits disagree- ment itself – on the right as well as the good – as defining the “circumstances of politics.” Their stance is realist, in that it rejects the possibility of durable consensus concerning rights and justice. However, it still posits the procedure of argument, the procedure around disagreement, so to speak, as being itself the basis of republican and democratic stability. Thus, while citizens are pre- sumed, in this liberal-republican view, to disagree about justice and rights, they are nonetheless assumed to agree, to a sufficient extent, on the procedure for mediating such disagreement. This procedure is itself based on discussion and argument – processes that are themselves dubious as sources of political unity, for the reasons outlined. Indeed, the procedural republicans’ reasons for scepti- cism as to agreement on justice seem to apply with equal force, in many ways, to their idea of agreement on political procedure, because without a sufficient affective and motivational basis for political unity, there seems scant ground for republican stability in a decision-procedure that is itself supported by norma- tivist claims about equal respect, reason-giving and so on. 44 Larmore 1999: 96. 45 Dryzek 2005: 220. REVUS 46.indd 131 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 132 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Eoin Daly Thus, any procedural republicanism, centred on the problem of disagree- ment and its mediation, relies on the same mystique around the agreement- process – and its norms – that its exponents identify in the substantive prin- ciples or overlapping consensus of normativist liberalism. Moreover, the idea of the agreement-process as itself a source of political unity – a source which remains, in a sense, principled, rational and intellectual – seems equally bereft of motivational and affective force within highly differentiated, and atomized contemporary societies. Accordingly, it seems that theories positing disagreement as the circum- stance of politics, and as the central challenge of constitutional design, ironically seem to place groundless faith in the moral force of the agreement-procedure, in a manner that is just as dubious as the faith placed by normativist liberals in the substantive consensus itself. Moreover, because the antecedent agreement that supplies political unity is based on a decision-procedure, it runs up against many of the same objections that have been identified by critical theorists in relation to “deliberative democracy” – particularly in relation to the efficacy, transparency and fairness of speech itself. Its main institutional focus is the elected legislature, and its moral focus is the exchange of conflicting principled views in parliamentary debate, in particular. But this is as empirically and so- cially implausible as the Rawlsian emphasis on the substantive moral agreement that is institutionally expressed, typically, in judicial review. Despite aiming to institutionalize dissensus, it ends up relying, at least implicitly, on some version of the Habermasian vision of ideal speech. But it is questionable whether par- liamentary deliberation provides either sufficient historical exemplars, or even a theoretical-regulatory ideal, for a reasoned decision-procedure. As Geuss and Bourdieu have both argued,46 the ideal-speech theory is so far removed from reality as to be unhelpful, or actively a distortion, as a moral framework for po- litical life, because it stigmatizes non-rational uses of speech as aberrational. For both Rousseau and Bourdieu as I have explained, confusion and manipulation are not accidental features or deviations in language, because symbolic domina- tion and befuddlement are intrinsic to language, not aberrational or accidental features. Bourdieu contests Habermas’ conception of an ideal speech situation in which the “rational character of communicative action would be unhindered by social constraints” – because “whatever power of force speech acts possess is ... ascribed to them by the social institution of the utterance of which the speech act is part”.47 Language has no pure form – even hypothetically – outside of social power relations, meaning that no hypothetical speech situation can offer a useful benchmark for political freedom.48 Remer, for example, details how 46 Geuss 2019; Bourdieu 1987. 47 Bourdieu 1987: 10. 48 Finlayson 2013. REVUS 46.indd 132 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 133 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Contesting the idea of disagreement as the circumstance of politics historical instances of ostensibly deliberative exercises such as the ratification of the United States Constitution – while supposedly characterized by egalitarian reciprocity and sincerity – actually resembled “oratory” more than “delibera- tion”, proving agonistic, emotive and a-rational, and prizing eloquence over the reasoned argument celebrated by Habermas.49 Madison, for example, worried that “irregular passions” – or the “artful misrepresentations of interested men” – might prevail over the “cool and deliberate sense of the community” (represent- ed by institutions like the Senate.50 But the Rousseauian perspective invites us to question the distinction between deceptive and illegitimate forms of political speech, on the one hand, and rational discourse on the other, emphasising those forms of domination that elude the proper regulation or institutional structur- ing of political discourse. 2.4 From agreement to austerity Instead of consensus and agreement, then, Rousseau emphasises the non- rational basis of political community. For example, in preference to deliberation, he emphasises the value of public ritualism, placing an eccentric emphasis, in his constitutional design projects, on seemingly obscure aspects of statecraft such as ceremonies, festivals, rituals and symbols.51 Since he is conscious of the limits and abuses of speech, verbal communication occupies a relatively modest role in this ritualistic programme. Since citizens must not only be rationally “con- vinced” of republican norms but also “persuaded”, a-rationally, Rousseau’s con- stitutionalism aims at “establishing a community of shared meanings”.52 Thus re- publican ritualism deploy various forms of “non-verbal communication ... sym- bols, sound, sight, ritual”,53 and Rousseau’s constitutional prescriptions extend, beyond formal ceremonials such as oath-swearing, to embrace a diverse scheme of pageantry – festivals and parades, games and celebrations – deploying “the intoxicating power of ... rich sensual delights”.54 In certain surprising ways, this presages the insights of later critical discourse theorists sceptical of deliberative democracy – that we need to be emotionally connected to our co-deliberators in a manner which can “make that other person’s pains and pleasures one’s own”.55 On the one hand, these ritual devices reflect his emphasis on the passions and on the a-rational aspects of political community. It also speaks to a certain view of the nature of political cognition and political reason. Rousseau’s em- 49 Remer 2000. 50 Madison et al 1987. 51 Daly 2017: ch. 3. 52 Dobel 1986: 639. 53 Dobel 1986: 639. 54 Putterman 2001: 487. 55 Putterman 2001: 487. REVUS 46.indd 133 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 134 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Eoin Daly phasis on rituals and symbols reflects a broader scepticism towards any vision of abstract political reasoning that is unsupported by passion and emotion.56 Unless ideas take life in ritual and symbolic form, they risk, in their purely ab- stract or propositional form, becoming simply a plaything, an intellectual par- lour game (Rousseau 1751). Rousseau thus understands that political morality is internalised – and political stability realised – through emotional and aes- thetic processes. Thus symbols provide the “emotional power and persuasive- ness” that give life to abstract political language.57 Thus Rousseau envisages po- litical ideas as taking life in public symbols – with obvious, although possibly arcane examples lying in flags, public statuary and so on.58 Rituals, similarly – think of public awards, festivals, state funerals and the like – offer a similarly concrete, even embodied source of political meaning, although their utility in the late-modern world is of course equally questionable.59 These concrete constitutional devices illustrate again how, for Rousseau, the central problem of politics – and thus, the central concern of constitutional de- sign – is not our disagreement concerning questions of the good, or the plu- rality of comprehensive doctrines. Rather, the starting point is the problem of establishing effective political communication in a context of symbolic domi- nation. The origin of this symbolic domination lies in the corrupting self-love wrought by humans’ need for external recognition – their need to live in the eyes of others – once they enter society. The challenge of politics is how it is possible – notwithstanding this corrupted amour-propre – to constitute an au- thentically shared and coherent universe of symbols and meanings in which not only discourse and political communication, but social practice generally, can assume transparent and non-dominating forms. Because the challenge of political theory is to create a society in which political communication can be rescued from symbolic violence, this suggests that, in contrast with Rawlsian liberalism, the fundamental problem of political order is not a propositional one at all, concerning disagreement as to the “good”, or agreement on the “right”. Rather, it concerns the possibility of political communication itself, and more specifically the problem of establishing a form of communication that is not in- trinsically or insidiously dominating. Thus “establishing a community of shared meanings ... is essential to [Rousseau’s] project”.60 In response to the problem of symbolic violence, Rousseau’s programme is focused not so much on the rational inculcation of republican ideas, but rather on the economy of recognition and symbolic power, which he aims to reorient 56 Daly 2017. 57 Dobel 1986: 648. 58 E.g. Cohen 1989 59 Putterman 2001. 60 Dobel 1986: 629. REVUS 46.indd 134 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 135 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Contesting the idea of disagreement as the circumstance of politics towards transparency and equality. His constitutional programme emphasises the incentivisation of approved behaviours and habits through mechanisms of recognition – particularly through public awards, though which “the patriotic virtues should be glorified”.61 This seeks to harness, what Pierre Bourdieu later referred to as “all the hierarchies and classifications inscribed in objects … in institutions or … in language” (Bourdieu 1987: 471). Our amour-propre, is to be reoriented in productive and benign ways. Liberalism, by contrast, tends to ignore the symbolic dimensions of the so- cial and political universe, and the integrative function of political and social symbols. And arguably, by the same measure it offers implausibly optimistic ac- counts of how principles of justice can be realised under intractable conditions not only of scarcity and conflict, but also of alienation. Rawls (1996) envisages an “overlapping consensus” in which people with conflicting “conceptions of the good” endorse a “public conception of justice” based on their common faculties of reason. But for Rousseau, like other anti-liberals, the central problem of poli- tics is not, as I have argued our disagreement as to the “good life”, or question of ultimate truth. Rather, the challenge of political co-existence, in conditions of scarcity and conflict, is defined in large part by affect and sentiment, which in turn are dependent on social and economic life. The sources of stability (in this sense) lie both in social and economic structure and the world of symbolic power, rather than in the intellectual consensus Rawls envisages.62 3 IMPLICATIONS FOR POLITICAL THEORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN The Rousseauian perspective I have described is based on a deep skepticism concerning the emancipatory potential of political speech, and the possibility, accordingly, of basing political unity either on any intellectual consensus, or on respect, alternatively for disagreement and the associated agreement-proce- dure. By contrast, while most republican theorists value deliberation for its role in a politics aimed at stemming public and private domination across a range of social relationships, they generally under-account for those forms of domina- tion that are embedded in deliberative practice itself. Such concerns are all the more salient in our contemporary politics given the apparent fragmentation of the public sphere into specialised mini-publics or ‘echo chambers’, the problems of populist anger and resentment, of post-truth, ‘fake news’ and so on, which make the deliberative ideal seem less realistic than ever.63 61 Rousseau 1953/1782: ch. 3. 62 See generally Jubb 2011. 63 Curato et al. 2020. REVUS 46.indd 135 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 136 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Eoin Daly Such insight, in turn, might inform contemporary questions of constitutional design, and particularly those aspects of constitutional design that are aimed at or predicated on disagreement and deliberation. The Rousseauian injunction is not, perhaps, to reject or remove deliberation as such, but rather to pay more heed to the social context of deliberation, and particularly the problems of alien- ation and symbolic power in contexts of social complexity and differentiation. On the one hand, and most obviously perhaps, this sceptical perspective on disagreement might cast doubt on the transformative powers of the ‘delibera- tive wave’ that has taken place in European constitutional practices in recent years, and particularly the capacity of staged deliberative exercises to regenerate political and social stability.64 On the other hand, perhaps less obviously, this sceptical perspective casts new light on the dispute between proponents of leg- islative and judicial supremacy. Exponents of judicial review invoke the defence of a principled moral consensus, whereas exponents of parliamentary suprem- acy tend to emphasise procedural fairness, in an agreement-process, in a con- text of intractable disagreement on questions of justice. From the Rousseauian perspective, however, the normativist liberals rely on an implausible account of principled consensus, while the procedural republicans on an implausible account of the justice of the agreement process itself, and both ignore a more fundamental question as to the problem of mystification and non-transparency in the ways that discussions on questions of justice are conducted. For example, the problem with judicial review, perhaps, is not that it undermines an abstract idea of procedural equality, but rather that it clothes moral debate in a special- ised and esoteric language from which lay citizens are excluded.65 Furthermore, an understanding of deliberation and discourse as insidi- ous sources of domination invites reconsideration of how constitutions aim to structure the public sphere. On the one hand, constitutional design might take account of the pitfalls of deliberative democracy and particularly, as Afsahi puts it, “the ways in which ideals of rational and dispassionate discourse can limit the full participation of the most marginalized members of society”.66 On the other hand, however, a constitutional project might extend beyond the frame- work of deliberation itself as a horizon of political and social unity, looking to alternative bases of political community. Republican austerity might not take the bracing form Rousseau envisages in the 18th century context: there can be no return to a project of autarky or of social homogeneity, but unfeasible and normatively unappealing. But republican austerity might be reconceptualized around a broad aim of transparency in public life, where transparency is a foil to domination in the symbolic and social realms. 64 OECD 2020. 65 Daly 2020. 66 Afsahi 2020: 2. REVUS 46.indd 136 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 137 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Contesting the idea of disagreement as the circumstance of politics Deliberation, and political discourse generally, are more likely to fulfil their aims – and to remain benign – within a shared symbolic universe. However, dissensus, as well as political unity, might be conceptualised beyond rational- propositional terms. Accordingly, a greater regard for types of communication typically understood as “non-deliberative’ or “anti-deliberative” – even those normally seen as provocative, nihilistic or ostensibly vacuous speech – might actually foster greater inclusion.67 Thus, for example, constitutional free-expres- sion doctrines, sometimes conceptualised based on the need for a democratic sphere, might instead encompass a broader sense of the kinds of communica- tion or expression that are democratically valuable, and certainly extend be- yond ‘propositional’-type speech aimed directly at consensus or understanding. More generally, the perspective outlined invites us to consider how certain features of constitutional design might harness a public socialisation process that maximises transparency and inclusion, and minimises obfuscation and be- fuddlement. It is neither plausible nor attractive for a constitutional project to foster the kind of social and cultural homogeneity that Rousseau sees as the ba- sis of republican austerity. Nonetheless, it might attend to problems of transpar- ency and inclusion in political communication and include non-rational aids to political deliberation, perhaps by fostering the ritual and symbolic aspects of the public realm, and a consideration of how these might foster such a shared sym- bolic universe. For both Rousseau and Bourdieu, the problem of both delibera- tion and political unity is not differential identity or belief, or even differential interests, but rather differential habitus – a social division that undermines the possibility of transparent political communication. Similarly, even for Arendt, “the problem of politics is not when people are different, but when they are un- able to communicate”.68 But whereas Arendt celebrates the emancipatory effects of political voice, Rousseau and Bourdieu offer sceptical perspectives on the efficacy of political discourse in a context of deep social stratification sustained in economic, symbolic and cultural domains. Certainly, such concerns have al- ready penetrated in the concept of “deliberative democracy” itself, as evidenced in a shift away from a strict model of reasoned speech, to a more inclusive con- cept that incorporates or admits a broader range of communication types, in- cluding testimony, storytelling and so on, along with provocative or sarcastic modes of speech not normally thought of as meeting the requisite criteria for democratic participation.69 Indeed, there is a growing trend in literature to rec- ognise what Rollo calls those “forms of domination related to the imposition of speech on those who are either unwilling or unable to speak”.70 What I have 67 Afsahi 2020. 68 Honohan 2002: 124. 69 Gormley 2019. 70 Rollo 2017: 587. REVUS 46.indd 137 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 138 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Eoin Daly suggested, in this paper, is that such concerns can usefully be connected with a deeper theoretical debate on the centrality of disagreement as such as a defini- tive circumstance of politics. This is a concern to which Rousseau responded with an strategy of social and cultural austerity that is both unpalatable and unfeasible in the contemporary world. It is an open question, however, whether or not constitutional design can attend to this problem say, by attempting to sustain a shared symbolic realm or ritual life, or whether the countervailing risks and costs, in terms of statist oppression, are unacceptable. References: Afsahi, A. (2020). Disabled Lives in Deliberative Systems. Political Theory, 48(6), 751–776. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0090591720913093 Arendt, H. (1977) Between Past and Future. Penguin. Barber, B. and J. Forman (1978). Jean-Jacques Rou- sseau’s ‘Preface to Narcisse’. Political Theory 6, 537-552. Bellamy, R. (2007). Political Constitutionalism. Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1987). Dis tinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative Democratic The- ory. Annual Review of Political Science 6, 307- 326. Cohen, W. (1989). Symbols of power: Statutes in Nineteenth-Century Provincial France. Compa- rative Studies in History and Society 31, 491-513 Curato, N., Sass, J., Ercan, S. A., & Niemeyer, S. (2020). Deliberative democracy in the age of se- rial crisis. International Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120941882 Daly, E. (2017). Rousseau’s Constitutionalism: Austerity and Republican Freedom. Hart Pub- lishing. Daly, E. (2020). Transparency as a justification for legislative supremacy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 23, 807-830. Dobel, J.P. (1986). The Role of Language in Rousseau’s Political Thought. Polity 18, 638–659 Dryzek, J. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in delib- erative democracy. Political Theory 29, 651-669. Dryzek, J. (2005). Deliberative Democracy in Divided Societies. Political Theory 33, 218-242. Finlayson, A. (2013). Critique and Political argu- mentation. Political Studies Review 11 (3), 313- 320. Gauthier, D. (2006). Rousseau: The Sentiment of Existence. Cambridge University Press. Geuss, R. (2019, June 18). A Republic of discussion: Habermas at 90. The Point, 18 https://thepoint- mag.com/politics/a-republic-of-discussion- habermas-at-ninety/. Gormley, S. (2019). Deliberation, Unjust Exclusion, and the Rhetorical Turn. Contemporary Political Theory 18, 202-226 Hayward, C. (2004). Doxa and Deliberation. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 7, 1-24. Honohan, I. (2002). Civic Republicanism. Taylor and Francis. Kohn, M. (2000). Language, Power, Persuasion: To- wards a Critique of Deliberative Democracy. Constellations 7, 408-429. Larmore, C. (1999). The idea of a life plan. (Social Philosophy and Policy 16, 96-112. Madison, J, A. Hamilton, and J. Jay (1987). The Federalist Papers I. Kramnik (ed.) Penguin. Olson, K. (2011). Legitimate Speech and Hegemonic Idiom: The Limits of Deliberative democracy in the Diversity of its Voices. Political Studies 59, 527-546. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Deve- lopment (2020). Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. OECD Publishing. https:// doi.org/10.1787/339306da-en Pettit, P. (2013). On the People’s Terms: a Republican Theory and Model of Democracy. Cambridge University Press. Putterman, E. (2001). Realism and Reform in Rousseau’s Constitutional Projects for Corsica and Poland. Political Studies 49, 481-494 Rawls, J. (1996). Political Liberalism. Columbia Uni- versity Press. Remer, G. (1999). Political Oratory and Conver- sation: Cicero versus Deliberative Demo cracy. Political Theory 27, 39-64. Remer, G. (2000). Two Models of Deliberation: Oratory and Conversation in Ratifying the REVUS 46.indd 138 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 139 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Contesting the idea of disagreement as the circumstance of politics Constitution. The Journal of Political Philosophy 8, 68-90. Robert, J. (2011). Rawls and Rousseau: amour-pro- pre and the strains of commitment. Res Publica 17, 245-60. Rousseau, J.J. (1755/2008). Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes. Flammarion. Rousseau, J.J. (1953 [1782]). Considerations on the Government of Poland. In Watkins F., Jean- Jacques Rousseau: Political Writings. Thomas Yelsen. Rousseau, J.J. (1988/1762). Du Contrat Social. Paris: ENAG. Topper, K. (2011). Arendt and Bourdieu between word and deed. Political Theory 39, 352-377. Waldron, J. (2006). The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review. Yale Law Journal 115, 1346- 1406. REVUS 46.indd 139 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 REVUS 46.indd 140 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 141 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 revus (2022) 46, 141–161 Camila Vergara* Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism Constitutional democracies have allowed for patterns of accumulation of wealth at the top, leading to acute inequality and dangerous oligarchization of power. Moreover, the theoretical tools that liberal constitutionalism offers are inadequate to recognize system- ic corruption and structural forms of domination that are enabled by law or its absence. As an alternative, the article proposes a material methodological approach to the study of constitutions. In the first section, it offers a critical analysis of the intellectual founda- tions of liberal constitutionalism, engaging with the right to property, political repre- sentation, and separation of powers. In the second section, it presents the intellectual foundations of plebeian constitutionalism in the works of Machiavelli, Condorcet, and Marx. Finally, it proposes a material approach to assessing constitutions, identifying the shortcomings of contemporary legal frameworks to materialize social rights, as well as new avenues for institutional anti-oligarchic innovation. Keywords: inequality, liberalism, social rights, systemic corruption, Condorcet (Nicolas), Machiavelli (Niccolò), Marx (Karl) The idea that democracy is in crisis on several fronts has become com- monplace. Even if it was only with the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency in 2016 that this narrative of democratic crisis went mainstream,1 this particular cycle of political decay in our constitutional regimes has a longer history. In terms of wealth distribution and growing inequality, democracies entered a new neoliberal phase in which the mechanisms of representation be- gan to systematically malfunction, allocating most of the benefits of acceler- ated economic growth to the already rich and powerful and to the detriment of the majority. After the first neoliberal experiments in the 1970s and 1980s, led by General Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom, and Ronald Reagan in the United States,2 increasing income inequal- ity and immiseration of the working classes was effectively de-politicized and naturalized.3 * cv370@cam.ac.uk | Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow, University of Cambridge (UK). I am grateful for the support of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellowship and the SA UK Bilateral Research Chair in Political Theory, Wits, and Cambridge. 1 For an ‘elitist republican’ interpretation on the crisis of democracy, in which elites are the culprits of decay, see Levitsky & Ziblatt 2018. 2 Slobodian (2018) offers a Euro-centric, and therefore partial, historical account of neoliber- alism, that misses its illiberal origins. Chile, under Pinochet, with the help of the so-called Chicago Boys, trained in the U.S. in the 1950s, is neoliberalism’s ground zero. See McClean 2017: ch. 10. 3 To the point that today it is considered legitimate that three individuals in the U.S. own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the population—while the wealth of the super-rich grew REVUS 46.indd 141 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 142 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Camila Vergara When collectively created social wealth is consistently and increasingly ac- cumulated by a small minority against the material interests of the majority, it means that the rules of the game, and how they are being used and abused, are benefiting the powerful few instead of the many. Since a democracy is a political regime in which an electoral majority rules, it makes sense to think that “good” democratic government would benefit (or at least not hurt) the in- terests of the majority. The opposite has been happening in most of the devel- oping world as well as in advanced democracies, where the rates of inequality and corruption are growing or remain stubbornly high. The process by which a democratic society becomes increasingly oligarchic is what I have called sys- temic corruption.4 This type of structural corruption is not the aggregation of individual self-serving illegal acts but rather the process through which the self- serving behaviour of the most powerful in society is legally enabled. In other words, corruption —the undue benefit of some at the detriment of the rest— is done through the law, not against it.5 Even if it is evident that what is legal is not necessarily “good,” and what is corrupt is not necessarily illegal, under our current juridical conception of corruption, we are unable to account for legal corruption, for laws and policies that promoted the interests of a few against the common good. Consequently, our democratic order has inevitably drifted into oligarchic regimes that benefit disproportionately and systematically those who already have power, reproducing and deepening inequality. Political power is today de facto oligarchic. In almost all representative de- mocracies, the people who get to decide on policy, law, and the degree of protec- tion of individual rights —the President, members of Congress, and Supreme Court justices— are part of the richest 10%, and therefore tend to have the same interests and worldview of the powerful few who benefit most from the status quo. Even in Europe, where most of the egalitarian countries are located and there is a robust middle class, the richest 10% concentrates about 58% of the wealth while the bottom 50% only 4%. At the other extreme is Latin America, where the richest 10% controls 77% of the wealth and the bottom 50% only 1%.6 The control of corporate interests over politics via campaign finance and lobby- ing, has allowed money to influence law-making, adjudicating, and public policy to build legal and material structures that disproportionally benefit the wealthy and harm the majority. Because patterns of accumulation of wealth at the top are enabled by existing rules and institutions, it is necessary to question not only our 6,000% since 1982, median household wealth went down 3% over the same period, and one out of five children currently lives in poverty in the richest country in the world. Collins 2018. 4 Vergara 2020. 5 An insight Robin (2017) has recently brought back to the political discussion: “The worst things that the US has done have always happened through American institutions and prac- tices – not despite them.” 6 World Inequality Report 2022. REVUS 46.indd 142 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 143 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism political regimes as experiments that have led to acute inequality and a danger- ous oligarchization of power (and therefore in need of structural reform), but also our methodological approach to the study of constitutions —as the juridical framework that ultimately allows for inequality to be validated and reproduced. As a response to this political diagnosis, in which the crisis of democracy is due to an overgrowth of oligarchic power allowed and enabled by the juridical order, I propose adopting a material constitutional lens to rethink the republic from a structural perspective, acknowledging the necessity of approaching con- stitutionalism from a point of view that allows us to ‘see’ ever-expanding sys- temic corruption and oligarchic domination. In what follows I lay out the basic premises and philosophical foundations of material constitutionalism and com- pare this alternative constitutional ideology to legal formalism and procedural- ism, highlighting the advantages of a material approach to properly account for systemic corruption and the oligarchic power that is currently being exercised and shielded from constitutional scrutiny. I begin by offering a critical interpre- tation of the foundations of the liberal ideology centred on private property that informed the design of the first constitutional representative governments, its re- lation to formalist and proceduralist legal thinking, and its limits in terms of be- ing able to account for systemic corruption and structural forms of domination. 1 CRITICAL INTERPRETATION OF LIBERAL CONSTITUTIONALISM Liberal constitutionalism sees the constitution as a set of “metaconstraints,”7 with individual rights as limits on governmental action and a system of sepa- ration of powers that produces an impartial rule of law able to deliver formal equal liberty to all. The philosophical foundations of our liberal constitutional orders come from a long tradition of thinkers who justified societies ruled by elites. What I have identified as an elitist-proceduralist interpretation of republi- can government traces back to Polybius and Cicero, and then was adapted to the modern commercial society by John Locke and the Baron of Montesquieu, be- fore finally being constitutionalized at the federal level by James Madison in the United States. The elitism of this interpretation is based on its endorsement of elites —those who are distinct from the common people either by birth, wealth, knowledge, popularity or technical expertise— as better suited to rule and have final decision-making power. Its proceduralist bent comes from the conception that normativity emanates from the respect of procedures aimed at constrain- ing the government by the few and that the observance of these procedures is 7 For an interpretation of the constitution as having both regulatory and constitutive rules, see Holmes 1988. REVUS 46.indd 143 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 144 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Camila Vergara sufficient for the rule of law to guarantee and promote liberty for all citizens.8 In other words, elite rule is legitimate and able to guarantee liberty for all if the procedures are correctly followed. However, this proceduralist approach to the rule of law is unable to account for the slow progression of systemic corrup- tion. Formal and proceduralist views of the constitution focus on formal rules and delegation of powers, modes of selection, and equal constitutional rights, and neglect how political decision-making is actually done, the oligarchic inter- ests behind candidates and parties, and the evident structural gender and racial oppressions existing alongside legal protections. Combined, these focuses and neglects cause them to become blind to systemic corruption —the structural favouring of the powerful few over the many— and actually occurring domi- nation. Moreover, because this interpretation has historically been developed from the vantage point of elites, constitutional thought tends to be conservative of the existing socioeconomic hierarchies, often turning to idealism by propos- ing the suppression of class conflict and the embrace of harmony, tranquillity, security, and social peace as foundational principles. John Locke is the father of political liberalism and one of the thinkers who had the most influence on the American founders. Locke imagined a state of nature in which equality and liberty are natural, and all individuals can do as they please, “subject only to limits set by the law of nature”.9 This is a state of perfect liberty and peace because “everyone knows the rules and canons natural reason has laid down for the guidance of our lives” based on natural equality.10 Consequently, in Locke’s idealistic pre-political community, every human has natural rights that ought to be recognized and respected. He does not, how- ever, conceive of rights as the actual power to do something,11 but as formal entitlements that people have regardless of their actual individual capacity to exercise these rights. The formalism in the argument is more clearly exposed when Locke defines rights and equates them to property. Fundamental natural rights are for him “life, liberty and possessions,” but property is the most impor- tant in this trilogy, being a precondition to sustain life and liberty. Property is made by mixing “the labour of his body and the work of his hands” with nature, an indispensable process through which we can nurture ourselves and survive. Because to make use of nature “to the best advantage of life” one would first need to have “private dominion” over it,12 creating private property out of the commons is, for Locke, necessary.13 Property rights are therefore understood as 8 I follow Green 2016. 9 Locke 2003: 2.4. 10 Locke 2003: 2.5. 11 Power is a relational concept that denotes both “the state of having possibilities available and representing them as such”. Parietti 2022: 98. 12 Locke 2003: 5.26. 13 For an anti-egalitarian reading of Locke see Zucker 2000. REVUS 46.indd 144 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 145 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism the basis of all other rights, and even rights themselves are conceived as a form of ownership. Following Cicero, for whom the republic is established to preserve private property (custodia rerum suarum),14 Locke repeatedly states that the protection of property —and not the general welfare or justice— is the main objective of the state, which is set up as an impartial “authority to decide controversies” and “punish offenders.”15 In such a system in which all are, at least formally, prop- erty owners, the only legitimate cause for rebellion against constituted authority is the violation of the “laws for the preservation of property, peace, and unity.”16 In other words, since the ‘rule of law’ is supposed to be the juridical expression of natural liberty, the only justified use of force in a republic is to defend the legal framework against tyranny. Locke’s idealistic state built on natural equality and liberty sharply contrasted with the Britain of his time, which was extremely unequal. Revolts had broken out a few decades before the publication of the Second Treatise (1689) against land enclosures by “levellers” and “diggers” who asserted a right to the Commons—to the use of common land that “belongs to us who are the poor oppressed”.17 In Locke’s theory of rights as property, there is no place for the collective rights to land claimed by plebeians or the recogni- tion of material inequality and its effects on the effective enjoyment of rights. Even if in theory individuals were formally equal and free, they actually lived in a starkly unequal society in which the few rich and powerful owned most of the land and wrote laws to further oppress and expropriate the many. Between 1604 and 1914 over 5,200 enclosure bills privatizing common lands were en- acted by Parliament —equivalent to 6.8 million acres or one-fifth of the total area of England.18 Given that plebeians had rights to the common land, such as pasture, pannage, and wood picking, privatization meant the effective ‘expro- priation’ of their rights through ‘correct’ procedures. To Locke’s formal equal rights and impartial state, Montesquieu —who wrote The Spirit of the Laws (1748) inspired by his stay in England, taking its political system as his model— added proceduralism and defined liberty in a ‘negative’ and individual sense. Liberty is for him both an individual “tranquil- lity of spirit” based on the absence of fear and a sense of security,19 and “the power of doing what we ought to will, and in not being constrained to do what 14 Cicero 1913: 2.73. 15 Locke 2003: 7.87. 16 Locke 2003: 19.226. 17 “A Declaration from the Poor Oppressed People of England” (1649). Less than one third of the land was considered part of the commons (Clark & Clark 2001). 18 UK Parliament, Enclosing the Land. https://www.parliament.uk/about/livingheritage/trans- formingsociety/towncountry/landscape/overview/enclosingland/ 19 Montesquieu 1989: II.11, 6. Contrast this definition with ‘positive’ liberty as autonomy through direct legislation in ancient Athens. REVUS 46.indd 145 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 146 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Camila Vergara we ought not to will”.20 Even if social peace, rule-following, and the internali- zation of norms are necessary for a stable republic, if individuals do not have the ability to partake in deciding those rules, liberty in this republic is nothing more than the feeling of safety in the obedience to imposed laws. Reducing lib- erty to security, Montesquieu argues for a mixed representative constitution to guarantee freedom for all through “moderation”. He theorized this constitution based on a Whig interpretation of the English political system, and proposed a hybrid commercial republic that incorporated the commercial spirit as a mod- erating force alongside the (potentially despotic) democratic virtue (“the love of equality and frugality”) generated by popular sovereignty. The result was an elitist, proceduralist model in which the common people’s only power was the right to elect representatives, while the few preserved their dominant position in the power structure through a formal institutional balance. By defining liber- ty as “the right to do everything the law permits”21 and then arguing that good laws are those resulting from the correct procedures and institutional checks and balances, Montesquieu pegs liberty to the rule of law, closing the possibility of legitimately questioning the law from outside formal political institutions, which are effectively controlled by the few. Following Cicero’s elitist republicanism, Montesquieu argues that while man has a natural ability to perceive merit and elect, the people in general are not competent enough to be elected.22 Even if he argued for extending the suffrage, giving the right to vote to all male citizens, he excluded those “whose estate is so humble that they are deemed to have no will of their own.” In addition to exclud- ing the poor, for Montesquieu the right of the people to legislate is only exer- cised indirectly, through representatives who are selected from the elites. Even though in a free state the legislative power is the prerogative of “the people as a body,” he argues “the people should not enter the government except to choose their representatives; this is quite within their reach”.23 Representation thus ap- pears not as a device to bridge the gap between the people and power, but as a mechanism to keep the people away from power through the formal expansion of the aristocratic procedure of election24 to the common people.25 While sorti- tion —which actualizes equality— was the mode of selection used in ancient de- mocracy, selecting rulers through voting based on superior skill, intelligence or status—which actualizes inequality by distinguishing some from the rest—was the preferred procedure for allocating power in most aristocratic republics.26 20 Montesquieu 1989: II.11, 3. 21 Montesquieu 1989: II.11, 3. 22 Montesquieu 1989: I.2, 2. 23 Montesquieu 1989: II.11, 6. 24 See Manin 2010. 25 Montesquieu 1989: I.2, 2. 26 For a review of elections in history, theory, and current practice, see Landemore 2020: chap- ters 2 and 3. REVUS 46.indd 146 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 147 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism In the American implementation of Montesquieu’s model, the framers want- ed to accomplish the Lockean state as protector of property. This was not only an ideological project but also a material one, considering that the constitution was drafted in the aftermath of a debt rebellion that set court houses on fire and sparked an armed insurrection.27 James Madison’s legal system was designed against the ‘tyranny of the majority’ as the greatest danger to the republic. He argued that pressures for wealth redistribution coming from below would be in- evitable because “according to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the [poor]”.28 One of the main objectives of the constitutional order that the founders were crafting was thus to legally block the democratic redistri- bution of property. In a Lockean fashion, in the Convention’s deliberations the defence of property as the principle aim of the state was not argued for so much on normative grounds, but it was just taken for granted as a pre-political right, an obvious claim almost all delegates —rich property owners and money lenders29— shared. The challenge before them was then how to guard, based on republican principles, against the redistributive property claims coming from the masses. To block these claims Madison proposed the ‘filtering’ of the popular will as well as multiplying the sites of political power. Given the factual pluralism in a large republic,30 having a representative government in a large state would constitute, in itself, a guard against the ‘tyranny of the majority’ by effectively hindering the capacity of the masses to organize on a grand scale. The feder- al structure would further enhance this anti-majoritarian —but mostly anti- plebeian— feature of the large representative republic, by making it less likely for “a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project … to pervade the whole body of the Union”.31 This structural protection against the domination of the majority, however, does not apply to the domination coming from the powerful few, who do not experience the collective action problems of the masses and have plenty of material resources to corrupt public officials. To prevent cor- ruption and domination within government, Madison’s mechanistic model of representative government solely relied on the division of functions proposed by Montesquieu. The most effective way to counteract power was by giving offi- cials of different departments the necessary “constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachment of the others”.32 27 Shay’s Rebellion (1786–87). See Nobles 2012. 28 Farrand 2008: 181. 29 74% of the framers were lenders of some sort, which puts the issue of debt and currency speculation at the top of the list of the interests that delegates aimed at protecting when nego- tiating constitutional provisions. 30 Olson 2012. 31 Hamilton, Madison & Jay 2003: Paper 10, 79. 32 Hamilton, Madison & Jay 2003: Paper 10, 71–79. REVUS 46.indd 147 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 148 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Camila Vergara Even if the liberal interpretation of rights as property and the procedural solutions to tyranny and corruption that derived from the doctrine of separa- tion of powers have become the standard for determining if a state is a proper democracy with ‘rule of law,’ the recognition of systemic corruption and the in- creasing legal oligarchization of power in society demands a departure from the mainstream. It is necessary to break away from the egalitarian fantasy on which this model is based, as well as from formal and procedural approaches that tend to hide material inequalities from legal analysis. We currently lack the proper tools to recognize and remedy structural forms of domination. For example, despite their formal equal status, Black Americans are two times more likely to be stopped by police, six times more likely to serve jail time and be sentenced to mandatory minimums for non-violent offenses, and four times more likely to lose their voting rights.33 Therefore, even if they formally have equal rights on a par with white Americans, their oppression, allowed and enabled by legal regu- lations (or the lack thereof) and adjudications, denies this equality. The same could be said regarding the status of women, gender and ethnic minorities, and the working classes, whose exclusion and exploitation has been systematically enabled by the law or its absence.34 Is this inability of the liberal lens, with its focus on formal equality and procedures over relations of power and the un- equal application of the law, that demands a new material approach to the study of constitutions as organizations of power that tend to create and reproduce economic and social hierarchies. Even if some contemporary liberal theory cer- tainly tries to address and redress socioeconomic inequality, propositions fall short of amending the basis of liberal constitutionalism: the sacredness of pri- vate property, the exclusively representative nature of government, and a state that needs to be impartial and neutral to guarantee equal rights to all.35 2 INTELLECTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF MATERIAL CONSTITUTIONALISM Different from the idealism, formalism, and proceduralism of the elitist strand of constitutional thought, plebeian interpretations of the republican or- der are realist and materialist. The basic tenants of material constitutionalism are found in plebeian republican thinkers who proposed to institutionally em- power the common people to effectively control the ruling elites. Commenced by Machiavelli, who was influenced by the theory of atomic motion proposed 33 One out of every 13 African Americans has lost their right to vote due to felony disenfran- chisement, compared to only one in every 56 non-black voters. Quigley 2016. 34 For the arbitrariness of rules, see Kennedy 1976. 35 See e.g., Hayek 1960; Rawls 1999. REVUS 46.indd 148 20. 06. 2023 18:20:42 149 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism by Epicurean philosophy,36 this strand of thought sees conflict as productive of liberty and seeks to justify on republican grounds the active participation of the organized many in the governing structure as necessary for keeping the repub- lic free from oligarchic domination. From Machiavelli’s perspective, society is seen not as a community of equal property owners but as divided between the powerful few, who own most of the property, and the common people, who own comparatively very little. Based on this division, the design of the political order includes institutions to allow both a selected elite to rule within limits and to enable the common people to push back against the inevitable domination that eventually comes from the governing actions taken by the few. Recognizing the asymmetry of power between the few and the many, and the oligarchic ten- dency that comes from elite power, plebeian mixed constitutions set up popu- lar counterpower institutions to resist the overreach of the few. Constitutional frameworks today contain nothing of the sort and therefore have left the many vulnerable to oligarchic domination. For Machiavelli, the corrupting process of oligarchization does not begin in the masses (governed in part by the unavoidable egoistic tendencies of in- dividuals) but in the legal form restraining individual interest, as well as in the procedures by which power is allocated. Individual interest is a force perma- nently trying to unduly influence government but only succeeding, and thus effectively corrupting the republic, if laws and procedures are already flawed, allowing for inequality and undue influence. According to Machiavelli, “an evil- disposed citizen cannot effect any changes for the worse in a republic, unless it be already corrupt”.37 Machiavelli identifies two types of corrupting norms pro- moting two forms of evil: license and socioeconomic inequality. Regarding lim- its to individual action, he argues that just as good, disciplined soldiers become rowdy through the lifting of restraints to their behaviour, the general corrup- tion of mores is allowed to begin when “the laws that restrained the citizens… were changed according as the citizens from one day to another became more and more corrupt”.38 Even if one might not agree with the imposition of strict moral codes to avoid corruption, Machiavelli’s insight into how the law adapts to corrupt behaviour is still sound. The legalization of lobbying in the Unites States in 1995, via a re- interpretation of the First Amendment right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” is a clear example of this accommodation. The Lobbying Disclosure Act39 came to regulate the already existing undue influences on gov- 36 Machiavelli’s main source was Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things. There is also a utopian ma- terialist strand of thought of which Thomas More is the most prominent thinker. 37 Machiavelli 1989: III.8. 38 Machiavelli 1989: III.8. 39 Lobbying Disclosure Act, S.1060, 104th Cong. (1995) (enacted). https://www.congress.gov/ bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/1060/text. REVUS 46.indd 149 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 150 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Camila Vergara ernment officials, without questioning the corrupting influence that lobbying has on legislation and public policy. The $3.47 billion dollars spent on lobbyists in 2019 to influence public policy did not only give advantage to those who could afford it, but also generated what Dennis Thompson calls institutional corruption, a “condition in which private interests distort public purposes by in- fluencing the government in disregard of the democratic process”.40 Even if ap- proaching representatives to individually ‘lobby’ for redress is a constitutional right, the regulation of special interest groups41 and the industry built around them to pressure the different branches of government to pursue specific paths of action clearly enables the oligarchization of power instead of combating it. Only those groups with enough resources to hire professional lobbyists —who already have special access to government officials— will get their demands met at the detriment of everybody else. In this way, systemic corruption creeps in when corrupt practices, seen as inevitable, are normalized, legalized, and finally built into the system, further eroding the juridical limits that protect the demo- cratic republic from oligarchic takeover. In addition to promoting moral license and undermining civic virtue, Machiavelli argues law plays a key role in allowing for inequality, which ulti- mately makes the protection of liberty and the republican project impossible. Because republics need relative equality to exist,42 if laws allow for the accu- mulation of wealth in the hands of a few and to the destitution of the majority, the gradual transition from a good government into a corrupt one is inevitable. For Machiavelli, lords “who without working live in luxury on the returns from their landed possessions” are dangerous for any republic; they are the beginners of “corruption and the causes of all evil”.43 Bad laws enable undue influence on government from “fatal families” as well as the division of society into factions that “will strive by every means of corruption to secure friends and supporters” in order to satisfy their interests.44 Good laws, on the other hand, establish the necessity and duty to create virtuous citizens and make sure the influence of wealth “is kept within proper limits”45 by prohibiting the legal ability to com- mand enormous fortunes, estates, and subjects.46 Anti-oligarchic laws —setting limits to the command of wealth and patronage, such as the imposition of a 40 Thompson 2005: 1037; Thompson 1995. 41 Even if regulating lobbying allows for more transparency, it does not protect us from its perni- cious effects. 42 Machiavelli 1989: I.55. For further analysis of the relation between inequality and constitu- tions in Machiavelli, see McCormick 2013. 43 Machiavelli 1989: I.55. 44 Machiavelli 1989: III.27. 45 Machiavelli 1989: I.1. 46 Even though Machiavelli refers to German citizens, who if they get gentlemen “into their hands, they put them to death,” he does not want to bring equality by murdering the rich, but by adopting laws to curb inequality. REVUS 46.indd 150 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 151 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism wealth tax and anti-trust laws— are thus essential anti-corruption legal provi- sions needed to preserve a good constitutional form. Machiavelli’s contribution to materialist constitutional thought was revis- ited in the 18th century, within a critical approach to the American constitution coming from the revolutionary experience in France. The strongest critic in the Girondin camp was the Marquis of Condorcet who argued that the system of separation of powers put in place in America was a complicated machine that only served to conceal a parallel ruling system based on “intrigue, corruption and indifference”.47 Following Machiavelli, for whom corruption is enabled by the methods of selection and decision-making,48 Condorcet criticized the doc- trine of separation of powers and its proceduralism, and rejected the constitu- tional framework put in place in America, as insufficient for controlling corrup- tion and guaranteeing liberty. According to Condorcet, the new American con- stitution, which chose “identity of interests rather than equality of rights” as its organizing principle49 —relying on the ambition of politicians to check one an- other rather than on the active control exercised by the people, and enshrining the separation of powers as the best design to keep the republic uncorrupted— was unlikely to serve as a real bulwark for liberty. While embracing interest over equality of rights would increase rather than ameliorate ‘artificial’ inequalities and the forms of domination they reproduce,50 Condorcet criticized the system of separation of powers because it “disfigured” the simplicity of constitutions. Separation of powers would not only be unsuccessful in keeping corruption at bay, but it would also allow for its concealment and reproduction. Experience everywhere has proved that these complicated machines destroyed them- selves, or that another system emerges alongside the legal one, based on intrigue, cor- ruption and indifference; that, in a sense, there are two constitutions, one legal and public but existing only in the law books, and the other secret but real, resulting from a tacit agreement between the established powers.51 Separation of powers is thus not only an inadequate framework for keep- ing corruption in check, but serves to obscure the actual domination being ex- erted “off the books” through the actual collusion of representative institutions against equal liberty. Without a popular censorial power making sure elites are not self-serving, the American Constitution put “the fate of the State dependent on the degree of stubbornness or corruption in each branch”.52 For Condorcet, this separation of powers does not provide an adequate mechanism for main- 47 Condorcet 2007a: 199. 48 Machiavelli 1989: I.18. 49 Condorcet, Lettre d’un Théologien, cited in Rowe 1984: 21. 50 Rowe 1984: 30. 51 Condorcet 2007a: 199. 52 Condorcet 2007b: Letter Three, 322. For further analysis of Condorcet’s critique of the Ameri- can Constitution, see Mintz 1991. REVUS 46.indd 151 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 152 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Camila Vergara taining liberty. He argues that seeing the executive, legislative, and judicial pow- ers as independent forces that, by seeking their own interest, balance and regu- late one another against the encroachment of liberty, denies the possibility of domination happening despite this formal division of government functions.53 He questions, “What becomes of public freedom if, instead of counterbalancing one another, these powers unite to attack it?”.54 As an alternative to the system of representative government with separa- tion of powers, Condorcet proposed a mixed constitution in which both rep- resentative bodies and the people themselves could directly exercise political power; representatives would govern, and the people, assembled at the local level, would retain the power to initiate and veto legislation and even amend the constitution. While the U.S. Constitution gave citizens the individual right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” without providing any enforcement mechanism to see that petitions are taken into proper account in governmental action, Condorcet’s ‘popular branch’ constituted an institution- alized ‘collective protest’ popular power aimed both at electing the members of government and censoring their decisions. His constitutional project, Le Girondine (1793), which was never implemented, established a network of “pri- mary assemblies” of between 450 and 900 citizens in every district, alongside representative government. Building on already existing popular organizations as a springboard for radical change, his constitutional blueprint sought to for- malize the “partial, spontaneous protests and private voluntary gatherings” that arose with the revolution, and give them “legally established procedures, [to] carry out precisely determined functions”.55 This plebeian constitutional thought re-emerged half a century later as phil- osophical critique in the work of Karl Marx, who wrote his doctoral dissertation on Epicurean philosophy and proposed a material constitution as the only free democratic order. According to Epicurus’s atomic theory in which atoms are the fundamental particle —never extinguished but rather transformed—, there are three types of movement due to weight (falling in a straight line), repulsion, and swerving. While the first two movements caused by weight and repulsion are materially determined, Epicurus argued that the spontaneous deviation from the pattern, the slight movement away from path dependency, remains indeter- minate, without causation, and thus free. The realization of the atom happens when “all relation to something else is negated and motion is established as self- determination”.56 It is this declination as a form of self-conciseness and realiza- tion that makes possible complexity and new patterns arising independently 53 For a discussion on the difference between separation of powers and functions, see Pasquino 2009. 54 Condorcet 2007a: 199. 55 Condorcet 2007a: 190. 56 Marx 1841: 31. REVUS 46.indd 152 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 153 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism from the existing order. Epicurus is therefore, for Marx, the first to theorize the scientific origin of freedom through a “natural science of self-consciousness”57 that aims at escaping necessity.58 The small changes that open the possibility for a swerve at the systemic lev- el are enabled by man-made “accidents” such as “slavery, poverty and wealth, freedom, war, [and] concord”.59 Therefore, human declinations are enabled by changes in the artificial environment, which allow for recognizing the gap between the abstract order and the material experience, opening the door for self-consciousness, the breaking away from current material patterns and their determinism, and the creation of new patterns that can give way to independ- ent orders as new sources of regularity in movement. Constitutional orders are sources of regularity created from a form of social consciousness, and are there- fore the juridical expression of the self-reflection of a society at a given point, a particular formalization of “socialized man”60 that codifies patterns of interac- tion that have become self-determining and self-reinforcing. Like every other established regularity, constitutions are vulnerable to becoming formal strait- jackets, far removed from material reality and oblivious to the swerving energy building up within them. Criticizing Hegel’s formalistic theory of the constitution based on abstract logic, Marx makes the crucial distinction between the political constitution, based on a formal principle, born out of abstraction and guided by “a pre-existing system of thought”, and the material constitution, based on a material principle, emerging from material conditions and life experiences. The ‘good’ constitution is the one in which the political and material are the same. While “a constitution produced by past consciousness can become an oppressive shackle for a con- sciousness which has progressed”, for Marx it is possible to create a constitu- tional order that could adapt to swerves, having within itself “the property and principle of advancing in step with consciousness; i.e. advancing in step with real human beings —which is only possible when ‘man’ has become the principle of the constitution.”61 The only non-oppressive ‘true’ constitution is thus a democ- racy, in which “the formal principle is simultaneously the material principle”.62 57 Marx 1841: 62. 58 Marx 1841: 26. Leszek Kolakowski argues Marx is committed to the Epicurean doctrine of the free subject as containing “the germ” of the concept of praxis. Marx 1978: 104. For further discussion about the reception of Marx’s epicureanism, see Stanley 1995. 59 Lucretius 2001: 15. 60 Marx 1975: Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State, 88. 61 Marx 1975: Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State, 75. 62 Marx 1975: Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State, 88. While Livingston and Benton translate “materielle” as “substantive” I prefer to translate it as “material” since it is more in tune with the Epicurean language. Translators for the Cambridge University Press 1970 edition, Annette Jolin and Joseph O’Malley, also chose material over substantive. REVUS 46.indd 153 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 154 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Camila Vergara Democracy is for Marx “both form and content,” a constitution founded on “real human beings” —and not on their essence or abstraction— and created by the people themselves.63 The constitution of a democracy “is in appearance what it is in reality: the free creation of man”.64 While in “other political forms man has only legal existence,” in democracy the constitutional framework is only one form of “self-determination of the people,” emanating from the people. The only material constitution, in which the formal structure is a true expression of the people, is a democracy. All other types of constitutional frameworks based on principles and abstractions are by design “oppressive shackles” that make hu- mans subordinate to a rational logic that is external to their material experience. For Marx, the “highest summit” of political constitutions is the modern bour- geois republic, founded on the principle and protection of private property.65 3 TOWARDS A NEW MATERIAL APPROACH TO CONSTITUTIONS Since the birth of modern capital and representative democracy, there has been an acceleration of a double movement: on the one hand, the emancipa- tion of private property from the purview of the State, and on the other, the detachment of the State from the community —becoming “a separate entity, beside and outside civil society”— and its attachment to oligarchs, being “pur- chased gradually by the owners of property”.66 By design, the raison d’etre of the liberal state is not the wellbeing of the human community but the security of property as an abstraction—the preservation of the contractual relations that reproduce the existing hierarchical society, enabling “the individuals of a ruling class [to] assert their common interests”.67 In the liberal constitution, the ideol- ogy of private property becomes, according to Marx, internalized, penetrating “into the consciousness of the normal man” and subverting our understand- ing of justice, which is “reduced to the actual laws” that are made to preserve contractual relations of domination.68 Legal abstractions become internalized, skewing our sense of justice, not only because of the imposition of civil laws that are developed “simultaneously with private property” but also due to the concurrent “disintegration of the natural community” due to trade. It is within this economic transformation and the rise of the new commercial elite that civil laws were “raised to authority” and the “existing property relationships [were] 63 Marx 1975: Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State, 87. 64 Marx 1975: Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State, 87. 65 Marx 1975: Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State, 87. 66 Marx 1978: 187. 67 Marx 1978 187. 68 Marx 1978: 187. REVUS 46.indd 154 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 155 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism declared to be the result of the general will”.69 Moreover, the separation of the political constitution and its laws from the material reality allows not only for a person to “have a legal title to a thing without really having a thing,” but also the inversion of human priorities. While before capitalism “the production of mate- rial life” was considered a “subordinate mode of self-activity,” material life now appears as the final cause of human activity, and human labour as its means.70 From the perspective of our 21st century society, in which production, trade, and economic growth have effectively become ends in themselves, and human labour and intellectual activity are just means to the reproduction of mere life and the endless accumulation of property for some, it seems crucial to pick up the thread of material constitutional thought to help unravel the patterns of domination weaved into the rule of law. However, after 200 years of liberal hegemony and its paradigm of formal equality, exiting its analytical bounds has been challenging.71 To be able to detect systemic corruption and ‘see’ structural domination, I propose a material constitutional lens that builds on Machiavelli, Condorcet, and Marx, and aims at accounting for the influence social and eco- nomic inequalities have on political power and the law. Material constitutional- ism is therefore premised on the idea that the organization of political power cannot be analysed without considering socioeconomic power structures and the ways in which states enable some kinds of actions while disabling others, targeting specific groups through the criminalization and legalization of certain actions, as well as through the selective enforcement of rules and penalties that appear as impartial. Therefore, constitutions and the rights they contain need to be studied as organizations of power, considering not only the written text and its jurisprudence, basic political and social institutions, and the rules and procedures enabling the exercise of power, but also the social effects of the con- 69 Marx 1978: 188. 70 Marx 1978: 191. 71 Approaching the material constitution from an explanatory rather than a normative perspec- tive, Goldoni and Wilkinson (2018) define the material constitution as comprised of four basic elements: political unity, a set of institutions, social relations, and fundamental political objec- tives. In their account, power relations between the few and the many, capital and labour, which determines the design and use of political institutions, are replaced by “a plurality of subjects whose positions are conditioned but not determined by already established relations.” They acknowledge that the strength of the material constitution rests on the social “support for the political aims (or even finality) of a regime,” but refrain from challenging the basic institutions that have allowed for oligarchic domination, or from proposing to institutionally empower the common people to decide, collectively, on those political aims. Their replacement of class strug- gle with agonistic pluralism, and the negation of the factual dominance of material conditions over representative politics, obscures factual oligarchy and overestimates the political power in- dividuals have to exert changes to the superstructure. Individuals today are not strictly speaking political actors able to decide on “the formation and then preservation of a particular political economy, as well as in fomenting change through putting pressure on reforming the political- economic structure”; structural oppression makes individuals powerless to resist domination and exert changes to the legal structure if collective power is not properly institutionalized. REVUS 46.indd 155 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 156 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Camila Vergara stitutional framework in terms of socioeconomic inequality, as well as the class, racial, religious, and gender disparities in the application of the law. This new approach to the study of constitutions, which brings together law, philosophy, politics, and economics, facilitates a dialectical analysis of the relation between power and the law —that is, between the material conditions of society and the legal, juridical, and formal provisions that (allegedly) regulate them. This material approach should not be mistaken with the school of constitu- tional interpretation that developed in Germany after the 1958 Lüth case, which expanded the sphere of constitutional rights into the relation among individu- als.72 The ‘material’ aspect of German constitutionalism refers not to the relation between power and law, but to an “expression of ‘the substantive’ in law,”73 as a system of values centred on the principle of human dignity.74 The materialist constitutionalism I propose here, on the contrary, does not have a pre-existing ethical “substance” or “spirit”.75 Rather, it is premised on the recognition that norms develop from power relations, and that the legitimacy of law should be determined depending on the role it serves in the material conflict between domination and emancipation in society. Neither law nor rights nor procedures are ‘good’ in themselves or guarantee by themselves a society in which everyone is equally free. There are laws that are never applied or that are applied to target a specific group;76 rights that are mere parchment barriers for the many and weap- ons for the already powerful few;77 and jurisprudence that validates unequal re- lations of power instead of dismantling existing relations of domination.78 To assess if a given institution, procedure, or law is ‘good’ and thus part of the normative framework of a free society, material constitutionalism considers not only the degree of conformity of institutions, procedures, and laws to the basic democratic principle of equal liberty,79 but also their effects in enabling emancipation and discouraging oppression on the ground. Political emanci- 72 Lüth case, BverfGE 7, 198 (1958) B.II.1. It endorsed the application of constitutional norms to private law, which established the foundation of the “horizontal effect” of constitutional law, a strategy that has proven successful in accounting for rights violations coming from private agents as well as the state. See Gardbaum 2003; Tushnet 2003. 73 Bomhoff 2013: 74. 74 1949 German Constitution, Art. 1.1 “Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and pro- tect it shall be the duty of all state authority.” 75 Schmitt 2008: 155. 76 For example, see sentencing disparity on the application of drug laws that impose harsher penalties on cheap substances (American Civil Liberties Union 2006). 77 See, for example, the constitutional protection afforded to corporate political speech in Citi- zens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). 78 For the role of lawyers and judges in legalizing relations favourable to the wealthy and their corporations, see Pistor 2019. 79 Identified as the principle of representative government for the first time by Condorcet. For an analysis of the principle, see Urbinati 2008. REVUS 46.indd 156 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 157 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism pation, which according to Jacques Rancière consists in the materialization of a logic of equality that is anti-hierarchical and conflictual,80 is inevitably self- emancipation; by defying the structures of oligarchic rule and appearing as a political actor, the plebeian people materially perform the logic of equality and their own emancipation.19 Consequently, emancipatory law not only favours socioeconomic equality but also empowers the common people, giving them decision-making prerogatives to become political actors —and not mere elec- tors— within the democratic constitutional structure.81 Democratic, material constitutionalism imposes then an immanent normative referent for judging laws and institutions: their impact on enabling the (self)emancipation of the many and on disabling oligarchic domination. This new lens establishes a con- stitutional ideology that does not aim at neutrality but at redressing inequalities of power within society. A material approach to legality therefore would stand as an alternative, on the one hand, to Kelsenian legal positivism—which denies the political nature of constitutions and reduces their analysis to jurisprudence, excluding the application of law and its consequences in material terms— and on the other, to proceduralism—which masks the growing oligarchic influence on government that happens without a direct transgression of separation of powers and electoral rules. A material assessment of constitutions and struc- tural forms of inequality would force us not only to study rules, procedures, and the courts but also to include their impact on power relations, as well as to engage in institutional innovation to give binding power to the common people so that they can effectively resist oligarchic domination. There are currently very few constitutions in the world that partially aim at redressing material and political inequalities— and they do a rather poor job. The most emblematic examples of legal frameworks with justiciable socio- economic rights are the constitutions of Brazil (1988), Colombia (1991), and South Africa (1996), which are part of a transformative constitutionalism that transcends formal equality and pushes for the materialization of basic rights such as healthcare and housing. However, despite the incorporation of these rights, their materialization has been slow and uneven since it is individuals, through the courts, who must demand that the State comply with its constitu- tional duty to guarantee them. As judges do not have the authority to decide on the budget, rights have only been guaranteed to the extent that is “reasonable,” which has meant that the rights of many people continue to be systematically negated.82 Separation of powers and the lack of an institutional authority to 80 Rancière 1998: 101. 81 For the positive effect that mechanisms of direct democracy have on equality, see Kramling 2022. 82 For a study of the territorial inequities in the enjoyment of the right to healthcare, see Ferraz 2020. For an overview of law, policy, and implementation of a consistently underfunded right to adequate housing in South Africa, see Dawson & McLaren 2014. REVUS 46.indd 157 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 158 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Camila Vergara mandate and oversee structural change have proven to be insurmountable bar- riers to the lack of political will by governments with short-term goals driven by electoral cycles. More recent constitutional experiments in Venezuela (1999), Ecuador (2008), and Bolivia (2009) have gone further than justiciable social rights, building popular institutions and mechanisms of participation into their structures to materialize rights through the executive and legislative functions. However, their innovations have also failed to adequately guarantee rights be- cause they have not effectively empowered the citizenry to autonomously par- ticipate in decision-making and control of government. Venezuela incorporated a new basic institution, the Citizen Power —com- prised of the offices of the People Defender, the General Prosecutor, and the General Comptroller of the Republic— aimed at guaranteeing rights, oversee- ing the correct application of the law, and investigating and punishing “actions that undermine public ethics and administrative morals” (art. 274). However, even if this Citizen Power was designed to be independent from the govern- ment, the current systematic denial of social rights —such as access to health- care, adequate nutrition, and clean water— and the egregious crimes that have been perpetrated by security forces with impunity83 belie its declared autonomy. The Ecuadorian constitution also vowed to be participatory and gave citizens the right to “initiate, reform or repeal juridical norms” through a mechanism of indirect popular initiative that requires the gathering of signatures to introduce a proposal into the legislative debate (art. 61.3). However, this mechanism of popular participation has not allowed the common people to have real politi- cal power. To date, of the 21 indirect popular initiatives that managed to gather enough signatures to be considered by Congress, none have been approved with their original content.84 Finally, the Bolivian Constitution empowered local communities by granting rights to “participation and social control,” so resi- dents could design and monitor public policies, and in this way push for the adequate materialization of basic rights in their communities (art. 241 & 242). However, these rights to participate and oversee government action remain largely unrealized, which has had a negative impact on the materialization of socioeconomic rights. As the case of the right to water shows, even if the MAS government has been progressively realizing this right since 2006, the lack of meaningful citizen participation in decision-making and accountability pro- cesses has resulted in great disparities. Notwithstanding the national increase in the access to clean water since the mid-2000s, from 71% of the population to 83%, the gains have been unequally distributed. Cochabamba, the epicentre of the 2000 water war —during which social movements demanded the “creation of public, democratic water utilities with citizen participation and community 83 UN Human Rights Report, 2019. 84 Herrera 2018. For a critical analysis of the rights of nature and the extractivist state in Ecuador see Vergara 2022. REVUS 46.indd 158 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 159 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism oversight,” but got instead only a few seats in the directory of the corrupt public water company— has had negligible improvements, with approximately half of its population still lacking access to water.85 To be able to go beyond the constraints imposed by formal equality and the anti-majoritarian organization of power that has yielded societies with billion- aires, opulence, and waste alongside growing ranks of oppressed groups living in precarity, it is necessary to intervene the basic structure to incorporate new institutions like Condorcet’s network of primary assemblies,86 as well as binding participatory mechanisms to force representative governments to adequately fulfil the rights of the most vulnerable and stop kicking the bucket down the electoral road. Politicians are not keen to spend their time in office investing in the long-term fulfilment of the rights of the most vulnerable, since it is un- likely that they will be able to reap the benefits in the next electoral cycle. Self- emancipation demands material and institutional resources, and a material lens forces us to reckon with the fact that socioeconomic rights cannot be divorced from political power. Having justiciable socioeconomic rights in the constitu- tion is not enough to materialize them. It is necessary to think outside of the lib- eral constitutional box and pair these rights with direct democracy mechanisms to assure their adequate fulfilment and defence against oligarchic overreach. 4 CONCLUSION If we follow Machiavelli and take as a premise that all constitutions and the laws they produce could tend to foster corruption, then we need to grapple with the relativity of the ‘rule of law,’ which both neoliberal and neorepublican think- ers argue is the mark of liberty. If corruption is the vehicle for oppression, and it originates not only in individuals but also in laws and the use of procedures, then the rule of law must not be necessarily understood as a source of liberty. Moreover, because laws can be written and used as tools for oppression, they appear at best as weak tools to combat corruption and at worst as instruments to uphold and reproduce domination instead of combating it. If one agrees that the minimal normative expectation of liberal democracies is that govern- ments should advance the interests of the majority within constitutional safe- guards, increasing income inequality and the relative impoverishment of most citizens should be seen as a clear sign of corruption. However, both inequality and corruption have been depoliticized; while inequality is seen as a natural and inevitable outcome of free market societies, corruption has been reduced to individual misconduct, which prevents us from fully capturing the systemic 85 Baer 2015. 86 Condorcet (2007a: 204-205) also proposed a national council of overseers, a popular office of enforcement and surveillance. REVUS 46.indd 159 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 160 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Camila Vergara effects that inequality and corruption have on the enjoyment of individual and collective liberties. Analysing the constitution through a materialist lens that does not origi- nate in a natural egalitarian fantasy, or in abstract original positions, where in- equalities are obscured by veils of ignorance, but that rather begins with real existing inequalities and relations of domination that have endured despite formal equality, separation of powers, and transparency laws, seems necessary to correctly diagnose the oligarchic malaise that has taken over representatives institutions, distorting public purposes even in the most egalitarian democra- cies. The material lens opens a range of new institutional solutions to systemic corruption —from anti-oligarchic laws setting limits to wealth accumulation, to a national network of local assemblies with the power to monitor and direct representative government— as well as new normative grounds to justify the adequate fulfilment of new socioeconomic and political rights. Only by pushing the boundaries of the hegemonic liberal interpretation of rights and the doc- trine of separation of powers, which has been disturbingly tolerant to extreme degrees of inequality, can constitutionalism contribute to reverting the process of oligarchization of power that transpires not only in conformity with legality but that is also enabled by it. References: American Civil Liberties Union (2006). Cracks in The System: 20 Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law. https://www.aclu.org/other/ cracks-system-20-years-unjust-federal-crack- cocaine-law Baer, M. (2015). From Water Wars to Water Rights: Implementing the Human Right to Water in Bolivia. Journal of Human Rights, 14(3), 353– 376. Bomhoff, J. (2013). Balancing Constitutional Rights: The Origins and Meanings of Postwar Legal Discourse. Cambridge University Press. Cicero (1913). De officiis (W. Miller, trans. and ed.). Harvard University Press. Clark, G. & Clark, A. (2001). Common Rights to Land in England, 1475–1839. The Journal of Economic History 61(4), 1009–1036. Collins, C. (2018, October 31). The Wealth of Ame- rica’s Three Richest Families Grew by 6,000% since 1982. The Guardian. Condorcet N. (2007a). A Survey of the Principles Underlying the Draft Constitution. In I. McLean and F. Hewitt (eds.), Condorcet: Foundations of Social Choice and Political Theory (chap. 10). Elgar. Condorcet N. (2007b). Letters from a Freeman from New Haven to a Citizen of Virginia on the Futility of Dividing the Legislative Power Among Several Bodies. In I. McLean and F. Hewitt (eds.), Condorcet: Foundations of Social Choice and Political Theory (chap. 17). Elgar. Dawson, H., and McLaren, D. (2014). Monitoring the Right of Access to Adequate Housing in South Africa. Studies in Poverty and Inequality Institute. http://spii.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/ 02/Working-Paper-8_Monitoring-the-right-to- adequate-housing-in-SA.pdf Farrand, M. (ed.). (2008). The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Yale University Press. Ferraz, O. (2020). Health as a Human Right. The Politics and Judicialisation of Health in Brazil. Cambridge University Press. Gardbaum, S. (2003). The ‘Horizontal Effect’ of Constitutional Rights. Michigan Law Review, 102(3), 387–459. Goldoni, M. & Wilkinson, M. (2018). The Material Constitution. Modern Law Review, 81(4), 567– 597. Green, J. (2016). The Shadow of Unfairness. A Plebeian Theory of Liberal Democracy. Oxford University Press. Hamilton, A., Madison, J. & Jay, J. (2003). The Federalist Papers (C. Rossiter, ed.). Signet Cla- ssics. Hayek, F. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty. Uni- versity of Chicago Press. Herrera, K. (2018). Ecuador: La iniciativa popular normativa en el gobierno de la revolución ciu- REVUS 46.indd 160 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 161 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism dadana. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, XXIV(2), 68–82. Holmes, S. (1988). “Precommitment and the Paradox of Democracy.” In J. Elster and R. Slagstad, eds.), Constitutionalism and Democracy (pp. 195–240). Cambridge University Press. Kennedy, D. (1976). Form and Substance in Private Law Adjudication. Harvard Law Review, 89(8), 1685–1778. Kolakowski, L. (1978). Main Currents of Marxism. Clarendon. Krämling A., Geißel B., Rinne JR., Paulus L. (2022). Direct Democracy and Equality: A Global Perspective. International Political Science Re- view (OnlineFirst). Landemore, H. (2020). Open Democracy. Rein- venting Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Cen- tury. Princeton University Press. Levitsky, S., and Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing. Locke, J. (2003). Second Treatise. In D. Wootton (ed.), John Locke: Political Writings (pp. 261– 386). Hackett. Lucretius (2001). On the Nature of Things. Hackett. Machiavelli (1989). Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius. In Chief Works and Others. Vol. 1 (A. Gilbert, trans.). Duke University Press. Manin, B. (2010). The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge University Press. Marx, K. (1841). The Difference Between the Demo- critean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature [Doctoral dissertation]. Marx, K. (1975). Early Writings (R. Livingstone and G. Benton, trans.). Penguin Books. Marx, K. (1978). The German Ideology. In R. Tucker (ed.), The Marx and Engels Reader (pp. 146–200). W. W. Norton & Co. MacLean, N. (2017). Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America. Penguin Random House. McCormick, J. (2013). ‘Keep the Public Rich, But the Citizens Poor’: Economic and Political Inequality in Constitutions, Ancient and Modern. Cardozo Law Review, 34(3), 879–92. Mintz, M. (1991). Condorcet’s Reconsideration of America as a Model for Europe. Journal of the Early Republic, 11(4), 493–506. Montesquieu (1989). The Spirit of the Laws. Cambridge University Press. Nobles, G. (2012). ‘Satan, Smith, Shattuck, and Shays’: The People’s Leaders in the Massachusetts Regulation of 1780. In A. Young et al. (eds.), Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, and Reformers in the Making of the Nation. Vintage Books. Olson, M. (2012). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press. Parietti, G. (2022). On the Concept of Power. Po- ssibility, Necessity, Politics. Oxford University Press. Pasquino, P. (2009). Machiavelli and Aristotle: The Anatomies of the City. History of European Ideas, 35, 397–407. Pistor, K. The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality. Princeton University Press. Quigley, B. (2016, October 3). 18 Examples of Ra- cism in the Criminal Legal System. Huffington Post. Rancière, J. (1998). Disagreement: Politics and Philo- sophy. University of Minnesota Press. Rawls, R. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Harvard Uni- versity Press. Robin, C. (2017, February 2) American institutions won’t keep us safe from Donald Trump’s excess- es. The Guardian. Rowe, C. (1984). The Present-Day Relevance of Condorcet. In L. C. Rosenfeld (ed.), Condorcet Studies (pp. 15–32). Humanities Press. Schmitt, C. (2008). Constitutional Theory (J. Seitzer, trans.). Duke University Press. Slobodian, Q. (2018). Globalists. the End of Em- pire and the Birth of Neoliberalism. Harvard University Press. Stanley, J. (1995). The Marxism of Marx’s Doctoral Dissertation. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 33(1), 133–158. Thompson, D. (1995). Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption. Brookings Institution. Thompson, D. (2005). Two Concepts of Corruption: Making Electoral Campaigns Safe for Demo- cracy. George Washington Law Review, 73(5/6), 1036–1069. Tushnet, M. (2003). The Issue of State Action/ Horizontal Effect in Comparative Constitutional Law. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 1(1), 79–98. Urbinati, N. (2008). Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy. University of Chicago Press. Vergara, C. (2020). Systemic Corruption. Constitu- tional Ideas for an Anti-Oligarchic Republic. Princeton University Press. Vergara, C. (2022). Democracy to Avert Ecocide. In S. Deese and M. Holm (eds.), How Democracy Survives: Global Challenges in the Anthropocene. Routledge (forth.). Zucker, R. (2000). Unequal Property and Its Premise in Liberal Theory. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 17(1), 29–49. REVUS 46.indd 161 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 REVUS 46.indd 162 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 163 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 revus (2022) 46, 163–182 Ana Cannilla* Political constitutionalism in the age of populism This article examines the relationship between populism and political constitutional- ism. It claims that while political constitutionalism is at odds with, and better than, the wide range of experiences labelled under the term ‘populism’, political constitutionalists would do well to distance themselves from the claim that the constitution is political “all the way down”. First, the article argues that the normative ambiguity of the term ‘pop- ulism’ makes it ill-fated for the purposes of constitutional theory and a call for clearer language for constitutional discussion is defended. Second, it argues that political consti- tutionalism should abandon, or significantly adjust, its commitment to what the article calls constitutional lawlessness and is defined as the idea that the constitution is and ought to be entirely malleable. The reasons offered for this proposal differ from those advanced by legal constitutionalism and instead hang on the democratic authority that political constitutionalists vindicate for majoritarian institutions. Political constitutionalism, the article concludes, should grant some of the normative advantages of the law to the out- comes of constitutional decision-making processes. The move makes political constitu- tionalism more consistent in its own right and, importantly, safer from the charge that it feeds different sorts of constitutional disorder. Keywords: populism, constitutionalism, constitutional crisis, political constitutionalism, illiberalism 1 INTRODUCTION Political constitutionalism faces a crucial challenge today. At a time when electoral majorities are supporting illiberal and authoritarian governments globally, the traditional defence of majoritarian decision-making and popular sovereignty endorsed by political constitutionalists seems more questionable than ever before. The rise of populism across Europe and the Americas has brought to the constitutional surface the most feared threat to liberal democ- racy: the possibility that political majorities abuse minorities precisely through the democratic process. In this context, it comes as no surprise that long-stand- ing concerns regarding the tyranny of the majority and the appropriate role of courts are intensely revisited. Some scholars argue that populism justifies the need for judicial constraints on majoritarian institutions and that, if anything, * ana.cannilla@glasgow.ac.uk | Lecturer in Public Law, School of Law, University of Glasgow (UK). I am grateful to Dimitrios Kyritsis and Stuart Lakin for their comments on earlier ver- sions of this article. Previous versions of the article were presented at the IVR-World Congress and at the UCL Public Law Group in July and October 2019 respectively and I wish to thank the attendants of both sessions for excellent discussions on the paper. REVUS 46.indd 163 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 164 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ana Cannilla the independence and powers of courts should be strengthened.1 Others are sceptical that the old remedies of liberal constitutionalism work as well as ex- pected, claiming that countermajoritarian solutions will not help in times when citizens demand more participation, not less, in political decision-making.2 In this article I will be siding with the latter group but, instead of making a general case for political constitutionalism, what I want to address here is the relationship between populism and political constitutionalism. While the rela- tionship between populism and constitutionalism has recently started to gain attention, the connections between populism and political constitutionalism need of further exploration. In particular, the implications of their shared ma- joritarian readings of the constitution deserves examination. This article argues that while political constitutionalism is at odds with, and better than, the wide range of experiences labelled under the term ‘populism’, political constitutional- ists would do well to distance themselves from the claim that the constitution is political “all the way down”. The reasons offered for this proposal differ from those advanced by legal constitutionalists. The move makes political consti- tutionalism more consistent in its own right and, importantly, safer from the charge that it feeds illiberal or authoritarian constitutionalism. In developing my argument, the article proceeds in four steps. Section II surveys the literature on populist constitutionalism, outlining the different views on the topic to show that the label is, at the very least, extremely con- tested. In Section III, I take on populism to explain why views on the relation- ship between populism and constitutionalism are so disputed. In a nutshell, I argue that the term populism fails to do the work constitutional theorists want it to do. Indeed, the shortcomings of populism are so problematic that I claim we are better off without the term, at least for the purposes of constitutional theory. Moreover, its ambiguity leads to the conflation of authoritarianism with democratic and legitimate appeals to popular and parliamentary sovereignty. This mistakenly detracts from political constitutionalism as a worthy theory of constitutional government in liberal democracies. Unlike legal constitutional- ists, political constitutionalists endorse the view that constitutional decision- making belongs to the political, not the juridical, arena. A reason for this is that they sometimes envisage constitutional disagreement as political “all the way down”. Legal constitutionalists denigrate this position as self-defeating but, as I will defend in Section IV, their critique is wanting. That said, there is one way in which political constitutionalism can fall prey to self-defeat when it insists on the view that the constitution is political ‘all the way down’. If there is noth- ing legal in the constitution, political constitutionalism can hardly live up to its promise to enable self-government in a society of equals. I develop this critique 1 Kuo 2019; Prendergast 2019. 2 Suteu 2019; Loughlin 2019. REVUS 46.indd 164 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 165 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Political constitutionalism in the age of populism of what I call constitutional lawlessness in Section V. I argue that political con- stitutionalism should abandon or significantly moderate its commitment to the idea that the constitution is and ought to be essentially malleable, for reasons that hang on the democratic authority that political constitutionalists claim for majoritarian institutions. Instead, political constitutionalists should grant some of the normative advantages of the law to the outcomes of constitutional decision-making. This, I will conclude, does not weaken the merits of political constitutionalism. On the contrary, it will immunise it from the critique that it can fuel different sorts of constitutional disorder. 2 POPULIST CONSTITUTIONALISM In recent years, the literature on constitutionalism and populism has grown considerably. As populism became a major topic in other social sciences, most obviously in political science, and as it gained geopolitical traction (initially in Latin America, then in Central and Eastern Europe, and more recently in the US, the UK, and continental Europe), scholars of constitutional law have turned to the wide scholarship on populism and taken issue with its constitutional dimension. A survey of the literature reveals a huge divergence in the under- standing of what populist constitutionalism comprises. In his book What Is Populism?, Jan-Werner Müller argues that populism and constitutionalism are not as contradictory as they seem.3 Populists, he ar- gues, do not oppose constitutional systems and their institutions. While popu- lists usually criticize constitutionalism when they are in the opposition, they frequently seek to establish new populist constitutional orders once in power, either by promoting constituent processes or by approving deep constitutional amendments.4 In Müller’s view, the core element of populism is anti-pluralism rather than anti-constitutionalism. Populist leaders, he claims, hold the view that “it’s possible for the people to be one and -all of them- to have one true representative”.5 Populism, in his view, is a “moralistic imagination of politics” that splits the alleged “morally pure and fully unified people against elites who are deemed corrupt or in some other way morally inferior”.6 In populist con- stitutionalism, constitutions are partisan instruments to make the promises of such moralized antipluralism true, by occupying power in what would other- wise seem liberal constitutional institutions. 3 Müller 2016. 4 Müller 2016: 62-63; Landau 2018. 5 Müller 2016: 20. 6 Müller 2016: 19-20. See similarly Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser (2017: 5) who define populism as “a thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated in two homoge- neous and antagonistic camps, ‘the pure people’ and the ‘corrupt elite’”. REVUS 46.indd 165 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 166 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ana Cannilla In a similar way, Paul Blokker defines populist constitutionalism as a vari- ant of political constitutionalism “but with a specific twist”.7 Political constitu- tionalists tell us that politics should enjoy primacy over law. In this ‘revolution- ary’ tradition, political institutions have authority over courts in constitutional decision-making, not vice versa as legal constitutionalists argue.8 The connec- tion between this political strand of constitutionalism and populism comes as no surprise, since a common feature of all accounts of populism includes an alleged defence of popular sovereignty.9 But an appeal to defend and rep- resent the general will cannot by itself be dismissed as populist. What then is distinctive about populist constitutionalism? In Blokker’s view the answer lies in a defence of popular sovereignty, but also in the prevalence of majority rule, an instrumental use of constitutions, and a strong resentment towards law and courts. When combined, these elements ultimately usher in policies that vio- late the principles of pluralism and inclusiveness.10 Thus, in practice, populist constitutionalism is at odds with the political constitutionalist idea of giving all citizens equal say and equal vote.11 As Kim Scheppele notes, reality shows that populists are hardly committed to populism in any serious sense.12 Once in power, populists ignore their appeals to popular sovereignty and their previous criticisms of constitutional government and instead make corrupt use of consti- tutional institutions to hold on to power. These accounts of populist constitutionalism share an exclusionary under- standing of populism.13 Here, populism is understood as a disease that corrodes constitutionalism’s commitment to pluralism, individual rights, and the rule of law. By conceiving of the political framework in friend-foe terms, between the allegedly pure and ordinary majority of people and its impure opposition and minorities, it excludes the latter from the political game based on ethnicity, sex- ual identity, gender, religion, and other characteristics that should be protected by constitutional law.14 Given this hostility against the core values of constitutional democracy, con- stitutional scholars have strongly reacted against populists. Hence, it is com- monly agreed that the role that courts should play in today´s democracies is 7 Blokker 2018: 116. 8 Corrias 2016; Blokker 2019. 9 See e.g., Canovan 1999: 4 “Populists claim legitimacy on the grounds that they speak for the people: that is to say, they claim to represent the democratic sovereign, not a sectional interest such as an economic class.” 10 Blokker 2019. 11 Similarly see Alterio 2019. 12 Scheppele 2019. 13 The terms “exclusionary” and “inclusionary” populism were introduced by Mudde and Ro- vira Kaltwasser. See Mudde & Ro vira Kaltwasser 2012. 14 See e.g., Bugaric 2019. REVUS 46.indd 166 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 167 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Political constitutionalism in the age of populism to “reinforce constitutional constraints”.15 Although it is conceded that “some- times courts themselves embrace populism”16 and that courts will only be able to resist populists “as long as they have a strong support of initiatives within civ- il society”,17 most scholars seem to agree that the point of constitutionalism is precisely to resist the kind of threat that populism poses to liberal democracy.18 Legal constitutionalism conceives of law and courts as a limit to the excesses of ordinary politics and majoritarian democracy. Certainly, this reaction is a tan- talising one. Our liberal constitutional systems were designed for resisting the kinds of threats posed by populism today. If the countermajoritarianism found in strong judicial review could be possibly justified by political constitutional- ists it was for non-core cases, to use Waldron’s well-known distinction.19 Yet, it appears that things are not so simple. It is far from clear that consti- tutional courts are willing or able to limit anti-pluralist or illiberal decisions of elected branches, whether executive or parliamentary.20 Moreover, judicial intervention sometimes appears to be counterproductive, having enhanced ju- dicial backlash instead of a commitment to the rule of law.21 Importantly, pop- ulism and social discontent towards our basic liberal institutions (constitutional courts included) can be analysed not just as a disease but also as a symptom or even a potential cure to the internal tensions of modern constitutionalism.22 With this in the background, other scholars seek to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ populist constitutionalism. From this standpoint, only some varieties of populism are intrinsically incompatible with the core elements of liberal constitutionalism. The sort of populist constitutionalism described pre- viously is bad because it delivers authoritarian politics and is committed to nativist, patriarchal, and racist policies and discourses. To hold on to power, bad populists attack the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, and pro- mote partisan constitutional reform. Examples of bad populism include Latin American parties such as the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), Donald Trump and the Tea Party movement in the U.S., or the Hungarian Civic Party (Fidesz) led by the country’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in Europe. Yet good populism,23 also referred to as democratic or emancipatory,24 inclusion- 15 Issacharoff 2017. 16 Harel 2017. 17 Arato 2017. 18 Kuo 2019; Harel 2017; Prendergast 2019; Issacharoff 2015. 19 Waldron 2006. 20 Bugaric 2019; Sadurski 2019. 21 Pin 2019; Candia 2019. 22 Walker 2019; Doyle et al 2019. 23 Halmai 2019. 24 Bugaric 2019. REVUS 46.indd 167 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 168 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ana Cannilla ary25 or left-wing,26 is essentially different. It is so different that some authors consider bad populism to be false populism, or indeed not populism at all.27 Like its bad version, good populism endorses the thin ideology of a society separated in two opposed camps, ‘the pure people’ and the ‘corrupt elite’,28 but in this case its aim is to promote pluralism and the inclusion of traditionally underrepresented groups. Good populists are not intrinsically corrupt nor are their constitutional proposals necessarily partisan. Examples of good populism include political parties like Podemos (Spain) and Syriza (Greece); political leaders like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the United States, or Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom; transnational initiatives like the European movement DiEM-25 or social movements like Occupy Wall Street. What these cases share, it is argued, is a preference for forms of government that stress the value of popular sovereignty in political decision-making (for instance by favouring mechanisms of direct democracy or by fostering politi- cal activism and social movements), with the recurrent aim to democratize the economy. In this sense, not only is populist constitutionalism not necessarily a bad thing, but it might foster the best normative readings of the constitution.29 For this reason, it is also argued that the choice between a form of constitutional- ism that is committed to liberal values and a form of populism that is reactionary and authoritarian, or led by “apostles of mob rule”, is a false dichotomy.30 There is room today for good populism, as there was before too.31 Finally, there are also those who consider the divide between good and bad populism as a simplifica- tion of a rather complex phenomenon of incremental constitutional practice.32 The ambiguity of ‘populist constitutionalism’ evidenced from the above is unsurprising as it mirrors the ambiguity of the term ‘populism’ in the political science literature. In the following section, I argue that this ambiguity is more problematic than is usually conceded. It is so problematic, I will hold, that con- stitutional scholarship is better off without the term. 3 CALLING A SPADE A SPADE The literature on populism is abundant, sophisticated, and interdisciplinary. Yet, as we saw with the previous discussion of populist constitutionalism, the value of populism as an analytical tool is far from obvious. The term remains 25 Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2012. 26 Tushnet 2019. 27 Halmai 2019; Scheppele 2019. 28 Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2017. 29 Tushnet & Bugaric 2020. 30 Howse 2019. 31 Tushnet & Bugaric 2020. 32 Doyle et al 2019. REVUS 46.indd 168 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 169 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Political constitutionalism in the age of populism highly contested and there are dozens of alternative and conflicting conceptions and definitions of populism, such as a strategy,33 a style,34 an ideology,35 a po- litical experiment,36 a “way of constructing the political”37 or even the “essence” of it,38 the inner periphery39 or the spectre of democracy,40 a corrective and a threat to democracy,41 a “moralistic imagination of politics”,42 a form of plebe- ian politics43, “the people in moral battle against the elites”,44 or a disfigurement of representative democracy.45 In a gracious exercise of intellectual honesty, Moffit and Tormey noted a few years ago that: “it is an axiomatic feature of literature on the topic to acknowledge the contested na- ture of populism […], and more recently the literature has reached a whole new level of meta-reflexivity, where it is posited that it has become common to acknowledge the acknowledgement of this fact.”46 Considering this state of affairs, the applicability of the term remains chal- lenging to discern. To be sure, not all the issues raised by the ambiguity of the term should concern constitutional theorists. Perhaps populism proves useful as a tool for political scientists to describe the behaviour of political parties and their leaders, to analyse voters’ preferences, or to design strategies of electoral campaign.47 But it is very difficult to examine the relationship between pop- ulism and constitutionalism when the available definitions for the former are so varied and contradictory, not least to evaluate whether populism is, in and of it- self, compatible or incompatible with core elements of liberal constitutionalism. It is difficult to think about how constitutionalism can help to protect liberal democracies if we do not agree on what are the most serious threats these socie- ties are facing. Making it even more challenging, most studies acknowledge that the case of populism is never clear-cut, but a matter of degree.48 33 Weyland 2001: 14. 34 Moffitt 2016. 35 Mudde 2004; Mudde & Kaltwasser 2012. 36 Frei & Rovira Kaltwasser 2008. 37 Laclau 2005: xi. 38 Laclau 2005: 22. 39 Arditi 2004. 40 Arditi 2007. 41 Rovira Kaltwasser 2012. 42 Müller 2016: 19. 43 Vergara 2020. 44 Mansbridge & Macedo 2019: 60. 45 Urbinati 2019. 46 Moffitt & Tormey 2014: 2. 47 E.g., Mouffe 2018. 48 Muller 2016: 74: “whether a particular claim is democratic or populist will not always be a clear-cut, obvious matter”. REVUS 46.indd 169 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 170 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ana Cannilla The problem is not only one of conceptual ambiguity. If that was the case, many other key terms in legal and political theory would be susceptible to the same critique. Rather, the key problem of populism inheres in its normative ambiguity. Unlike other contested ideas like democracy, freedom, or equal- ity, we cannot agree on whether populism is a good or a bad thing, whether it threatens or offers a useful corrective for liberal democracies. If we cannot agree on whether populism is ideally to be eradicated, controlled, or fostered, then it will hardly take us far in the sort of questions that constitutional scholars are due to answer, such as: What are the limits of legitimate government? What is the best institutional design of a constitutional system? Which rights are funda- mental? - and so forth. For present purposes, the pitfalls of the term are threefold. First, populism fails to point out a novel, distinctive feature of politics and constitutionalism. Scholars of constitutionalism seem to agree that populism excludes, or aims to exclude, some people (not “pure people”) from the polity and its decision-mak- ing processes by denying their legitimate political agency and restricting their rights.49 We have better, clearer, and well-established terms to do that work for us. When the exclusion is based on gender, nationality, race and so forth, we speak of sexism, xenophobia, and racism correspondingly. In the unfortunate but not uncommon cases where these exclusions overlap, and when the basic procedural values of liberalism like the rule of law or separation of powers be- gin to fray, we speak of illiberalism, authoritarianism, or even fascism.50 Thus, we should move beyond acknowledging the contested meaning of the term to test it against other, more serviceable concepts. This is relevant not only because populism fails to do the conceptual work we want it to do. The term also ob- scures the actual wrongness of such authoritarian governments, which are often closer to far-right ideology and institutional arrangements that bolster execu- tive powers to the detriment of plural parliaments than to perennial two-sided power struggles for political hegemony. Second, an excessively ambiguous concept like populism might also divert us from the causes of democratic decline. Instead of struggling to determine the meaning of populist constitutionalism, perhaps we could concentrate on more tangible forms of illiberalism and authoritarianism and pay heed to the root causes of popular discontent. I do not intend to elaborate on the extent or causes 49 Or, in the case of good populism, by controlling the political influence and eliminating the privileges of corporations and millionaires. While the literature is, for good reasons, more concerned with bad populism than with good, my argument works against the term across the board: we could speak, for instance, of democratic socialism for these cases. 50 Jason Stanley has powerfully argued that fascist politics can take place in countries that still stand as formal democracies, and identifies the practices lately ascribed to populists as fascist tactics or fascist politics. See Stanley 2018. REVUS 46.indd 170 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 171 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Political constitutionalism in the age of populism of democratic backsliding across the globe here,51 and we will never know if the fate of liberal democracy would have been any better had it followed the ‘revo- lutionary’ tradition of constitutionalism, but it is a possibility worth exploring. If anything, it is unlikely that constitutional democracy’s decay is primarily due to an excessive display of popular or parliamentary sovereignty within liberal democracies over the last decades. In this sense, the crisis of legitimacy that our liberal institutions seem to suffer today should not be confronted from the an- ti-popular sensibility that characterizes legal constitutionalism. Doing so risks fuelling the political disaffection that in turn feeds authoritarian political par- ties. As political constitutionalists never tire of emphasizing, constitutional at- tempts to save democracy from its demos do not appear to be the best solution to deep political challenges. Third, the ambiguity of populism jeopardizes the value and potential of po- litical accounts of constitutionalism by conflating authoritarianism and sundry moral and political claims of sovereignty. Populist-based analyses of consti- tutional practice risk taking alternatives to legal constitutionalism as if these were prone to authoritarianism due to their preference for popular or political decision-making processes.52 The bias matters because scholars use concepts and ideas not only to describe how constitutions work, but also strategically, to establish how constitutions can legitimately work. Scholarship often reveals an anti-popular sensibility (or anti-populist, if you want) that penalizes majoritar- ian constitutional decision-making by default, casting a blanket shadow of sus- picion over proposals within the political constitutionalist spectrum. Arguably, critics of liberal constitutionalism consider the model guilty, even if only par- tially, of the problems of political disaffection that liberal democracies currently face.53 Political constitutionalism aims to rectify this by defending the constitu- tional merits of popular and parliamentary sovereignty that inform democratic decision-making against its legalistic counterpart. But, while political constitu- tionalism defends democratic sovereignty against a judicial countermajoritar- ian elite, it is at odds with any version of the phenomena recently packed under the label ‘populism’. The reason, chiefly, is that the popular and political con- stitutionalist defence of majoritarian decision-making is driven by the idea of political equality and not merely of self-government, as an authoritarian view of constitutionalism would imply. That said, there are some grounds for the sus- picion that political constitutionalism is a self-defeating view that makes liberal 51 On this point see e.g., Graber et al. 2018. 52 Not long ago, the label ‘populist constitutionalism’ was not as pejorative as it is now. It was often used interchangeably with popular constitutionalism, the American form of political constitutionalism that famously attacks judicial supremacy in constitutional decision-making and favours instead practices of participatory democracy. See Tushnet 1999, Kramer 2004, Balkin 1995. 53 See e.g., Loughlin 2019; Walker 2019. REVUS 46.indd 171 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 172 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ana Cannilla democracies vulnerable to tyrannical forms of government. In the following section, I elaborate how these are different from what legal constitutionalists and scholars of populist constitutionalism have pointed at. 4 FROM MORAL DISAGREEMENT TO CONSTITUTIONAL LAWLESSNESS Political constitutionalists share a sceptical view of the idea of courts as guardians of democracy. The reasons for their opposition to judicial review, typically courts’ low democratic pedigree, have been widely discussed in the last decades.54 In the two next sections, I focus on a tricky feature of political con- stitutionalism that I call constitutional lawlessness. I will refer to constitutional lawlessness as the idea that the constitution does not share, and ought not share, the normative advantages and disadvantages of the law. I will argue that one does not need to commit to constitutional lawlessness to endorse political con- stitutionalism. Rather, abandoning constitutional lawlessness closes the door to potential illiberal or authoritarian turns of the constitution that scholars of pop- ulism rightly fear.55 My claim is that, by rejecting the idea that there are no such things as constitutional norms, political constitutionalism can better live up to its promise of self-government in a society of equals. Let me start by clarifying that, contrary to what it is often asserted, most political constitutionalists are not moral relativists. Political constitutionalism needs not, and usually does not, deny the existence of moral facts that law aims to safeguard.56 In my understanding of political constitutionalism, scepticism does not lie in the realm of moral ontology. What political constitutionalism denies, particularly in its British version, are constitutional facts. It is the ontol- ogy of constitutionalism that is at the heart of political constitutionalists’ scepti- cism towards constitutional law. Other than uncontested, thin, procedural rules regarding how laws ought to be made, political constitutionalists fail to recog- nize the democratic value, and in some cases even the existence, of substantive constitutional precommitments of the people themselves or of their elected rep- resentatives. This constitutional scepticism will be my target here. Although not all political constitutionalists endorse constitutional lawless- ness in the same way, to a greater or lesser extent the idea that the nature of the constitution is, and ought be, entirely malleable is shared by all. From American popular constitutionalist Mark Tushnet’s idea that “all constitutional provisions 54 See Gargarella 1996; Tushnet 1999, Waldron 1999 and Waldron 2006, Bellamy 2007. 55 For instance, Mudde recently linked British political constitutionalism to populism: “[i]n es- sence, the populist position on constitutionalism holds many similarities to extreme interpre- tations of parliamentarianism, such as the Westminster model” see 2021: 235 note 3. 56 Waldron 1999: 164–187. REVUS 46.indd 172 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 173 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Political constitutionalism in the age of populism are up for grabs at all times”57or Richard Parker’s claim that “there are no supra- political guarantees of anything”,58 to British political constitutionalists John Griffith famously arguing that “law is politics carried on by other means”59 and Richard Bellamy’s idea that “the democratic process is the constitution”60 and that there “can be no higher rights-based constitutional law that sits above or beyond politics”,61 or Jeremy Waldron’s critique of constitutionalism as a form of limited government,62 all sceptics of judicial review agree that the constitution is more about what happens to be decided in the legislature at present than it is about what was decided in the past. This view makes it difficult to justify the democratic merits of any legal norm to which government is bound to and, in turn, makes it easier for illiberal or authoritarian actors to game the constitution. Before I attempt to save political constitutionalism from constitutional lawless- ness, let us briefly examine how legal constitutionalists have taken aim at it. The view that there is no objective or neutral way to solve constitutional disa- greements in the circumstances of politics is a core epistemological assumption of political constitutionalism. If there is no Archimedean way to solve reason- able disagreements, they argue, the best that democracies can ultimately do is to count heads.63 Democratic voting thus stands above all other methods to solve constitutional disagreements in a society of equals. But legal constitutionalists argue that, if the epistemological argument is correct, there are no reasons to think it will not apply to second order disagreements, namely disagreements about the fairness of counting heads in the first place.64 It follows, they tell us, that procedural issues are subject to the same sort of disagreement as substantive issues are claimed to be. There is nothing in the circumstances of politics that should logically move us closer to legislative supremacy and away from strong judicial review of legislation. Both institutional design options would be subject to the same kind of disagreement that political constitutionalists use as grounds against judicial review in constitutional decision-making. To make things worse for political constitutionalism, critics add, an understanding of the constitution as nothing more than majoritarian politics will in practice leave minorities out of the decision-making processes that political constitutionalists regard as fun- damental. Political constitutionalism is then doomed to abandoning its chief principle: equal participation of all members of the political community.65 57 Tushnet 1999: 42. 58 Parker 1993: 583 (italics in the original). 59 Griffith 2001: 59. 60 Bellamy 2007: 5 (italics in the original). 61 Bellamy 2011: 90. 62 Waldron 2016: 23-45. 63 Waldron 1999: 113; Bellamy 2016. 64 Christiano 2000. 65 Kavanagh 2003. REVUS 46.indd 173 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 174 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ana Cannilla I am not sure this is the best way to interpret the claims put forward by po- litical constitutionalists. First, the infinite regress kind of critique is a reductio ad absurdum of the argument. Why would processes of constitutional decision- making be subject to an infinite number of disagreements? As will be recalled, political constitutionalists depart from a position, the circumstances of politics, where there happens to be a need to arrive at collective decisions.66 The cir- cumstances of politics in the sort of democracies that political constitutionalists have in mind imply the disposition of its members to arrive at a collective deci- sion peacefully and without questioning the validity of the agreed process in the first place. This means that in ordinary politics there will be some commitment at best and pragmatism at worst, to accept the resulting outcome of a process in which members or their representatives played fairly. Since political constitu- tionalists accept that there is no perfect way to settle disagreements, this is not a frustrating or invalidating point to their theory.67 Arguably, this does not involve ruling out discussions on the merits of major- ity rule itself; there may well be democratic arguments for, say, sortition or coun- termajoritarian mechanisms at some stages of a decision-making processes. But it should be conceded that, in liberal democracies, there happens to be less disa- greement in the process of “counting heads” than in the issue of whose heads are to be counted.68 Notably, in liberal democracies majority rule is the ultimate process used not only in ordinary politics but also in judicial decision-making. The recurring problem for legal constitutionalism seems not to be the legitima- cy of the majority rule itself, but whose majority rules.69 Surely, which majority rules is an extraordinarily relevant question, and no political constitutionalist wants majorities making the wrong decisions. This applies to judicial majorities as well and, inescapably, their decisions are more contingent on who sits, when, and in which court than legal constitutionalists seem willing to acknowledge. This brings me to the second kind of self-defeating accusation against politi- cal constitutionalism. Defenders of judicial review argue that, without the protec- tion of minorities from majoritarian discrimination, political constitutionalism gives away its chief normative claim: the value of equal voice and vote in political decision-making. I will say less than what the issue merits here, but again on both sides of the debate one will find acknowledgments that neither courts nor legislatures are infallible guardians of minority rights.70 It is far from clear that we are always safer in the hands of one institution than the other, as the outcomes are more context-dependant than is desirable. Notably, to make their argument safe against cases where minorities rights are systematically infringed, political 66 Waldron 1999: 108–113. 67 Bellamy 2016. 68 See contra Mac Amhlaigh 2016: 185. 69 See Tushnet 1999, Waldron 2014. 70 See e.g., Sadurski 2002. REVUS 46.indd 174 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 175 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Political constitutionalism in the age of populism constitutionalists claim that the argument for parliamentary (or popular) sover- eignty is not universal: only those societies that have a track record of respect for human rights can morally afford supreme legislatures. This distinction allows us to apply different yardsticks of legitimacy to different majorities. In imperfect but otherwise full democracies, political constitutionalism contends, the core of the case against judicial review is strong because majorities are trustworthy. So, constitutional lawlessness is not a problem for the reasons put forth by legal constitutionalists. I believe it is a problem, nonetheless, for other kind of reasons. In the following section, I argue that there is some truth in the claim that political constitutionalism can fall into a self-defeating paradox with its commitment to the view that constitutional politics goes ‘all the way down’. If there is nothing legal in the constitution, there is not much that the people or their representatives are truly deciding for themselves in the decision-making processes that political constitutionalists vindicate for them. It seems an ill- fated way to empower individuals if the agreements at which they arrive are not taken seriously enough to give them at least some of the advantages of that knotty thing we call law. Coming to terms with this inconsistency will make political constitutionalism a sounder project. 5 WINNERS IN THE CONSTITUTION So far, we have seen that political constitutionalism doesn’t envisage consti- tutions as fixed, legal settlements on how to run a liberal democracy, but as part and parcel of the ordinary political process. With its uncodified constitution, its traditional defence of parliamentary sovereignty, and its characteristic con- stitutional conventions, the picture features most prominently in British politi- cal constitutionalism and is often summarized in John Griffith’s famous claim that “[e]verything that happens is constitutional. And if nothing happened that would be constitutional also”.71 As anticipated, I don’t think this is the best kind of approach to what con- stitutionalism is about. Even under the UK constitution things can be, and of- ten are, quite different. For instance, while there are no procedural differences between the enactment of constitutional and ordinary law,72 UK courts have distinguished both (and established a hierarchy between them) by looking into whether the matters regulated in them are constitutional.73 Some parts of con- 71 Griffith 1979: 19. 72 For the orthodox understanding of parliamentary sovereignty that justifies this, see Dicey 1915: 78 who, on this point, famously wrote “neither the Act of Union with Scotland nor the Dentists Act, 1878, has more claim than the other to be considered a supreme law”. 73 See Thoburn v Sunderland City Council [2002] EWHC 195 (Admin) at [62] where the Euro- pean Communities Act 1972 was defined as a “constitutional statute”; beyond the distinction REVUS 46.indd 175 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 176 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ana Cannilla stitutional law are regarded so valuable, namely constitutional principles and fundamental rights, that UK courts have interpreted statutes against otherwise prima facie legislative intention, by reference to common law principles and rights.74 But courts are not alone in granting constitutional law a ‘higher law’ ex- plicit or implicit status. It is difficult to imagine that, say, citizens in devolved na- tions could be persuaded that the different Acts that establish devolved institu- tions in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales ought not be regarded as worthy of protection from the vicissitudes of ordinary politics.75 It is for this sort of rea- son that political constitutionalists should start to recognize that, to a significant extent, constitutions are treated as legal norms by officials and citizens and thus recognize constitutionalism and parliamentarianism as differentiated practices. As with any other part of the law, constitutions are not set in stone and are largely the result of social and political struggles. But they are no less the way to pinpoint and entrench the result of these struggles, even if only in an open- ended manner. In this sense, the hegemonic establishment of common rules is not in and of itself the elitist perversion that some political constitutional- ists see.76 Neither is constitutional disagreement in and of itself a good thing.77 between ‘constitutional’ and ‘ordinary’ statutes see R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2014] UKSC 3 on the possibility of a conflict between two “constitutional instruments” at [208]; see more recently an endorsement of the view that some acts of parlia- ment enjoy “constitutional character” R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 [67]. For an account of the implications of this trend for the principle of parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom see Elliott in Jowell and O’Cinneide 2019. 74 See Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 and R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and others [2019] UKSC 22 where the court effectively disapplied ouster clauses; see also (R) Jackson v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, [2006] 1 AC 262 where in obiter three Law Lords qualified the principle of parliamentary sovereignty by reference to a “constitutional fundamental” see e.g. at [102] (Lord Steyn): “The classic account given by Dicey of the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament, pure and ab- solute as it was, can now be seen to be out of place in the modern United Kingdom. […] In exceptional circumstances […] [the] Supreme Court may have to consider whether this is a constitutional fundamental which even a sovereign Parliament acting at the behest of a com- plaisant House of Commons cannot abolish”, at [107] (Lord Hope): “The rule of law enforced by the courts is the ultimate controlling factor on which our constitution is based” or at [159] (Lady Hale): “The courts will treat with particular suspicion (and might even reject) any at- tempt to subvert the rule of law by removing governmental action affecting the rights of the individual from all judicial scrutiny.” 75 Particularly considering the references to the permanency of devolution arrangements intro- duced by the Scotland Act 2016 and the Wales Act 2017, see Scotland Act 1998, s 63A (1) and the Government of Wales Act 2006, s A1 (1), see Elliott in Jowell and O’Cinneide 2019: 33. 76 This pinpointing moment is often seen as a fraud to popular sovereignty by sceptics of judicial review, particularly when it refers to top-bottom constituent processes. See e.g., Ran Hirschl’s ‘hegemonic preservation thesis’ in Hirschl 2007. 77 Disagreement is, as I see it, just a matter of fact. Political constitutionalists like Gee and Web- ber 2010: 290 insist that the role of disagreement in the political model of constitutionalism (and the low degree of normativity that it brings) makes the constitution “contingent, con- REVUS 46.indd 176 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 177 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Political constitutionalism in the age of populism Rather, constitutionalization is a unique opportunity for the practice of citizen self-government that these scholars purport to uphold. Political constitutionalists should not miss it so easily.78 When we claim that the constitution is to be modified in and by any ordinary process at a constant rate, we undermine the emancipatory value of political constitutionalism: that people settle disagreements in a meaningful way. The point of political consti- tutionalism is not (or not only) that people or their representatives get to decide on crucial issues of public law. It is that their decisions are taken as more than minor victories to be reversed in the course of ordinary political action. The linear timescale of political constitutionalism departs from a starting point, the circumstances of politics, continues through a moment of voting, and arrives at a final stage of settling the disagreement. Indeed, it does not imply (as legal con- stitutionalists would argue) that this disagreement is then settled forever and must be insulated from political contestation as much as possible. But this is different than saying that there is a democratic reason to dismiss the normative superiority of constitutional settlements. Arguably, constitutions have the aspi- ration of channelling and formalizing the course of future political action. No more but no less. It is one thing to reject the view of constitutions as unmovable pre-commitments and panacea for constitutional disagreement, and it is anoth- er to overlook the value of people meaningfully agreeing on the establishment of whatever fundamental rules of government they choose to give themselves. To put it simply: politics precedes law, it does not fulminate it. Political constitutionalists are often sceptical on this point because they wor- ry that the rigidity of law locks up conservative, anti-popular views into the con- stitution.79 Institutional arrangements like strong judicial review of legislation or rigid amendment procedures seem inconsistent with the idea of a constitution that is brought up to date by the political majorities of the day. But there is room between legal constitutionalism and the realpolitik view of the constitution that political constitutionalists endorse. The idea that we should be vigilant of mor- alistic, elitist impositions of views among citizens should not make us abandon the attempt to build moralized conceptions of constitutionalism.80 On the con- dition that it is available for change in a feasible manner, there is nothing wrong with the entrenchment and hierarchical organization of principles and rights in tested and even, at times, messy—but […] none the worse for it”. My point is that it makes it none the better either. 78 Note that constitutionalization comes in different forms: from entrenchment or amendments decided by legislative supermajorities, referendums, or constituent assemblies to judicial de- cisions, be it common law constructions developed by the courts or specific rulings on the constitutionality of primary legislation. Not all these options of institutional design can pro- mote democratic self-government in the same way. 79 E.g., Griffith 1979: 15; Bellamy 2016: 215-216. 80 For an account of ‘moralized constitutional theory’ see Kyritsis 2017. REVUS 46.indd 177 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 178 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ana Cannilla a constitutional democracy. Surely the opportunity to fix the content of consti- tutional law is not risk free but, hopefully, a decent number of the outcomes of popular decision-making will be worthy of a higher law status. This is, arguably, the starting assumption of political constitutionalism: overall, people are trust- worthy to take fundamental decisions. Although under a more rigid constitution minorities will have to work harder to accomplish changes, these groups would not be better off with a constitution that is too flexible. In a legal context where everything can change easily, securing rights would require demanding levels of mobilization and might simply exhaust the chances of social groups aiming at bottom-top constitution building. Hence, constitutional decision-making should be accomplished by political representatives or by direct consultation to the citizenship, but this should not lead us to hold that parliament should have the power to amend the constitution with one simple majority vote.81 Acknowledging the legal nature of constitutions matters also in terms of the authority and sustainability of constitutional government. If the constitution is no more than the ordinary process of passing laws (as political constitutional- ists hold), what amount of reasons for action could be drawn from this nev- er ending battle over fundamental issues? How helpful is it for constitutional identity to win fundamental rights that the legislature can easily shrug off? In Richard Bellamy’s view, this concern “seems exaggerated given these same objectors generally accept that constitutional courts can and do overrule their precedents and revise their competences without a descent into anarchy”.82 But this response is unsatisfactory for at least two reasons. First, because the parallel with courts does not work well. Despite all the politicization of constitutional courts that can take place in today’s constitutional democracies, it cannot pos- sibly amount to the political task that parliaments carry out. Moreover, consti- tutional courts are not responsible for representing the people nor for satisfying their demands, so they cannot be used as a mirror to legislatures in a worse of two evils fashion. If constitutional courts are to exist, they should not rule to the beat of contingent majorities. Unless we want to duplicate parliaments (and that would get us back to the starting competition for constitutional supremacy), political constitutionalists should argue in favour of courts as independent, un- elected, and countermajoritarian bodies. 81 In most countries with a codified constitution, processes of constitutional amendment take more than a simple majority vote in the legislature. This is due to the understanding that key constitutional matters are to be settled by clear majorities. This seems a good idea not only for normative reasons but also for practical ones. Arguably, the wider the support for change is, the greater the allegiance by dissenters will be. For a defence of the democratic value of codi- fied constitutions and constitutional amendment procedures, see King 2019:32 noting how in the case of the UK’s flexible constitution “there is not even agreed criteria for what would con- stitute a constitutional amendment in the UK, and hence nothing to prevent ‘amendments’ being affected even without an Act of Parliament”. 82 Bellamy 2016: 210. REVUS 46.indd 178 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 179 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Political constitutionalism in the age of populism Second, and perhaps more importantly, the argument of authority is essen- tial if political constitutionalism does not want to get dangerously close to the same kind of decisionism that is characteristic of authoritarian forms of gov- ernment and that worries critics of populist constitutionalism. If we like saying that political constitutionalism is at odds with any form of authoritarianism, then we cannot at the same time say that political constitutionalism is consti- tutional because it refers to a form of government with a constitution but not under one. Even if the political constitution is more available to democratic amendment that what legal constitutionalists would like, it does not follow that political constitutionalism should overlook the idea of government limited by a constitution. This is true not only for political reasons. It is also a sounder on- tological position to adopt. If we hold that conflict and dissent in constitutional politics are always ineliminable it will be difficult to defend the existence of any will of the people that majoritarian institutions are fit to identify and flesh out, not least that courts should stick to. Furthermore, if anything, taking the long road to constitutional decision-making will hardly bring less legitimacy to the process and the outcome. Rather, it will enhance both. While short-cuts like majority vote are perfectly legitimate, one does not need to be a deliberative democrat to recognize the value of the outcomes of longer, thorough, decision- making processes. The latter makes it harder for illiberals to coopt the process through piecemeal law-making and, at the same time, it makes the outcome easier to accept by those who are defeated in the political process. Along the way, constitutional decision-makers are honouring, not bypassing, robust leg- islative processes. The form such well-deserved honours take can include many of the advantages of ordinary law, such as some levels of entrenchment of rights or the benefits of judicial moral reasoning. It seems excessive that, to spare us some of the disadvantages of the law (such as the unavailability of some law to ordinary political challenge and the practical and normative complications of bringing legal change through courts) we lose all of the advantages (such as the entrenchment of human rights, a fair level of rights-based adjudication, or the possibility of institutional resistance against illiberalism). In conclusion, the idea of the constitution as politics ‘all the way down’ stands a bit as a mirage. From a distance, it appears as the instantiation of citizen em- powerment. Yet on closer inspection, its normativity vanishes.83 What is left is the politicization of constitutional law, albeit one that comes in different varie- ties: from the inclusive, democratic form that political constitutionalism defends, to the authoritarian forms that scholars of populist constitutionalism worry about. The form that this politicization takes is what constitutionalists should be concerned with, not the language of sovereignty that political leaders across the board use in their quest for power, and that keeps scholars of populism so busy. 83 Goldoni 2010: 944-945. REVUS 46.indd 179 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 180 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ana Cannilla 6 CONCLUSION Although they rarely put it this way, the political constitutionalist defence of legislative over judicial supremacy is underpinned by concerns about the sus- tainability of the citizens’ bond with their representative institutions.84 From this standpoint, constitutions need to be open for contestation so that citizens can have a say in it. For the same reason, constitutions need to offer them a rea- sonably certain picture of the political framework to which they are expected to show allegiance, even if the picture is more precarious and provisional that what legal constitutionalists are ready to accept. This is a vital issue at a time when, presumably, anything close to constitutional nihilism will not help us rebuild the liberal democratic project. A view of constitutionalism in which all options are always available for change in the most flexible way clears space for the decisionism that scholars of populist constitutionalism worry about. Political constitutionalists would do well to concede that the price, if any, of rec- ognizing some of the advantages of the law to the constitution is not as high as they argue. Granting that constitutional law is law, that it is normatively higher than other parts of the law, that some of it deserves special amendment pro- cedures, or that it is no less political when it comes in written form does not involve handing the constitution over to the judiciary. On the contrary, it can make political constitutionalism better by delivering on the promise of self-gov- ernment in a society of equals. 84 See e.g., Sumption 2019: 24. References: Alterio, A. M. (2019). Reactive vs structural ap- proach: A public law response to populism. Global Constitutionalism, 8(2), 270–296. DOI:10. 1017/S2045381719000029 Arato, A. (2017, April 24). Populism and the Courts. International Journal of Constitutional Law Blog. http://www.iconnectblog.com/2017/04/pop- ulism-and-the-courts Arditi, B. (2007). Politics on the edges of liberal- ism : difference, populism, revolution, agitation. Edinburgh University Press. Arditi, Benjamin. 2004. Populism as a Spectre of Democracy: A Response to Canovan. Political Studies, 52(1), pp. 135–143. Balkin, J. M. (1995). Populism and Progressivism as Constitutional Categories. The Yale Law Journal, 104(7), 1944–1981. DOI:10.2307/797036 Bellamy, R. (2007). Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy. Cambridge University Press. Bellamy, R. (2016). Turtles all the way down? Is the political constitutionalist appeal to disa- greement self-defeating? A reply to Cormac Mac Amhlaigh. International Journal of Consti- tutional Law, 14(1), 204–216. DOI:10.1093/ icon/mow014 Blokker, P. (2018). Populist constitutionalism. In C. de la Torre (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Global Populism (pp. 113-128). Routledge. Blokker, P. (2019). Populism as a constitutional pro- ject. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(2), 535–553. DOI:10.1093/icon/moz028 Bugarič, B. (2019). The two faces of populism: Between authoritarian and democratic pop- ulism. German Law Journal, 20(3), 390–400. DOI:10.1017/glj.2019.20 Bugarič, B. (2019). Central Europe’s descent into autocracy: A constitutional analysis of au- thoritarian populism. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(2), 597–616. https://doi. org/10.1093/icon/moz032 Candia, G. (2019). Regional human rights institu- tions struggling against populism: The case of Venezuela. German Law Journal, 20(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.10 Canovan, M. (1999). Trust the people! populism REVUS 46.indd 180 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 181 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Political constitutionalism in the age of populism and the two faces of democracy. Political Studies, 47(1), 2–16. DOI:10.1111/1467-9248.00184 Cas Mudde & Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser (2017). Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. Christiano, T. (2000). Waldron on Law and Dis- agreement. Law and Philosophy, 19(4), 513–543. Corrias, L. (2016). Populism in a Constitutional Key: Constituent power, popular sovereignty and constitutional identity. European Constitutional Law Review, 12(1), 6–26. DOI:10.1017/S15740 19616000031 Doyle, O., Longo, E., & Pin, A. (2019). Populism: A health check for constitutional democracy? German Law Journal, 20(3), 401–407. DOI:10. 1017/glj.2019.21 Frei, R., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2008). El pop- ulismo como experimento político: Historia y teoría política de una ambivalencia. Revista de Sociología, 22, 117-140. DOI:10.5354/0719-529 X.2008.14485 Gargarella, R. (1996). La justicia frente al gobierno. Sobre el carácter contramayoritario del poder ju- dicial. Ariel. Gee, G., & Webber, G. C. N. (2010). What Is a Political Constitution? Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 30(2), 273–299. Goldoni, M. (2012). Two internal critiques of po- litical constitutionalism. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10(4), 926–949. https://doi. org/10.1093/icon/mos033 Graber, M. A., Levinson, S., & Tushnet, M. (Eds.). (2018). Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? Oxford University Press. Griffith, J. (1979). The Political Constitution. Mo- dern Law Review, 42(1), 1–21. Griffith, J. (2001) The common law and the political constitution. Law Quarterly Review, 117, 42-67. Halmai, G. (2019). Populism, authoritarianism and constitutionalism. German Law Journal, 20(3), 296–313. DOI:10.1017/glj.2019.23 Harel, A. (2017, April 27). Courts in Populist World. International Journal of Constitutional Law Blog. http://www.iconnectblog.com/2017/04/courts- in-a-populist-world Hirschl, R. (2007). Towards Juristocracy. The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Harvard University Press. Howse, R. (2019). Epilogue: In defense of disrup- tive democracy-A critique of anti-populism. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(2), 641–660. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/ moz051 Issacharoff, S. (2015). Fragile Democracies: Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional Courts. Cambridge University Press. Issacharoff, S. (2017, April 29). Safeguarding Democratic Institutions, International Journal of Constitutional Law Blog. http://www.iconnect blog.com/2017/04/safeguarding-democratic -institutions Kaltwasser, C. R. (2012). The ambivalence of pop- ulism: Threat and corrective for democracy. Democratization, 19(2), 184–208. https://doi.org /10.1080/13510347.2011.572619 Kavanagh, A. (2003). Participation and judicial review: A reply to Jeremy Waldron. Law and Philosophy, 22(5), 451–486. https://doi.org/10. 1023/A:1025450827929 King, J. (2019). The Democratic Case for a Written Constitution. Current Legal Problems, 72(1), 1–36. DOI:10.1093/clp/cuz001 Kramer, L. (2004). The People Themselves. Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review. Oxford University Press. Kuo, M. S. (2019). Against instantaneous democ- racy. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(2), 554–575. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mo z029 Kyritsis, D. (2017), Where Our Protection Lies, Oxford University Press. Laclau, E. (2005). On Populist Reason. Verso. Landau, D. (2018). Populist constitutions. University of Chicago Law Review, 85(2), 521–543. Loughlin, M. (2019). The Contemporary Crisis of Constitutional Democracy. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39(2), 435–454. DOI:10.1093/ojls/ gqz005 Mac Amhlaigh, C. (2016). Putting political consti- tutionalism in its place. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 14(1), 175–197. DOI: 10.1093/icon/mow010 Mansbridge, J., & Macedo, S. (2019). Populism and Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 15, 59–77. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101518-042843 Moffitt, B, & Tormey S. (2014). Rethinking Popu- lism: Politics, Mediatisation and Political Style, Political Studies, 62(2). Moffitt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford University Press. Mouffe, C. (2018). For a Left Populism. Verso. Mudde, C. (2004), ‘The Populist Zeitgeist’, Govern- ment and Opposition, 39(4), 541–63. Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2012). Exclusionary vs. Inclusionary Populism: Com- paring Contemporary Europe and Latin Ame- rica. Government and Opposition, 48(2), 147– 174. DOI:10.1017/gov.2012.11 Mudde, C. (2021) Populism and Constitutionalism: Theory and Practice in Holtug and Uslaner E. M. (eds), National Identity and Social Cohesion. ECPR Press. REVUS 46.indd 181 20. 06. 2023 18:20:43 182 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law Ana Cannilla Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is Populism? Uni versity of Pennsylvania Press. DOI:10.1002/9781118541 555.wbiepc159 Parker, R. D. (1993). Here, the People Rule: A Constitutional Populist Manifesto. Valparaiso University Law Review, 27(3), 531–584. Pin, A. (2019). The transnational drivers of popu- list backlash in Europe: The role of courts. Ger- man Law Journal, 20(2), 225–244. DOI:10.1017/ glj.2019.14 Prendergast, D. (2019). The judicial role in pro- tecting democracy from populism. German Law Journal, 20(2), 245–262. DOI:10.1017/glj. 2019.15 Sadurski, W. (2002). Judicial Review and the Pro- tection of Constitutional Rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 22(2), 275–299. Sadurski, W. (2019). Poland’s Constitutional Break- down. Oxford University Press. Scheppele, K. L. (2019). The opportunism of popu- lists and the defense of constitutional liberalism. German Law Journal, 20(3), 314–331. https:// doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.25 Stanley, J. (2018). How Fascism Works: the politics of us and them. Random House. Sumption, J. (2019). Trials of the State: Law and the Decline of Politics. Profile Books. Suteu, S. (2019). The Populist Turn in Central and Eastern Europe: Is Deliberative Democracy Part of the Solution? European Constitutional Law Review, 15(3), 488–518. DOI:10.1017/S15740196 19000348 Tushnet, M. (2019). Varieties of populism. German Law Journal, 20(3), 382–389. DOI:10.1017/ glj.2019.27 Tushnet, M. V. (1999). Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts. Princeton University Press. Tushnet, M. V., & Bugarič, B. (2020). Populism and Constitutionalism: An Essay on Definitions and Their Implications. Harvard Public Law Working Paper, 20-17. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3581660 Urbinati, N. (2019). Me The People: How populism transforms democracy. Harvard University Press. Vergara, C. (2020). Populism as Plebeian Poli tics: Inequality, Domination, and Popular Empower- ment. Journal of Political Philosophy, 28(2), 222– 246. DOI:10.1111/jopp.12203 Weyland, K. (2001). Clarifying a Contested Concept: Populism in the Study of Latin American Politics. Comparative Politics 34 (1), 1-22, DOI: 10.2307/422412 Waldron, J. (1999). Law and Disagreement. Oxford University Press. Waldron, J. (2006). The Core of the Case against Judicial Review. The Yale Law Journal, 115(6), 1346–1406. Waldron, J. (2014). Five to four: Why do bare ma- jorities rule on courts? Yale Law Journal, 123(6), 1692–1730. DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2195768 Waldron, J. (2016). Political Political Theory. Harvard University Press. Walker, N. (2019). Populism and constitutional ten- sion. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(2), 515–535. DOI:10.1093/icon/moz027 REVUS 46.indd 182 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 183 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 revus (2022) 46, 183–201 M. Victoria Kristan* Sovereign schliberties Where Pettit’s international protection of individual freedom falls short Distinguishing between basic liberties and sovereign liberties is today a cornerstone of the most prominent republican theories of democracy and their promotion of freedom as non-domination. The two sets of liberties are intended to function together to guaran- tee individual freedom at all levels of governance, both domestically and globally. Basic liberties belong to the national sphere of governance, where they contribute to the free and equal civic status of the individual and are correlatively linked to the protection of the individual by a system of state laws and norms. Sovereign liberties, on the other hand, operate in the international sphere where they constitute ‘state freedom’ as an external (global) dimension of individual freedom. According to the republican adage “No free individual without a free state”, this external dimension of individual freedom implies the absence of international domination of states by other states or internationally active agencies and bodies, just as the internal (domestic) dimension of individual freedom im- plies, among other things, the absence of individual domination by other individuals or agents. However, the author of this essay argues that sovereign liberties, as conceived, are inadequate to protect states and their people from certain kinds of external domination, namely, those arising from state-to-state relations in international law and the circum- stances of global domination. Keywords: democratic theory, republicanism, freedom, domination (international dimension), basic liberties, sovereign liberties, Pettit (Philip) 1 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BASIC LIBERTY AND SOVEREIGN LIBERTY IN REPUBLICAN THOUGHT We live in turbulent times: The rule of law is in decline1 and more and more democracies are being drawn into populist ‘authoritarian’ regimes2 that exert dominating power and fundamentally shape the degree of political freedom available in a state. These two phenomena have direct impacts on freedom.3 The scholarship on freedom is therefore attracting increasing attention from both * mariavictoria.inostroza@upf.edu | Research Fellow, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona (Spain). I am grateful to Pablo Magaña, Rubén Marciel Pariente Fernández, Ignacio Giuffré, Andrej Kristan, José Luis Martí, Julio Montero, Luciano Pezzano, the audience of the IVR Special Workshop ‘Alternatives to Liberal Constitutionalism’ and its conveners Ana Cannilla and Donald Bello Hutt as well as the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. 1 See von Bogdandy et al. 2021; Palombella 2020. 2 See Urbinati 2019. 3 According to Pettit (2012), and all republicans in general, freedom requires the rule of law in the form of social institutions and policies to protect it. REVUS 46.indd 183 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 184 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law M. Victoria Kristan the public and experts. This essay focuses on a particular strand of this scholar- ship, namely, republicanism and its normative proposal for how to promote and defend the political freedom of individuals in a globalized world. Republicanism today distinctively conceives of political freedom as ‘non- domination’, i.e., as the absence of both arbitrary interference into one’s choices and non-deliberative control over them.4 Republicans claim that other compet- ing notions of political freedom—whether they come from Hobbes, Rousseau, Mill, Berlin, or Rawls5—are incapable of ensuring non-domination either be- cause they focus solely on avoiding actual interference (thus ignoring the prob- lem of potential interference through non-deliberative control) or because they have a blind spot for arbitrariness (Pettit 1997, Pettit 2009). In the republican view, freedom is an attribute of individuals and corporate agents, including states.6 However, republican theory is characterised by what is known as ‘normative individualism’, which assumes that something is only good if it is good for the individual (List & Pettit 2011: 182). Consequently, re- publicans perceive ‘no difference in the value of two institutional arrangements unless there is a difference in the value for individual human beings of those arrangements’ (Pettit 2015: 52). This means that ‘there will be no difference of value between an arrangement under which a corporate agent is dominated and an arrangement under which it is not, unless there is a difference of value in the impact on individual human beings’ (Pettit 2015: 53). The republican ideal of political freedom as non-domination is thus fundamentally geared to achieving individual freedom. Another central element of republican political thought is the adage that an individual can only be truly free as a citizen in a free state (Skinner 2010: 99). For this reason, republicans emphasize two dimensions of individual freedom as non-domination, one within and one outside the state.7 While the first, inter- nal dimension, of individual freedom implies the absence of domestic domina- tion of the individual by other individuals, private entities, or state authorities, its external dimension implies the absence of international domination of their state by other states or internationally operating agencies or bodies. To secure both dimensions of individual freedom, republicans deploy two sets of liberties. The first set applies domestically, contributes to the free civic status of the individual, and is correlatively linked to its protection by a sys- tem of state laws and norms. This set is composed of the ‘basic liberties’–or ‘fundamental liberties’, as they are also called–, such as freedoms of thought and speech, association, and assembly, to provide some of the most prominent 4 Pettit (1997; 2010b: 141), Skinner 2008. 5 See Hobbes 1994a and Hobbes 1994b, Rousseau 2018, Mill 1978, Berlin 1969 and Rawls 1971. 6 Pettit 2012; Skinner 1998; Skinner 2010. 7 Pettit 2014; Laborde & Ronzoni 2016. REVUS 46.indd 184 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 185 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Sovereign schliberties examples. In contrast, the other set of liberties deployed by republican schol- ars to promote and defend political freedom in a globalized world operates on the international stage, where it establishes the freedom of states as corporate agents. It is composed of the ‘sovereign liberties’ and includes, for example, the state’s freedom of association with other states, its freedom of expression, and above all, the principle of non-intervention applicable to all states, according to which they cannot interfere in the internal affairs of another state unless there is a strong justification, as for example the protection of human rights.8 The sov- ereign liberties as attributes of states are thought to ‘mimic’ the basic liberties as attributes of individuals (Pettit 2015: 48). Of course, there is much more to republican political thought than I have just described.9 Nonetheless, this sketch provides the necessary context for a proper understanding of the challenge I seek to pose against the current republican view of promoting and defending political freedom in a globalized world. As you can imagine, I’m not the only critic,10 but my position is somewhat original although I contribute to the existing objection that republicanism does not pro- vide a way to protect an individual from the domination exercised by an agency from outside her or his state (Laborde and Ronzoni 2016, Martí 2010, Bohman 2004). The novelty of my argument lies in revealing an unexplored reason for this failure: i.e. the sovereign liberties as attributes of states do not mimic prop- erly the basic liberties as attributes of individuals. I demonstrate this in three steps. First, in section 2, I briefly describe how the basic liberties function in a constitutional state. Then, in section 3, I look at the nature of sovereign liber- ties in international law and compare it with the functioning of basic liberties domestically. Finally, in section 4, I show that sovereign liberties as conceived by Pettit and other republican scholars are inadequate to protect states and their peoples from certain kinds of external domination, namely those arising from (a) state-to-state relations in international law and (b) the ‘circumstances of global domination’.11 Therefore, as indicated in the title of the paper, I propose to speak of sovereign ‘schliberties’ rather than calling them liberties. 8 See Wedgwood 2000. 9 Very good introductions are offered in Laborde 2013, Pettit 2012, Bellamy 2011, and Skinner 2010. 10 See the debate concerning the existing objection that republicanism is indistinguishable from some sufficiently nuanced liberal conceptions of freedom as non-interference (Larmore 2001, Kramer 2008, Carter 2008) and the view that republicanism fails to address the problem of structural domination (Allen 2016). However, these two objections are beyond the scope of this article. 11 Globalization poses a challenge to freedom as non-domination. Whatever definition of glo- balization one has in mind, it is clear that globalization has changed the geography of interna- tional relations. It is causing a social reorganization of actors and relationships that challenges the traditional international legal relationships between states and international organiza- tions, international non-governmental organizations, standard-setters, and other hybrid reg- ulatory bodies, among others. Globalization enables traditional and novel non-traditional REVUS 46.indd 185 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 186 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law M. Victoria Kristan 2 BASIC LIBERTIES IN A CONSTITUTIONAL STATE Basic liberties apply in the national sphere of governance, where they con- tribute to the free civic status of individuals. They cannot do the job alone. In the republican tradition, revived by Quentin Skinner and Philip Pettit, basic liber- ties protect the free civic status of the individual within a state along with what republicans consider the basic elements of a ‘mixed constitution’: a rule of law in which all citizens are equal, a separation12 and sharing of powers that denies con- trol to any single ruling individual or body, and a degree of representation that gives each sector of the citizenry a presence in government (Pettit 2013: 171). Within this institutional framework of a constitutional state, basic liberties identify those individual choices that need to be protected so that the individual can be a free, non-dominated citizen.13 In other words, they have the impor- tant function of preventing the domination of the individual within a state. The promotion of basic liberties is motivated by the common premise in republi- can thought that domination is the foremost evil and that it must be avoided. Traditionally, the subject of domination, to which most attention has been paid in literature, has been the individual. It has been said that an individual is domi- nated in a particular choice or set of choices if other individuals, private enti- ties, or state authorities could interfere in their choices or in their decision as to which option to choose (Pettit 2012: 26-28). This is the core of the idea of domination. It includes both actual and potential interference, as has just been made clear by the use of the verb “can”. This is an important distinction between republican and liberal thought. In republicanism, freedom isn’t a predicate of actions, but rather a status of persons capable of living as they please by virtue of not being subject to the will of another. Republicanism recognizes that there can be interference with- out domination and domination without interference. The former occurs when interference isn’t arbitrary, for example, when it’s subject to suitable checks and actors to interact and produce decisions, rules, or norms. Most decisions and rules created by global actors have some impact on our lives, though they are mainly created without any participation or control by the people. Other decisions are made by traditional actors, such as states, but their impact goes beyond their borders and interferes in the lives of people who are not their citizens. 12 Not everyone agrees that a mixed constitution requires a separation of powers (see e.g., Al- mond 1966 and Vile 1967), but I will leave that argument aside here. 13 Pettit sketches a neo-republican version of the basic liberties. He concedes that almost every political theory, except for Rawls, refers to basic liberties, even if the question of how to iden- tify them is conspicuously neglected (Pettit: 2008). Rawls considers basic liberties to be the first condition for justice, including the freedom to judge as one sees fit, the freedom to speak one’s mind, the freedom to associate with others, the freedom to own private property, to vote, and to nominate oneself for office (Rawls 1971: 61). REVUS 46.indd 186 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 187 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Sovereign schliberties controls and tracks what Pettit has called ‘commonly avowable interests’.14 By contrast, domination without interference can be described by the classical re- publican paradigm of unfreedom: slavery. Even if your master is benevolent and doesn’t interfere with your actions, you’re dependent on his will and vulnerable to his interference: this makes you unfree. Advocates of freedom as non-in- terference, according to Pettit, are unable to recognize that there’s unfreedom when “some people hav[e] dominating power over others, provided they do not exercise that power and are not likely to exercise it” (Pettit 1997: 9). For the concept to be meaningful even in the contexts of social coexistence, where interference in one’s own life by others is necessarily omnipresent, not every kind of actual or potential interference in one’s choices counts. This is why freedom as non-domination was defined in the republican tradition as the absence of arbitrary interference in, or non-deliberative control over, the rel- evant sets of choices, and the relevance was determined by what are now called basic liberties. An individual is therefore dominated by (subjected to the will of) another agent, individual, private entity, or a state authority to the extent that he or she is subject to (actual or potential) arbitrary interference with, or non-deliberative control over, one of his or her basic liberties. According to the republican understanding, there is no fixed list of basic liberties for every moment and every political community. This means that the relevant set of choices we have just spoken of is contextual in the sense that it varies with time, socio-economic possibilities, and the values shared in a po- litical community. In fact, it is “a system of [positive] law that serves to define the basic liberties for a society and to provide appropriate protection and re- sourcing for the person’s exercise of their basic liberties” (Pettit 2016: 58). In other words, basic liberties are usually established by constitutional provisions or provisions of a “Bill of Rights” reinforced by constitutional interpretation by a range of public authorities, legislatures, executives, administrative authorities, and most prominently, courts. However, Pettit believes that every system of law should include “some versions of the liberties of thought and speech, associa- tion and religion, occupation, and residence, as well as the liberty of enjoying certain rights of ownership and exchange” (Pettit 2016: 52). In contrast, Pettit adds, one system of law “might allow everyone the freedom to try to gain the upper hand in competitive exchanges, for example– this is implicit in the ideal of market freedom– while another might argue that competition of that kind ought to be severely regulated [and limit the opportunity for certain groups]” (Pettit 2016: 52). 14 In line with this characterization, Laborde (2013: 1544) offers the following example of non- arbitrary interference: When the state interferes in people’s lives, collects taxes, and imposes coercive laws, it can do so in a non-arbitrary manner if it only pursues ends or uses only means derived from the public good (the common, recognizable interests of citizens). In this case, the law is not an affront to freedom, but, as John Locke saw, “enlarges freedom”. REVUS 46.indd 187 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 188 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law M. Victoria Kristan That said, Pettit (2008) has established some conceptual constraints as to what types of choices and what sets thereof can be considered candidates, which must be defined as relevant by a system of law and thus protected as basic liber- ties. These constraints are referred to by Pettit as ‘personal significance’, ‘equal co-enjoyment’ and ‘feasible extension’. While, as we shall see, the constraints called ‘personal significance’ and ‘equal co-enjoyment’ set a barrier that each single choice-type must pass if it is to be considered one of the basic liberties that ought to be protected (or even a candidate for these basic liberties), the constraint called ‘feasible extension’ affects the formation of entire candidate sets of basic liberties to be protected in a given society. I will present three conceptual constraints in the following order: (I) the constraint of the feasible extension, (II) the constraint of personal significance, and (III) the constraint of equal co-enjoyment. (I) The constraint of the feasible extension means that any proposal to grant the status of basic liberty to (some of the) liberties that pass the barrier of the other two constraints, must be extended to other liberties that pass that bar- rier, provided that those other liberties can be adequately protected in a given society without denying or substantially undermining the protection of the for- mer. Any candidate set of basic liberties in a given society is closed under the constraint of the feasible extension. This rule of closure fulfils two hierarchically ordered objectives, which I will here call (a) maximum scope and (b) maximum number. The objective of a maximum scope of the liberties included in the set avoids Hart’s (1973: 542-5) criticism of the idea that basic liberties could be restricted in their scope in the interest of having a larger system of liberty as a whole (i.e., a larger number of individual liberties). The objective of a maximum number of the liberties included in the set requires that no unnecessarily re- stricted set of choice-types can be a candidate set of basic liberties (Pettit 2008: 260). As a result of the first objective (i.e., maximum scope), each candidate set of basic liberties will be smaller than the set of all those liberties that pass the barrier of the other two constraints (i.e., personal significance and equal co- enjoyment). This is because some of the liberties that satisfy the constraints of personal significance and equal co-enjoyment conflict with each other, which means that the greater the number of liberties protected as basic liberties the more the scope of some of these will be limited. In contrast, the second objec- tive of the feasible extension constraint (i.e., maximum number) ensures that each candidate set will be a maximum subset of the total set of all those liberties that satisfy the other two constraints (i.e., personal significance and equal co- enjoyment). The only members of the total set that remain outside of a particu- lar candidate set are those that conflict significantly with the liberties included in the original, non-extended proposal. (II) The constraint of personal significance means that no liberty can count as a basic liberty unless it is essential in the life of the free citizen. More pre- REVUS 46.indd 188 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 189 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Sovereign schliberties cisely, for a liberty to deserve this special protection, its importance in the life of free citizens must be determined by society-wide criteria. For this reason, as mentioned above, basic liberties are context-dependent and may well vary considerably between societies. Nevertheless, Pettit believes that the compulsion to personal significance implies, in any plausible case, that the basic liberties should be neither too proximal nor too specific. Instead, they must be relatively distant and relatively general (Pettit 2008: 206). For example, the liberty to make noise and the liberty to speak to oneself are too proximal to be considered basic, even though they are both implied in the more distant liberty to speak to others. Similarly, the liberty to comment on whether the weather has improved and the liberty to speak to a few named interlocutors are too specific to be considered basic, although they are both implied in the more general liberty to speak to oth- ers on more or less any subject. For a liberty to have personal significance in the life of the free citizen, it must be both relatively distal and relatively general. But (i) not every liberty that is relatively distal and relatively general will satisfy the constraint of personal significance, and (ii) not every liberty that has such per- sonal significance will count as a basic liberty. There are some other conditions that must be met. They are implied in the constraint of equal co-enjoyment. (III) The constraint of equal co-enjoyment states that a choice-type cannot constitute a basic liberty unless it is available to the same extent and simultane- ously to all those who are considered citizens of a given society. As we will see, this rules out any choice-type that is composed of agent-particular, mutually competitive, or collectively self-defeating or counterproductive options. First, an option is agent-particular when it refers to a particular person, A, by name, such as the option to pursue friendship with A, or the option to get A to make up A’s mind (Pettit 2008: 211). Only A can make up A’s mind and only a limited, albeit contingent, number of people can be known and considered by A to be possible friends. This clearly shows why agent-particular options (as opposed to agent-neutral or at least agent-relative options) cannot be equally co-enjoyed by all members of society. Second, an option is mutually competitive if it is restricted to the extent that one person’s access to the option causes the frustration of another person (Pettit 2008: 213 quoting Hart). In other words, an option is competitive if it cannot be exercised by all at the same time due to scarcity. An example of such an option is the possibility of withdrawing money from a bank or leaving a class- room through a certain door. If too many people do this at will, the option will disappear. Consequently, choice-types that consist of competitive options (as opposed to anti-competitive ones) do not conform to the constraint of equal co-enjoyment that republicans impose on candidates for basic liberties. Third, an option is collectively self-defeating or counterproductive if there is no point in exercising it when too many others do. Think of speaking to a large REVUS 46.indd 189 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 190 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law M. Victoria Kristan group, for example (Pettit 2008: 216 quoting Hart). If too many people spoke at the same time, no one would be heard. Note that unlike in the previous ex- amples of competitive options, in this case the option does not disappear if too many people choose to do it. In this case, everyone could speak to the assembly at the same time, but there would be no point in doing it. Therefore, collective- ly self-defeating options (as opposed to non-self-defeating options) constitute choice-types that make them unsuitable as candidates for basic liberties. In summary, we have seen that for a liberty to comply with the constraints of personal significance and equal co-enjoyment, the options it protects must not be (a) too proximal or too specific, (b) agent-particular, competitive, or col- lectively self-defeating. At this point, it is important to add that the problem of competitive options and the problem of collectively self-defeating options can be circumvented if we first introduce some rules of coordination to redefine and channel the relevant choices and then secondly, to protect these rule-de- pendent choices in the manner of a basic liberty (Pettit 2008: 214, 219). For ex- ample, banking rules can enable people to have regulated or coordinated access to their money, thereby eliminating the aforementioned competition problem of unrestricted liberty to withdraw one’s money from a bank. It is easy to imag- ine how a coordination rule based on the principle of “first come, first served” could eliminate the problem of collective self-defeat associated with the rule-in- dependent liberty to speak to a large group at will. By introducing coordination rules that eliminate these problems, the corresponding choices will be some- what more limited than they would have been without such rules. However, this also makes the liberties in question pass the barrier of candidacy for basic liber- ties, which consequently increases the possibility of extending any candidate set of basic liberties, as required by the constraint of feasible extension, in a manner that fully respects Hart’s abovementioned criticism of the idea that basic liber- ties can be restricted in favour of a greater number of individual liberties. This is because rule-dependent basic liberties do not limit their choice-types for the sake of the other liberties. Instead, they do it so that the corresponding choice- types may receive the special protection of a basic liberty. Following the theory of basic liberties described above, it can be deciphered that internal domination is a gradual concept with manifestations in the form of degrees. Three reasons support this conclusion. First, a person is dominated to a greater or lesser extent depending on how many of his or her basic liberties are restricted by arbitrary interference from another individual, private entity, or public authority within the state. For ex- ample, individuals who are restricted in the exercise of both their freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are dominated to a greater extent than indi- viduals who are restricted in the exercise of one of these two freedoms, while they are free to exercise the other. REVUS 46.indd 190 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 191 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Sovereign schliberties Second, a person is more or less dominated, depending on how many op- tions from the relevant set of choices are unavailable as a result of such interfer- ence. People who are not allowed to joke about or criticise any member of the family of their head of state, for example, are more strongly dominated than people who are not allowed to joke about or criticise their head of state alone. Third, we must distinguish three ways in which an option to X is instead available to someone: 1) when the individual enjoys the (real or legal) oppor- tunity to X, 2) when he or she enjoys the action of X-ing, or 3) when he or she enjoys the benefits associated with X-ing (Pettit 2008). This, again, allows us to consider that someone is dominated to a greater or lesser extent, depending on how many of these ways in which an option may be said to be available to him or her are affected by arbitrary interference from within the state. While it would be highly implausible to say, as Pettit (2008: 210) rightly observes, that some choice-type involving X is a matter of basic liberty if no adequate protec- tion is given to the opportunity to X, not every basic liberty aims to protect the enjoyment of an action or even the benefits thereof. But when they do, we can say that those who are affected in the very opportunity to X are more strongly dominated than people affected in their enjoyment of the action to X, and that the latter are more strongly dominated than people affected in their enjoyment of (all or part of) the benefits of X-ing. We have now reached the end of the discussion of basic liberties in a con- stitutional state. But republicans recognise that basic liberties are not sufficient to guarantee individual freedom as non-domination, even in a mixed constitu- tion. This is expressed in the republican adage mentioned above, according to which an individual can only be truly free as a citizen of a free state (Skinner 2010). Thus, apart from the basic liberties that contribute directly to the free civic status of an individual within the state’s borders, republicans have also es- tablished a set of liberties that aim to guarantee the freedom of the individual through state freedom. This set of liberties is the subject of the next section. 3 SOVEREIGN LIBERTIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW As explained in the introduction, sovereign liberties operate on the global and international stage, where they establish the freedom of states as corporate agents. If basic liberties are linked to the freedom of the person, sovereign liber- ties are intended to protect the freedom of the free people. Since state freedom is a necessary condition for individual freedom, sovereign liberties are required to assure individual freedom, albeit indirectly, by guaranteeing state freedom as the external (global) dimension of individual freedom. It seems, however, that they should fulfil this guaranteed function alone, without the support of a co- ercive legal system. This is in contrast to basic liberties, which as we have seen, REVUS 46.indd 191 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 192 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law M. Victoria Kristan require the institutional background of a mixed constitution to achieve their goal of protecting the internal (domestic) dimension of individual freedom. The theorization of sovereign liberties arises as a result of the emergence of new actors on the world stage, which creates new occasions for exerting in- fluence in the globalized world.15 In an increasingly interconnected world16 countless political actors have the opportunity to interfere in the lives of peo- ple in societies beyond their own.17 In fact, they can exercise their power by a variety of means. While brute imposition of one agent’s power over others is still the predominant source of arbitrary interference, the means of interference range from lobbying and persuasion at one end of the spectrum, to consumer and trade boycotts at the other.18 In response to this shift in global politics,19 republican theorists have shifted their focus to the international dimension of freedom as non-domination, thus intertwining democratic theory with inter- national law.20 The republican shift of emphasis to the international dimension of freedom also triggered the theorization of an international analogue of the basic liberties under the name ‘sovereign liberties’. While basic liberties are enacted through a system of domestic laws, typically as constitutional provisions or provisions of a “Bill of Rights”, sovereign liberties are enshrined by international law, either explicitly through international trea- ties or implicitly through international custom. Sovereign liberties include those (sets of) choices in which states, and especially representative states, should be protected in order to be free, non-dominated states (Pettit 2014, 2016). As Skinner (2010: 99-100) pointed out, a state can be dominated in two different ways. First, when the power of the state falls under the control of a body other than the sovereign body of citizens, regardless of whether the usurper is a mon- 15 For example, the growing number of international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) has dramatically increased in recent decades: From 200 INGOs in 1980 (Boli & Thomas 1999) to an estimated 40,000 INGOs in 2013 (Ben-Ari 2013). 16 A classic example of a networked world dates back to 1973. 1973’s oil crisis had a variety of ef- fects on the various economies of the world, effects that even reached the citizens themselves, who had to reduce the number of days they used gasoline powered vehicles, for example. An example for the present day is the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. 17 As just one example, we can reflect on the influence that China exerted on Myanmar through Association of Southeast Asian Nations to make that country accept humanitarian aid after cyclone Nargis struck in 2008. 18 On the international stage, a new and different form of boycott has become common - the so-called “name and shame”. 19 See Laborde and Ronzoni 2015 and Martí 2010, 2015, and 2017. 20 There has been a recent proliferation of literature intertwining democracy and international law, see for instance: Weiler 2020; Christiano 2006; Archibugi & Koenig-Archibugi 2003; Zürn 2018. Archibugi & Marchetti, 2012a; Besson & Martí 2018; Bohman 1999, Bohman 2001, Bohman 2007, Bohman 2010; De Búrca 2008, De Búrca 2010; Habermas 2001; Held 2010; Lafont 2010; Martí 2010; Peters 2009; Pettit 2010a, Pettit 2010b, Pettit 2015, Pettit 2016; among many others. REVUS 46.indd 192 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 193 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Sovereign schliberties arch, an oligarchy, or a ruling class. Such internal domination of a state does not affect representative states, which are our focus here. Second, a state can be dominated when it becomes dependent on the will of another state, whether as a result of conquest, colonization, or any other process that leads to the will of its citizens to be circumvented as a source of law. Sovereign liberties are intended to prevent this external domination of the state and its people. Indeed, their pur- pose is to protect states from arbitrary interference or non-deliberative control by other states (and international organizations) and to help protect individual peoples and perhaps even provide them with the resources needed to exercise and enjoy their sovereign liberties (Pettit 2016: 58). While Pettit contrasts free- dom as non-domination with freedom as non-interference on the domestic lev- el, he contrasts non-domination with what he calls the Westphalian principle of non-intervention on the international level. He argues that it is not enough for states to be free from foreign intervention at a given point in time. Rather, they must not be arbitrarily beholden to other states or international agencies on a structural level (Thomas 2015). This includes both actual and potential domina- tion of a state by other states or international agencies. According to Pettit, there is no fixed list of sovereign liberties for every mo- ment and every state, just as there is no such list of basic liberties. Like basic lib- erties, sovereign liberties are contextual, since they represent a series of choices guaranteed to states according to appropriate rules established by international cooperation. The sovereign liberties will therefore not be uniform for all states since they take into account their institutional position and their institutional power21 in the international order in the area of their sovereign control. As with basic liberties, however, Pettit (2014: 163) argues that there are three ‘clear can- didates’ for sovereign liberties: (a) liberty of speech, (b) liberty of expression, and (c) liberty of association. While the first two are explained above, the latter means, for example, that the state enjoys the liberty to form a common entity with other states, regardless of whether they form an international organization or not. It seems easy to think of other examples that are no less ‘clear candidates’, and the question remains as to whether it is possible to imagine a sovereign state without such sovereign liberties: the liberty to exist and to protect its exist- ence, the liberty to exercise jurisdiction on the territory of the state and over its entire population, the liberty to develop its cultural, political and economic life, the liberty to establish relations with other states, to conclude treaties, etc. Nevertheless, Pettit has also laid down some conceptual constraints regard- ing the types of choices and sets thereof that count as eligible candidates, and which must then be defined in international agreements and protected in inter- national practice as sovereign liberties. These constraints are: (I) co-exercisabil- 21 For a classic account of state power, see Keohane & Nye 1973. For a novel account of power, see Slaughter 2017. REVUS 46.indd 193 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 194 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law M. Victoria Kristan ity, (II) co-satisfaction, and (III) the constraint of normative individualism.22 As we will now see, the first refers to single liberties, while the other two refer to the entire set of sovereign liberties. (I) The constraint of co-exercisability means that singular choices cannot count as sovereign liberties of a state unless the state can exercise those choices, regardless of how many other states are exercising them at the same time (Pettit 2014: 62). An example that meets the condition of co-exercisability is the free- dom to establish relations with other states, since it can be exercised by several states without it being impossible for other states to exercise the freedom at the same time as well. An example of non-co-exercisable liberty, on the other hand, is the unrestricted use of land or waters. This choice-type is problematic and cannot be secured as a sovereign liberty given that the natural scarcity of land and waters prevents two or more states from having exclusive jurisdiction in the same area.23 However, as we have shown above in connection with the types of choice composed of competitive options, the problem can be circumvented by introducing appropriate coordination rules that make a delimited version of the choice co-exercisable (think, for example, of the rules of international law regarding the use of territorial waters and international waters). (II) The constraint of co-satisfaction means that a state must be able to achieve satisfactory results in the exercise of any single choice in the set of choices, re- gardless of how many other states exercise that choice or any other choice in the set simultaneously. Therefore, the set of sovereign liberties must not contain choices that harm others, expose others to domination, or are counterproduc- tive in their effects, as in wars of aggression, to give the most blatant example. In fact, if states had the liberty to wage such wars, the exercise of that liberty would jeopardize their satisfaction in many co-exercisable choices. An opposite example, that is, one that meets the constraint of co-satisfaction, is the liberty of states to exercise legitimate defence, (the right to self-defence). Any state can derive satisfaction from legitimate defence, regardless of how many other states pursue their own legitimate defence or how many other states simultaneously exercise their sovereign liberties. Even though it may seem that the constraints of co-exercisability and co-sat- isfaction have no equivalent among the conceptual constraints of basic liberties (i.e., feasible extension, personal significance, and equal co-enjoyment), in the way Pettit (2014: 164) presents them both constraints are part of the constraint of equal co-enjoyment, which in his more recent work is simply structured dif- ferently from what we saw in the previous section.24 22 The latter clearly results from the normative individualism we mentioned in the introduc- tory section above. 23 For a similar example regarding basic liberties, see Pettit 2014: 200. 24 This also applies to the equal co-enjoyment constraint that Pettit imposes on the basic liber- ties. See Pettit 2014. REVUS 46.indd 194 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 195 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Sovereign schliberties (III) The constraint of normative individualism says, as we have seen, that nothing is good or desirable if it is not good for the individual. If we apply this to the sovereign liberties of a state, it follows that they must not violate the basic liberties of the citizens of the state.25 Under this constraint, therefore, no state should be granted discretionary powers that would restrict the scope of peo- ple’s basic liberties, such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, or the ability to determine their religion, to name but three examples that Pettit also frequently cites. At first glance, this constraint has no parallel in the conceptual restrictions imposed on basic liberties. I will note, however, that it mimics the constraint of feasible extension in that it excludes from the list of candidates for the set of sovereign liberties all kinds of choices that conflict with a basic lib- erty. This is also the point at which the similarity between these two constraints seems to end. In fact, one could hardly conclude that normative individualism demands the most comprehensive set of sovereign liberties possible, although Pettit explicitly says that “every representative state and people should enjoy all [...] those sovereign liberties that are compatible with the enjoyment of similar liberties by other representative states and peoples” (Pettit 2014: 163). In summary, sovereign liberties are intended to protect the freedom of the free state and its people from arbitrary interference by, for example, another state or an international institution. They are enshrined in international law and prac- tice, either explicitly through international treaties or implicitly through inter- national custom. Although there is no fixed list of sovereign liberties for every moment and every state, Pettit lists some conceptual limitations regarding the types of choices and sets of choices that can be considered candidates for sov- ereign liberties. These limitations are referred to as (a) co-exercisability, (b) co- satisfaction, and (c) normative individualism. While the former two correspond to the constraint of equal co-enjoyment, which we discussed in the case of basic liberties, the latter corresponds in part to the constraint of the feasible extension. This analysis confirms Pettit’s (2015: 48) assertion that sovereign liberties ‘mim- ic’ basic liberties. However, we must also note that there is a conceptual restric- tion on the candidates for basic liberties—namely, personal significance—which bears no parallel to such restrictions on the candidates for sovereign liberties. 4 THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF SOVEREIGN LIBERTIES The previous section shows the extent to which sovereign liberties of states mimic the basic liberties of individuals, and where the similarities between the two types of liberties end. The central problem is that Pettit’s normative theory 25 Pettit 2015: 49. Notice, however, that Pettit has never presented this constraint on sovereign liberties under this name. REVUS 46.indd 195 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 196 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law M. Victoria Kristan of freedom cannot achieve its goal of protecting the individual from every kind of domination rooted outside the state if sovereign liberties are understood in his way. To explain why Pettit’s aim is unachievable, let me start by considering a situation in which a representative state is being dominated by a non-represent- ative state or a transnational agency. Think, for example, of the weight of both the economic and diplomatic sanctions that China has imposed on Taiwan. Assume, moreover, for the sake of argument, that China is a non-representative state and that, in contrast, Taiwan is a full-blown democracy. In this case, it is clear that China’s sanctions on Taiwan constitutes arbitrary interference with and non-deliberative control of many of Taiwan’s options, including some that are protected by what Pettit’s theory identifies as Taiwan’s sovereign liberties. As we have seen above, sovereign liberties are meant to protect the freedom of the free state and its people. In other words, they protect the freedom of the individuals living in representative states controlled by the people.26 This does not mean that unrepresentative states and their peoples do not have sovereign liberties, but these are not within our interest here since the sovereign liberties of non-representative states do not serve the republican ideal of individual free- dom (Pettit 2014: 175, 207-9). Remember that a free polity is valuable to repub- licans because it enables the form of self-government that is necessary (though not sufficient) to secure individual freedom as non-domination (Laborde & Ronzoni 2015). Similarly, a non-dominated state is a state that is not dominat- ed in its relevant sovereign liberties and enjoys sovereignty in relation to other states and international bodies. Barring some exceptions,27 republican scholars generally assume that the protection of the basic and sovereign liberties ulti- mately depends on the state because the state is the only agent capable of pre- venting domination both internally and externally. But as our example shows, the addition of sovereign liberties to the basic liberties cannot always shield individuals against external domination. Here I offer two reasons why sovereign liberties, as conceived, are inade- quate to protect states and their people from certain kinds of external domina- tion. These two reasons arise from (a) state-to-state relations in international law and (b) the circumstances of global domination. The first reason can be described in terms of state-to-state relations. It has to do with the fact that both dimensions of individual freedom (internal and external to the state) depend not only on the anchoring of basic and sovereign liberties in the respective legal systems, but also on the resources for their re- alisation and effective protection. However, while the domestic legal systems of 26 Representative states must take two measures: work effectively and be controlled by their peoples. See Pettit 2010a: 38-39. See also Pettit 2014 and Pettit 2015. 27 See Bohman (2001, 2004 and 2007) or Martí (2010, 2015 and 2017), for example. REVUS 46.indd 196 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 197 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Sovereign schliberties representative states provide such resources and protection in relation to basic liberties (Pettit 2016: 14), international law and practice, at least in the cases mentioned above, fail to provide the resources and protection necessary for the realisation of the sovereign liberties of representative states. Pettit (2014: 172) addresses the first problem directly, but offers a solution that, in my opinion, is unsatisfactory because it assumes that the state is the best equipped political institution to fight domination. In fact, Pettit advocates a system of protection based on multilateral agreements, which he considers a ‘realistic’ alternative to the ‘utopian’ proposals for a kind of global institutional framework.28 And for non-powerful representative states, he proposes forming a ‘coalition of the weak’, with which they should be able to protect their sovereign liberties with- out being at the mercy of and favoured by the stronger, perhaps non-represent- ative states (Pettit 2014: 172). Moreover, while ‘basic’ liberties are clearly basic and fundamental as they are characterised, ‘sovereign’ liberties are not really sovereign. By definition, one’s sovereignty implies the primacy of one’s will over the will of others in a given area. Sovereign liberties should therefore characterise those choices where the will of the state in question is protected from the interference of other states and international organisations. According to Pettit, however, sovereign liberties owe their existence to international agreements and international practice, i.e., they owe their existence to the will of other states and international organisa- tions. It is strange, to say the least, that a liberty that is called ‘sovereign’ depends on the will of other actors. I see two objections to Pettit’s view. On the one hand, as our example intends to show, there is no guarantee that a coalition of the weak representative states could actually protect Taiwan from Chinese domination in Taiwan’s sovereign liberties. On the other hand, there is also no guarantee that a coalition of states will refrain from abusing its power and becoming a dominator itself. The second reason has to do with the circumstances of global domination, which can lead to a factual inability for the state in question to protect its citi- zens from external domination. The circumstances of global domination is an idea adapted from Waldron’s discussion of the ‘circumstances of politics’ (here- after CP), which is itself an adaptation of Rawls’s discussion of the ‘circumstanc- es of justice’ (CJ): The circumstances of justice are those aspects of the human condition, such as mode- rate scarcity [CJ1] and the limited altruism of individuals [CJ2], which make justice as a virtue and a practice both possible and necessary (Rawls 1971: 126-130). We may say, along similar lines, that the felt need among the members of a certain group for a common framework or decision or course of action on some matter [CP1], even in 28 See Pettit 2014: 209-10. Estlund (2014: 115) warns, however, that in this sense the most realis- tic of all normative theories would naturally recommend or demand that people and institu- tions should be exactly as they already are. REVUS 46.indd 197 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 198 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law M. Victoria Kristan the face of disagreement about what that framework or decision or course of action should be [CP2], are the circumstances of politics (Waldron 1999: 102; emphasis re- moved). While the circumstances of justice and those of politics come in pairs, there are three circumstances that give rise to global domination: (1) a globalized world,29 (2) an unequal distribution of power among various global actors, and (3) the coexistence of non-dominating democratic actors and dominators. Unlike the problem of state-to-state relations in international law, the cir- cumstances of global domination are not addressed by Pettit, at least not explic- itly. As noted above, there are situations in which the state, no matter how rep- resentative, cannot avoid being dominated because domination is exacerbated by globalization and requires a global response. Consider, for example, climate change.30 A state or a group of states is de facto unable to combat climate change on its own. But climate change is not the only example of this kind of domina- tion, which ‘pass[es] right through’31 state borders. Think of technology, as an- other example. Technology leads us to a reality that is not factual but virtual. Of course, not every tool or platform developed through or based on technology is bad.32 However, technologies based on algorithms, such as those used by tech- giants like Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, or Microsoft, have the ability to influence and manipulate our choices and violate our rights to privacy as well as our civil and political freedoms. The power imbalance that exists between these technology giants and states is a potential source of domination, but they 29 Globalization poses a challenge to freedom as non-domination. Whatever definition of glo- balization one has in mind, it is clear that globalization has changed the geography of interna- tional relations. It is causing a social reorganization of actors and relationships that challenges the traditional international legal relationships between states and international organizations, international non-governmental organizations, standard-setters, and other hybrid regulatory bodies, among others. Globalization enables traditional and novel non-traditional actors to in- teract and produce decisions, rules, or norms. Most decisions and rules created by global actors have some impact on our lives, though they are mainly created without any participation or control by the people. Other decisions are made by traditional actors, such as states, but their impact goes beyond their borders and interferes in the lives of people who are not their citizens. 30 Climate change is decidedly one of the more pressing issues affecting our lives. It affects the weather in the places where we live, the scheduling of crop seasons and spoils crops from time to time, it affects sea levels, benefiting areas that are ‘gaining land’ like Siberia and hurt- ing people who live on islands that are increasingly submerged, as is the case of the Tuvalu Islands. Although there is no agreement on the circumstances causing climate change, we can attribute it - at least in part - to the actions of humanity causing increased deforestation and generating greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide and methane in increasing quantities through the production and use of carbon-based energy. Climate change is a complex natural phenomenon, but it is caused or at least accelerated by our collective behaviour. It cannot be attributed to a single actor and a single actor, such as a state, cannot prevent the domination that it inflicts on its citizens. 31 For the use of this expression, see Buckinx, Trejo-Mathys & Waligore (2015: 3). 32 For example, those initiatives built on blockchain or to promote technology for people’s par- ticipation, such as CrowdLaw. See https://crowd.law/. REVUS 46.indd 198 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 199 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Sovereign schliberties also have greater power to manipulate people, as the Facebook - Cambridge Analytica scandal involving data from Facebook being used to influence the 2016 US elections, has shown. Facebook, Google, or Amazon, may have access to large amounts of personal information, ranging from search engine queries to consumer preferences. The extent to which these companies can exercise power over individuals by manipulating, replacing, or misrepresenting their options is highly problematic. Moreover, their power is not limited to some rep- resentative state nor to some regulated territory. It is global, i.e., non-territorial, and as such is beyond the abilities of any state to control it and protect their citizens against it.33 Indeed, sovereign liberties as conceived by Pettit, do not seem sufficient for this task. To conclude, states exercising sovereign liberties can certainly protect their citizens from some types of domination. Nevertheless, the scope of this protec- tion is relatively limited. Sovereign liberties, as they are construed, can coun- teract the kind of domination that can be prevented through associative state schemes, such as those that counteract superpower games.34 But as with the conflicts between Taiwan and China or the USA and Facebook depicted above, there are other important sources of domination outside the protective shield of the sovereign liberties, especially if we assume that states are no longer capa- ble of protecting themselves and their citizens against the domination of more powerful agents. In this sense, a global institutional framework in the form of a cosmopolitan global democracy seems necessary to effectively protect the basic liberties of all human beings from domination. 33 For instance, the European Union has fined Google several times for abuse of its market power. Nevertheless, Google is still one of the most valuable companies in the world. This shows that although these companies are threatened with some sanctions, this has little im- pact on their favorable position of power and wealth in society (see European Commission 2017, 2018 and 2019). 34 See Brams 1985. References: Allen, A. (2015). Domination in Global Politics: A Critique of Pettit’s Neo-Republican Model. In B. Buckinx et al. (eds.), Domination and Global Political Justice (pp. 111-132). Routledge. Ben-Ari, R. H. (2013). The legal status of interna- tional non-governmental organizations: analysis of past and present initiatives (1912-2012). Brill Nijhoff. Bellamy, R. (2007). Political constitutionalism: A re- publican defence of the constitutionality of de- mocracy. Cambridge University Press. Bellamy, R. (2011). Republicanism: Non-do- mination and the Free State. In G. Delanty and S. P. Turner (eds.), Routledge International Handbook of Contemporary Social and Political Theory (pp. 130-139). Routledge. Berlin, I. (1969). Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press. Besson, S., Martí, J. L. (2018). Legitimate actors of international law-making: towards a theory of international democratic representation. Juris- prudence, 9(3), 504–540. Von Bogdandy, A., Bogdanowicz, P., et al. (2021). A Potential Constitutional Moment for the European Rule of Law: The Importance of Red Lines. In A. von Bogdandy et al. (eds.), De- fending Checks and Balances in EU Member States (pp. 385–401). Springer. REVUS 46.indd 199 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 200 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law M. Victoria Kristan Bohman, J. (1999). International regimes and demo- cratic governance: political equality and influ- ence in global institutions. International Affairs, 75(3), 499–513. Bohman, J. (2001). Cosmopolitan republicanism: citizenship, freedom and global political author- ity. The Monist, 84(1), 3–21. Bohman, J. (2004). Republican cosmopolitanism. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(3), 336–352. Bohman, J. (2007). Democracy across Borders: From Dêmos to Dêmoi. The MIT Press. Bohman, J. (2010) Democratising the global order: from communicative freedom to communicative power. Review of International Studies, 36(2), 431–447. Boli, J., Thomas, G. M. (1999). Constructing world culture: International nongovernmental organi- zations since 1875. Stanford University Press. Brams, S. J. (1985). Superpower games: Applying game theory to superpower conflict. Yale University Press. Buckinx, B., Trejo-Mathys, J., and Waligore, T. (2015). Dominaiton across borders: An intro- duction. In B. Buckinx et al. (eds.). Domination and Global Political Justice: Conceptual, Histo- rical and Institutional Perspectives (pp. 1–36). Routledge. Carter, I. (2008). How are power and unfree- dom related. In C. Laborde, J. Maynor (eds.), Republicanism and political theory (pp. 58–82). Blackwell. Chayes, A., Handler Chayes, A. (1998). The new sov- ereignty. Harvard University Press. Christiano, T. (2006). A democratic theory of terri- tory and some puzzles about global democracy. Journal of social philosophy, 37(1), 81–107. De Búrca, G. (2007). Developing democracy beyond the state. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 46, 221–278. De Búrca, G. (2010). New governance and experi- mentalism: An introduction. Wisconsin Law Review, 2, 227–238. European Commission. (2017, June 17). Antitrust: Commission fines Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal ad- vantage to own comparison shopping service [Press release]. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/press corner/detail/en/IP_17_1784 European Commission. (2018, July 18). Antitrust: Commission fines Google €4.34 billion for illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of Google’s search engine [Press release]. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/ presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_4581 European Commission. (2019, March 20). Antitrust: Commission fines Google €1.49 billion for abusive practices in online advertising [Press release]. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/ detail/en/IP_19_1770 Estlund, D. (2014). Utopophobia. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 42(2), 113–134. Hart, H. L. A. (1973). Rawls on Liberty and its Pri- ority. The University of Chicago Law Review, 40(3), 534–555. Held, D. (2010). Principles of cosmopolitan order. In. G. W. Brown and D. Held (eds.), The cosmo- politanism reader, (pp. 229–247). Polity. Hobbes, T. (1994a). Human Nature and De Corpore Politico: The Elements of Law, Natural and Poli- tic. Oxford University Press. Hobbes, T. (1994b). Leviathan (E. Curley, ed.). Hackett. (Original work published 1651) Keohane, R. O., Nye Jr, J. S. (1973). Power and inter- dependence. Survival, 15(4), 158–165. Koenig-Archibugi, M., Archibugi, D. (2003). Globa- lization, democracy, and cosmopolis: A biblio- graphical essay. In D. Archibugi (ed.), Debating cosmopolitics (pp. 273–292). Verso. Kramer, M. H. (2008). Liberty and domination. In C. Laborde, J. Maynor (eds.), Republicanism and political theory (pp. 31–57). Blackwell. Laborde, C. (2013). Republicanism. In M. Freeden et al. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of political ideologies (pp. 1523–1590). Oxford University Press. Laborde, C., Ronzoni, M. (2016). What is a free state? Republican internationalism and globali- sation, Political Studies, 64(2), 279–296. Lafont, C. (2010). Can democracy go global? Ethics & Global Politics, 3(1), 13–19. Larmore, C. (2001). A critique of Philip Pettit’s re- publicanism. Philosophical Issues, 11, 229–243. List, C., Pettit, P. (2011). Group agency: The pos- sibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford University Press. Martí, J. L. (2010). A global republic to prevent glob- al domination. Diacrítica. Revista do Centro de Estudos Humanísticos da Universidade do Minho, 24(2), 31–72. Martí, J. L. (2015). Republican Freedom, Nondomi- nation and Global Constitutionalism. In R. Uitz (ed.), Freedom and its Enemies. The Tragedy of Liberty (pp. 57-78). Eleven. Martí, J. L. (2017). Sources and the Legitimate Authority of International Law. Democratic Legitimacy and the Sources of International Law. In S. Besson and J. d’Aspermont (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Sources of International Law (pp. 724-745). Oxford University Press. Mill, J. S. (1978). On Liberty. Hackett. (Original work published 1859) Palombella, G. (2020). The Abuse of the Rule of Law. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 12(2), 387–397. REVUS 46.indd 200 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 201 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 Sovereign schliberties Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford University Press. Pettit, P. (2008). The basic liberties. In M. Kramer et al. (eds.), The Legacy of HLA Hart (pp. 8–13). Oxford University Press. Pettit, P. (2009). Law and liberty. In S. Besson and J. L. Martí (eds.), Legal republicanism: National and international perspectives (pp. 39–59). Oxford University Press. Pettit, P (2010a). A republican law of peoples. European journal of political theory, 9(1), 70–94. Pettit, P. (2010b). Legitimate International Institu- tions: A Neorepublican Perspective. In J. Tasi- oulas and S. Besson (eds.), The Philosophy of International Law (pp. 139 – 162). Oxford Uni- versity Press. Pettit, P. (2012). On the people’s terms: A republi- can theory and model of democracy. Cambridge University Press. Pettit, P (2013). Two republican traditions. In A. Niederberger and P. Schink (eds.), Republican democracy: Liberty, law and politics (pp. 169– 204). Cambridge University Press. Pettit, P. (2014). Just Freedom: A Moral Compass for a Complex World. WW Norton & Company. Pettit, P. (2015). The republican law of peoples: A restatement. In B. Buckinx et al. (eds.), Domination and Global Political Justice (pp. 49– 82). Routledge. Pettit, P. (2016). The globalized republican ideal. Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric 9(1), 47–68. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard Uni- versity Press. Ronzoni, M. (2012). Two conceptions of state sov- ereignty and their implications for global insti- tutional design. Critical review of international social and political philosophy, 15(5), 573–591. Rousseau, J. J. (2018). Rousseau: The Social Contract and other later political writings (V. Gourevitch, ed.). Cambridge University Press. Skinner, Q. (1998). Liberty before liberalism. Cam- bridge University Press. Skinner, Q. (2008). Freedom as the absence of ar- bitrary power. In C. Laborde and J. W. Maynor (eds.), Republicanism and political theory (pp. 83–101). Blackwell. Skinner, Q. (2010). On the slogans of republican po- litical theory. European journal of political theory, 9(1), 95–102. Slaughter, A. M. (2017). The Chessboard and the web. Yale University Press. Urbinati, N. (2019). Me the people. Harvard Uni- versity Press. Wedgwood, R. (2000). Unilateral Action in the United Nations System. European Journal of International Law, 11(2), 349–359. Weiler, J. H. H. (2020). The geology of international law-governance, democracy and legitimacy. Revista de Derecho del Estado, 46, 3–24. Weller, R. P. (2018). Alternate civilities: Democracy and culture in China and Taiwan. Routledge. Zürn, M. (2018). Contested global governance. Glo- bal Policy, 9(1), 138–145. REVUS 46.indd 201 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 REVUS 46.indd 202 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 203 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Synopsis Andrew Halpin On kno-rights and no-rights SLOV. | O odsotnosti zahtevka in kramerjevski odsotnosti zahtevka. S tem člankom se avtor pridružuje razpravi o odsotnosti zahtevka, ki je sprva potekala z Matthewem Kramerjem, pred kratkim pa se ji je pridružil še Mark McBride, ki se je postavil v bran Kramerja. Moje nestrinjanje s Kramerjem se osredinja na njegovo trditev, da razmerje med zahtevkom in odsotnostjo zahtevka vključuje logične dualnosti in ne protislovij, kot meni Hohfeld. To stališče je povezano s Kramerjevim pogledom, da morata biti odsotnost zahtevka in svoboda kot korelativa napolnjena z enako vsebino. McBride je napadel mojo zavrnitev Kra- merjeve uporabe dualnosti kot napačno in oviro za razumevanje Hohfeldovega analitičnega okvira, vključno z vlogo korelativnosti. Tukaj zavračam McBrideje- va prizadevanja, da bi tehnično rešil Kramerjevo uporabo dualnosti in upravičil to uporabo kot bistveno za razumljivo razlago celotnega Hohfeldovega okvira. Trdim, da je predstavitev zahtevka in odsotnosti zahtevka kot dualnih pojmov še vedno napačna, Hohfeldov okvir pa je s to predpostavko neuporaben. Zno- traj tega argumenta opozarjam na različna koncepta hohfeldovske odsotnosti zahtevka in kramerjevske odsotnosti zahtevka; postavljam pod vprašaj zaple- tene korake, ki jih je predstavil McBride in s katerimi naj bi vzpostavil test, ki dokazuje dualnost kramerjevske odsotnosti zahtevka; in ob upoštevanju tega, da gre pri kramerjevski odsotnosti zahtevka ter dveh drugiih pojmih odsotnosti zahtevka za ločene položaje na deontičnem šesterokotniku, pokažem neskla- dnost kramerjevkse odsotnosti zahtevka z okvirom Hohfeldovih korelativov. Ključne besede: Hohfeld (Wesley Newcomb), odsotnost zahtevka, logične dualnosti, korelativnost, deontična opozicijska geometrija, nepravičnost ENG. | This article joins a debate over no-right previously conducted with Matthew Kramer and more recently joined by Mark McBride, in defence of Kramer. My disagreement with Kramer centres on his assertion that the rela- tionship between claim-right and no-right involves logical duals rather than contradictories, as Hohfeld proposed. That position is tied to Kramer’s view that no-right and liberty must have the same content as correlatives. McBride has at- tacked my rejection of Kramer’s use of duals as being erroneous and an impedi- ment to understanding the Hohfeldian analytical framework, including the role of correlativity. I reject here McBride’s efforts to technically rescue Kramer’s use REVUS 46.indd 203 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 204 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES of duals and to vindicate that use as being essential for an intelligible explana- tion of the complete Hohfeldian framework. I argue that the representation of claim-right and no-right as duals remains erroneous, making the Hohfeldian framework unworkable. Within that argument, I draw attention to the distinct concepts of Hohfeldian no-right and Kramerian kno-right; question the com- plicated steps introduced by McBride to establish a test demonstrating the dual- ity of kno-right; and, taking kno-right and two instances of no-rights as distinct positions on a deontic hexagon, demonstrate the inability of kno-right to oper- ate within a framework of Hohfeldian correlatives. Keywords: Hohfeld (Wesley Newcomb), no-right, logical duals, correlativity, deontic oppositional geometry, rightlessness Summary: 1 Introduction – 2 The distinctiveness of kno-right and no-right – 3 Testing claim-right/kno-right as logical duals – 4 Complicating the test – 4.1 The approach to duals – 4.2 The transfer of external negation – 4.3 Severing the contradictory relationship from the dual relationship – 4.4 An appropriate grammar for no-right – 4.5 Switching to remedial rights – 5 Kno-right, rightlessness and no-rights – 5.1 Exploring rightlessness – 5.2 The deontic hexagon Andrew Halpin is Professor and Co-Director of the Centre for Legal Theory, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore (Singapore) | Address: Faculty of Law, 469G Bukit Timah Road, Singapore 259776 | E-mail: halpin@nus.edu.sg REVUS 46.indd 204 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 205 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Synopsis Álvaro Núñez Vaquero Constitutive rules of precedent A non-prescriptivist account of stare decisis SLOV. | Konstitutivna pravila o precedensu: Nepreskriptivistični pogled na stare decisis. Namen prispevka je zavrniti tezo, da je precedenčni sistem vzpo- stavljen s preskriptivno normo. Avtor svojo trditev podkrepi z dvema vrstama razlogovanja. Prvič, trdi, da precedenčni sistemi nujno zahtevajo konstitutivne norme in ne preskriptivnih norm. Drugič, vsak precedenčni sistem obsega vsaj dve, če ne celo tri, konstitutivna pravila o precedensu. Eno daje pooblastilo za ustvarjanje precedensa, drugo pa pogojuje veljavnost sodne odločbe z dejstvom, da sledi precedensu. Nazadnje lahko obstaja tudi tretje pravilo, ki daje poobla- stilo za zagotovitev upoštevanja precedensa in za razveljavitev drugačnih odlo- čitev. Ključne besede: pravilo o precedensu, preskriptivna norma, konstitutivna norma, pristojnost, uporabljivost ENG. | The purpose of this paper is to reject the thesis that a system of prec- edent is established with a prescriptive norm. This claim is supported by two lines of reasoning. First, it is claimed that systems of precedent necessarily re- quire constitutive norms and not prescriptive norms. Second, any system of precedent comprises at least two, if not three, constitutive rules of precedent. While one confers the power to set a precedent, another conditions the validity of a judicial decision to the fact that it follows the precedent. Finally, there may also be a third rule that confers the power to ensure that precedent is followed and to annul divergent decisions. Keywords: rule of precedent, prescriptive norm, constitutive norm, competence, applicability Summary: 1 Introduction – 2 Three preliminary clarifications – 3 Problems of prescriptivist analyses – 3.1 Mandatory rule of precedent – 3.2 Permissive rule of precedent – 4 A non-prescriptivist account – 4.1 Stare decisis as a constitutive rule – 4.2 A set of constitutive rules of precedent – 4.2.1 A rule of competence (to set precedent) – 4.2.2 A rule of validity (to limit the competence) – 4.2.3 A rule of competence (to control the following of precedent) – 5 Conclusions REVUS 46.indd 205 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 206 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Álvaro Núñez Vaquero is Professor at Departamento de Fundamentos del Orden Jurídico y Constitucional, Universidad de Murcia (España) | Address: Universidad de Murcia - Departamento de Fundamentos del Orden Jurídico y Constitucional – Calle Santo Cristo, 1 – 30001 Murcia – España | E-mail: alvaro.nunez.vaquero@gmail.com REVUS 46.indd 206 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 207 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Synopsis Claudina Orunesu Conventionality control and international judicial supremacy: Some reflections on the Inter-American system of human rights SLOV. | Nadzor konvencionalnosti in vrhovnost mednarodnega pravosodja. Nekaj pomisli o Medameriškem sistemu varstva človekovih pravic. Na podlagi Ameriške konvencije o človekovih pravicah ima Medameriško sodišče pri- stojnost nad vsemi zadevami, ki so mu predložene v zvez z razlago in uporabo določb Ameriške konvencije. V tem normativnem okviru je Sodišče leta 2006 vzpostavilo t. im. doktrino konvencijskega nadzora. Pri tem se ni omejilo na stališče, da morajo nacionalni sodniki presojati skladnost domače zakonodaje z besedilom konvencije, temveč je trdilo, da morajo pri tem upoštevati tudi razlago konvencije, ki jo poda Sodišče kot njen poslednji razlagalec. Tovrstno razumevanje konvencijskega nadzora, ki vključuje tudi posebej močno pojmo- vanje vrhovnosti mednarodnega pravosodja, predstavlja ustaljeno doktrino tega mednarodnega sodišča. Vendar pa so se v zadnjem času pojavili določeni ugovori zoper to doktrino in zoper način, na katerega jo Medameriško sodišče izvršuje. Avtorica te razprave pokaže, da doktrina konvencijskega nadzora v se- danji obliki, ki vrhovnost pripisuje tako konvencijskemu pravu kot razlagalnim kriterijem, ki jih vzpostavlja Sodišče, lahko vodi do paradoksalnih posledic in vzbuja dvom v vlogo Sodišča v sodnih postopkih povezanih s Konvencijo. Ob tem nekaj alternativnih oblik doktrine konvencijskega nadzora avtorica preuči tudi v luči nedavne kritične odločitev Argentinskega Vrhovnega sodišča. Ključne besede: medameriško sodišče za človekove pravice, konvencijski nadzor, vrhovnost pravosodja, pravno razlaganje, sodniški dialog ENG. | According to the American Convention on Human Rights, the Inter- American Court is the competent body to “comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of [the] Convention that are submitted to it”. In this normative framework, in 2006 the Inter-American Court introduced the so-called conventionality control doctrine. In doing so, it has not restricted itself to maintaining that municipal judges must control the compatibility of domestic laws with the text of the American Convention, but claimed that they must also take into account “the interpretation thereof made by the Inter-American Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention”. This view of conventionality control, that also involves a particularly strong notion of international judicial supremacy, constitutes a REVUS 46.indd 207 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 208 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES consolidated doctrine of the international tribunal. However, certain objections seem to be arising around the doctrine and the particular style with which the Inter-American Court exercises it. This paper aims to show that the basis of the doctrine of conventionality control in its current configuration, i.e., the su- premacy of both conventional law and the interpretative criteria fixed by the Inter-American Court, may lead to paradoxical consequences and raises doubts concerning the role the Inter-American Court plays today in the adjudication process regarding the Convention. Finally, considering a recent challenging de- cision of Argentina’s Supreme Court, some reformulations of the conventional- ity control doctrine will be explored. Keywords: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, conventionality control, judicial supremacy, legal interpretation, judicial dialogue Summary: 1 El control de convencionalidad – 2 La supremacía del derecho convencional – 3 El carácter vinculante de los criterios interpretativos de la Corte IDH – 4 Un desafío para el control de convencionalidad Claudina Orunesu is Profess of Philosophy of Law, Universidad Nacio- nal de Mar del Plata (Argentina) | Address: Facultad de Derecho, Univer- sidad Nacional de Mar del Plata – 25 de Mayo 2855 – B7600GWG Mar del Plata – Buenos Aires – Argentina | E-mail: corunesu@fibertel.com.ar REVUS 46.indd 208 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 209 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Synopsis Marisa Iglesias Vila The conventionality control and the Fontevecchia case: Is the margin of appreciation the panacea? SLOV. | Kontrola konvencionalnosti in zadeva Fontevecchia: ali je polje proste presoje zdravilo za vse? Avtorica komentira nekatere trditve, ki jih je Claudina Orunesu postavila v članku “Nadzor konvencionalnosti in mednarodna sodna prevlada”. Orunesu kritično analizira, kako Medameriško sodišče za človekove pravice utemeljuje in razvija svoje načelo kontrole konvencionalnosti. V podpo- ro svoji trditvi, da bi moralo Medameriško sodišče za človekove pravice združiti zahtevo po notranji kontroli konvencionalnosti z evropsko doktrino nacional- nega polja proste presoje, se opira na sodbo Vrhovnega sodišča Argentine v zadevi Fontevecchia. Ob strinjanju z odločitvijo v zadevi Fontevecchia se avtorica loti kritičnega pregleda predloga Claudine Orunesu, ob čemer trdi, da bi razu- mna doktrina polja proste presoje porodila dvom v obrazložitev argentinskega vrhovnega sodišča v tej zadevi. Namesto predpostavke kontradiktorne utemelji- tve, ki se osredinja na demokratične pomisleke, tako predlaga, da se k medame- riškemu institucionalnemu okviru približamo v smislu sodelovanja in sistema. Ko sledimo logiki sodelovanja, je preložitev na nacionalne organe na splošno upravičeno, če so domače institucije za človekove pravice ustreznejše za odloča- nje kot mednarodno sodišče. Vendar pa je moč argumenta o boljšem položaju pogojena z zanesljivostjo države kot sodelujočega akterja v medameriškem sis- temu. In ta zanesljivost je posledično pogojena s tem, da država dokaže, da je sposobna izpolnjevati svoje dolžnosti sodelovanja v okviru konvencije. Avtori- ca se osredinja na tri take odgovornosti sodelovanja: dolžnost nepristranskosti, dolžnost sprejeti kulturo upravičevanja in dolžnost sprejeti konvencijski vidik. Ključne besede: medameriško sodišče za človekove pravice, zadeva Fontevecchia, sistemska legitimnost, polje proste presoje, sodelovanje, kultura upravičevanja ENG. | In the paper I comment on some of Claudina Orunesu’s claims in her article “Conventionality control and international judicial supremacy”. Orunesu offers a critical analysis of how the Inter-American Court of Human Rights jus- tifies and develops its conventionality control principle. She draws on the Ar- gentine Supreme Court judgment in the Fontevecchia case to support her claim that the I/A Court should combine the requirement of an internal conventional- REVUS 46.indd 209 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 210 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ity control with the European doctrine of the national margin of appreciation. Taking on board the Fontevecchia holding, I engage in a critical review of her proposal by arguing that a reasonable margin of appreciation doctrine would lead to questioning the reasoning of the Argentine Supreme Court in this case. Instead of assuming an adversarial rationale that put the focus on democratic concerns, I suggest approaching the Inter-American institutional framework in cooperative and systemic terms. Once we follow a cooperative logic, deference to national authorities is generally justified when domestic institutions are bet- ter situated than an international court for decision-making on human rights. However, the strength of the better situated argument is conditioned on the state’s reliability as a cooperative actor in the Inter-American system. And this reliability is in turn conditioned on the state’s demonstrating its capacity to meet its cooperative duties within the framework of the Convention. In the paper I focus on three such cooperative responsibilities: the duty of impartiality, the duty to adopt a culture of justification, and the duty to embrace a conventional perspective. Keywords: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Fontevecchia case, systemic legitimacy, margin of appreciation, cooperation, culture of justification Summary: 1 Introduction – 2 The margin of appreciation doctrine – 3 Systemic legitimacy and member states’ cooperative responsibilities – 4 The challenge made by the Argentine Supreme Court: Is the margin of appreciation the panacea? Marisa Iglesias Vila is Associate Professor of Legal Philosophy at Pom- peu Fabra University, Barcelona (Spain) | Address: Law Department – Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona – Ramon Trias Fargas, 25-27 – 08005 Barcelona – Spain | E-mail: marisa.iglesias@upf.edu REVUS 46.indd 210 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 211 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Synopsis Ángeles Ródenas The secret life of concepts (Or on the art of winnowing concepts) SLOV. | Skrivno življenje pojmov. Namen tega prispevka je kritično preučiti Redondovo opredelitev teorije pravnih pojmov normativnega pravnega poziti- vizma in predstaviti nekatere možne strategije za obrambo drugih dveh teorij pravnih pojmov, ki jih Redondo kritizira: Dworkinov interpretativizem in Ros- sov redukcionizem. Ključne besede: Redondo (Maria Cristina), normativni pravni pozitivizem, nauk o pravnih pojmih, Ross (Alf ), Dworkin (Ronald), institucionalni pojmi, nujne značilnosti pojmov, pojmovna jurisprudenca, pravne institucije ENG. | This paper aims to critically examine Redondo’s characterization of normative legal positivism’s theory of legal concepts, as well as to set forth some potential strategies for defending the two other theories of legal concepts that Redondo criticizes: Dworkinian interpretivism and Rossian reductionism. Keywords: Redondo (Maria Cristina), normative legal positivism, theory of legal concepts, Ross (Alf ), Dworkin (Ronald), institutional concepts, necessary properties of concepts, conceptual jurisprudence, legal institutions Summary: 1 Introduction – 2 Three approaches to institutional legal concepts – 2.1 Dworkin’s interpretive approach – 2.2 Ross’s reductionist approach – 2.3 Raz’s (and Redondo’s) normative positivism approach – 3 The witchcraft test – 3.1 Ross’s localism and scepticism – 3.2 Dworkin’s dilemma – 3.3 The advantages of normative legal positivism – 4 The art of winnowing concepts – 4.1 Ethically necessary properties: The practical rationality sieve – 4.2 Empirically necessary properties: The unchanging factor sieve – 4.3 Logically necessary properties: The conceptual rationality sieve – 5 The essence of normative legal positivism Ángeles Ródenas is Professor of Philosophy of Law, Universidad de Ali- cante (España) | Address: Universidad de Alicante – Ap. de correos, 99 – 03080, Alicante – España | E-mail: angeles.rodenas@ua.es REVUS 46.indd 211 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 212 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Synopsis Eoin Daly Contesting the idea of disagreement as the circumstance of politics SLOV. | Izpodbijanje ideje o nesoglasju kot okoliščini politike. Številni politični in pravni filozofi so prepričani, da je nesoglasje del »političnih okoliščin«, celo tako zelo, da bi lahko rekli, da je nesoglasje opredelitvena okoliščina politike. To pomeni, da je nesoglasje razumljeno kot glavni problem politike, s katerim se v glavnem ukvarja ustavno oblikovanje. Nesoglasje je hkrati nerešljivo ter je kon- stitutivno in značilno za politiko kot tako. In večinoma liberalni ter republikan- ski teoretiki prerekajo le predmet ali obseg nesoglasja, pri čemer Rawls poudarja nesoglasje o vprašanjih dobrega sredi domnevnega soglasja o vprašanjih pravice ali pravičnosti, vendar z Bellamyjem in Waldronom, ki trdita, da se nesoglasje razširi na vprašanja pravice in dobrega, in da je treba ustave oblikovati temu pri- merno. Taki okviri nesoglasja pa so podlaga za vprašanja institucionalne zasnove, predvsem problema sodne presoje in njenega odnosa do demokratične legitim- nosti. Namen tega prispevka je ugovarjati temu prevladujočemu razumevanju nesoglasja kot takega kot opredelitvene okoliščine politike in torej kot osrednjega problema ustavnega oblikovanja. Avtor ta argument razvija zlasti s sklicevan- jem na dva filozofa – Jean-Jacquesa Rousseauja in Pierra Bourdieuja. Izhajajoč iz Bourdieuja trdi, da ostenzivno nesoglasje – kot je izraženo v nasprotujočih si trditvah ali zahtevkih glede pravice ali dobrega – ni nujno podano v trdilni obliki, temveč ga lahko razumemo kot družbeno performativno ter kot izvajanje simbolne in družbene moči. Nesoglasje kot tako torej ni predhodnik političnega in družbenega reda, temveč ga ta konstituira in oblikuje. Po drugi strani pa avtor trdi, da je mogoče Rousseaujeve ustavne projekte razumeti kot odraz podobnega vpogleda. V nasprotju z Rawlsovim liberalizmom temeljni problem političnega reda za Rousseauja sploh ni propozicijski, glede nestrinjanja o pravici ali dobre- mu. Izhodišče političnega reda ni iskanje dobrega (ali pravice), temveč problem in potreba po priznanju kot družbenega konteksta, znotraj katerega se uveljavlja- jo zahteve po pravici in dobrem. Osrednji izziv politike je torej, kako je mogoče konstituirati skupen simbolni prostor, v katerem lahko politična komunikacija in politični diskurz prevzameta transparentne in nedominacijske oblike. Avtor sklene s primeri, kako lahko ustavno oblikovanje pojasni ta problem. Ključne besede: nesoglasje, Rawls (John), Rousseau (Jean Jacques), ustavna zasnova REVUS 46.indd 212 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 213 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ENG. | Many political and legal philosophers believe that disagreement forms part of the “circumstances of politics”, even to a point where we might say that disagreement is the definitive circumstance of politics. That is to say, disagreement is understood as a central problem of politics, with which the en- terprise of constitutional design is centrally concerned. Disagreement is both insoluble and is constitutive and characteristic of politics as such. And, for the most part, liberal and republican theorists dispute only the subject or extent of disagreement, with Rawls emphasizing disagreement as to questions of the good amidst a presumed consensus on questions of right or of justice, but with Bellamy and Waldron arguing that disagreement extends to questions of right as well as good, and that constitutions should be designed accordingly. In turn, such framings of disagreement underlie questions of institutional design, most notably the problem of judicial review and its relation to democratic legitimacy. The purpose of this paper is to challenge this dominant understanding of disa- greement as such as being a definitive circumstance of politics, and therefore, as a central problem of constitutional design. I make this argument with refer- ence to two thinkers in particular, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Pierre Bourdieu. Drawing on Bourdieu, I will argue that ostensible disagreement – as expressed in competing assertions or claims as to the right or the good – need not neces- sarily be framed in propositional terms, but can rather be understood as socially performative and as exercises of symbolic and social power. Thus, disagreement as such is not antecedent to political and social order but is rather constituted and formatted by it. In turn, I will argue that Rousseau’s constitutional pro- jects can be understood as reflecting a similar insight. In contrast to Rawlsian liberalism, the fundamental problem of political order, for Rousseau, is not a propositional one at all, concerning disagreement as to the right or the good. The starting point of political order is not the search for the good (or the right), but rather, the problem of, and the need for recognition, as the social context within which claims of right and good are asserted. A central challenge of poli- tics, then, is how it is possible to constitute a shared symbolic universe in which political communication and political discourse can assume transparent and non-dominating forms. I will conclude by offering examples as to how constitu- tional design can account for this problem. Keywords: disagreement, Rawls (John), Rousseau (Jean Jacques), constitutional design Summary: 1 Introduction – 2 Speech, argument, domination: Rousseauian insights – 2.1 The genealogy of domination – 2.2 Discourse as domination – 2.3 Agreement, disagreement and political unity – 2.4 From agreement to austerity – 3 Implications for political theory and constitutional design REVUS 46.indd 213 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 214 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Eoin Daly is Professor at National University of Ireland, Galway (Ireland) | Address: School of Law – National University of Ireland – University Road – Galway, Ireland | E-mail: eoin.daly@nuigalway.ie REVUS 46.indd 214 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 215 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Synopsis Camila Vergara Towards material anti-oligarchic constitutionalism SLOV. | K materialnemu protioligarhičnemu konstitucionalizmu. Ustavne demokracije so dopuščale vzorce kopičenja bogastva na vrhu, kar je vodilo v akutno neenakost in nevarno oligarhizacijo oblasti. Poleg tega teoretična orod- ja, ki jih ponuja liberalni konstitucionalizem, niso ustrezna za prepoznavanje sistemske korupcije in strukturnih oblik prevlade, ki jih omogoča pravo ali nje- gova odsotnost. Kot alternativa je v članku predlagan materialno metodološki pristop k preučevanju ustav. V prvem razdelku avtorica ponuja kritično analizo intelektualnih temeljev liberalnega konstitucionalizma, pri čemer obravnava pravico do lastnine, političnega predstavništva in delitve oblasti. V drugem raz- delku predstavlja intelektualne temelje plebejskega konstitucionalizma v delih Machiavellija, Condorceta in Marxa. Nazadnje predlaga materialni pristop k ocenjevanju ustav, ugotavlja pomanjkljivosti sodobnih pravnih okvirov za ure- sničevanje socialnih pravic, pa tudi nove poti za institucionalne protioligarhič- ne inovacije. Ključne besede: neenakost, liberalizem, socialne pravice, sistemska korupcija, Condorcet (Nicolas), Machiavelli (Niccolò), Marx (Karl) ENG. | Constitutional democracies have allowed for patterns of accumula- tion of wealth at the top, leading to acute inequality and dangerous oligarchi- zation of power. Moreover, the theoretical tools that liberal constitutionalism offers are inadequate to recognize systemic corruption and structural forms of domination that are enabled by law or its absence. As an alternative, the arti- cle proposes a material methodological approach to the study of constitutions. In the first section, it offers a critical analysis of the intellectual foundations of liberal constitutionalism, engaging with the right to property, political repre- sentation, and separation of powers. In the second section, it presents the inte- llectual foundations of plebeian constitutionalism in the works of Machiavelli, Condorcet, and Marx. Finally, it proposes a material approach to assessing con- stitutions, identifying the shortcomings of contemporary legal frameworks to materialize social rights, as well as new avenues for institutional anti-oligarchic innovation. Keywords: inequality, liberalism, social rights, systemic corruption, Condorcet (Nicolas), Machiavelli (Niccolò), Marx (Karl) REVUS 46.indd 215 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 216 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Summary: 1 Critical interpretation of liberal constitutionalism – 2 Intellectual foundations of material constitutionalism – 3 Towards a new material approach to constitutions – 4 Conclusion Camila Vergara is Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow, University of Cam- bridge (UK) | 1 Artesian Road - Flat 15 - W2 5DL London – United King- dom | E-mail: cv370@cam.ac.uk REVUS 46.indd 216 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 217 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Synopsis Ana Cannilla Political constitutionalism in the age of populism SLOV. | Politični konstitucionalizem v dobi populizma. Avtorica preučuje odnos med populizmom in političnim konstitucionalizmom. Ob tem trdi, da čeprav je politični konstitucionalizem v nasprotju z bogatim naborom izkušenj, označenih z izrazom »populizem«, in je boljši od njega, bi bilo dobro, da bi se politični konstitucionalisti odmaknili od trditve, da je ustava v celoti politič- na. Prvič, avtorica trdi, da je izraz »populizem« zaradi normativne dvoumnosti neprimeren za namene ustavne teorije. Sama zagovarja poziv k jasnejšemu iz- ražanju v ustavnem razpravljanju. Drugič, trdi, da bi moral politični konstitu- cionalizem opustiti ali bistveno prilagoditi svojo zavezanost temu, kar v članku imenuje ustavna protipravnost (ta je opredeljena kot zamisel, da je in bi morala biti ustava popolnoma prilagodljiva). Ponujeni razlogi za ta predlog se razlikuje- jo od tistih, ki jih navaja pravni konstitucionalizem, in namesto tega temeljijo na demokratični avtoriteti, ki jo politični konstitucionalisti zagovarjajo za večinske institucije. Politični konstitucionalizem, ugotavlja avtorica, bi moral priznati nekatere normativne prednosti prava tudi izidom ustavnosodnega odločanja. Ta poteza naredi politični konstitucionalizem bolj dosleden in, kar je pomemb- no, bolj varen pred obtožbami, da hrani različne vrste ustavnih neredov. Ključne besede: populizem, konstitucionalizem, ustavna kriza, politični konstitucionalizem, neliberalizem ENG. | This article examines the relationship between populism and political constitutionalism. It claims that while political constitutionalism is at odds with, and better than, the wide range of experiences labelled under the term ‘pop- ulism’, political constitutionalists would do well to distance themselves from the claim that the constitution is political “all the way down”. First, the article argues that the normative ambiguity of the term ‘populism’ makes it ill-fated for the purposes of constitutional theory and a call for clearer language for constitu- tional discussion is defended. Second, it argues that political constitutionalism should abandon, or significantly adjust, its commitment to what the article calls constitutional lawlessness and is defined as the idea that the constitution is and ought to be entirely malleable. The reasons offered for this proposal differ from those advanced by legal constitutionalism and instead hang on the democratic authority that political constitutionalists vindicate for majoritarian institutions. REVUS 46.indd 217 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 218 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Political constitutionalism, the article concludes, should grant some of the nor- mative advantages of the law to the outcomes of constitutional decision-making processes. The move makes political constitutionalism more consistent in its own right and, importantly, safer from the charge that it feeds different sorts of constitutional disorder. Keywords: populism, constitutionalism, constitutional crisis, political constitutionalism, illiberalism Summary: 1 Introduction – 2 Populist constitutionalism – 3 Calling a spade a spade – 4 From moral disagreement to constitutional lawlessness – 5 Winners in the constitution – 6 Conclusion Ana Cannilla is Lecturer in Public Law, School of Law, University of Glasgow (UK) | Address: 8 Professor’s Square – Glasgow G12 8QH – United Kingdom | E-mail: ana.cannilla@glasgow.ac.uk REVUS 46.indd 218 20. 06. 2023 18:20:44 219 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law (2022) 46 SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Synopsis M. Victoria Kristan Sovereign schliberties Where Pettit’s international protection of individual freedom falls short SLOV. | Suverene svofoščine: Kjer Pettitova mednarodna zaščita osebne svobo- de omahne. Razlikovanje med temeljnimi svoboščinami in suverenimi svobošči- nami je danes temelj najvidnejših republikanskih teorij demokracije in njihove- ga pospeševanja svobode kot odsotnosti dominacije. Oba sklopa svoboščin naj bi delovala skupaj, da bi zagotovila posameznikovo svobodo na vseh ravneh upravljanja, tako doma kot tudi globalno. Temeljne svoboščine spadajo v držav- no sfero upravljanja, kjer pripomorejo k svobodnemu in enakopravnemu dr- žavljanskemu statusu posameznika in so uztrezno povezane z zaščito posamez- nika s sistemom državnih zakonov in norm. Suverene svoboščine pa delujejo v mednarodni sferi, kjer konstituirajo »državno svobodo« kot zunanjo (globalno) razsežnost individualne svobode. V skladu z republikanskim pregovorom: »Ni svobodnega posameznika brez svobodne države« ta zunanja razsežnost svobode posameznika pomeni odsotnost mednarodne dominacije držav s strani drugih držav ali mednarodno aktivnih agencij in organov, tako kot notranja (domača) razsežnost svobode posameznika med drugim pomeni odsotnost posamične dominacije drugih posameznikov ali agentov. Vendar pa avtorica trdi, da su- verene svoboščine, kot so zasnovane, državam in njihovim ljudem ne nudijo primerne zaščite pred tistimi vrstami zunanje dominacije, ki izhajajo iz odno- sov med državami v mednarodnem pravu in okoliščin globalne dominacije. Ker tako ne služijo v celoti svojemu namenu, jih avtorica preimenuje v »svofoščine«. Ključne besede: demokratična teorija, republikanizem, svoboda, nadvlada (mednarodna razsežnost), osnovne svoboščine, suverene svoboščine, Pettit (Philip) ENG. | Distinguishing between basic liberties and sovereign liberties is to- day a cornerstone of the most prominent republican theories of democracy and their promotion of freedom as non-domination. The two sets of liberties are intended to function together to guarantee individual freedom at all levels of governance, both domestically and globally. Basic liberties belong to the na- tional sphere of governance, where they contribute to the free and equal civic status of the individual and are correlatively linked to the protection of the in- REVUS 46.indd 219 20. 06. 2023 18:20:45 220 (2022) 46 journal for constitutional theory and philosophy of law SYNOPSES, KEYWORDS, AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES dividual by a system of state laws and norms. Sovereign liberties, on the other hand, operate in the international sphere where they constitute ‘state freedom’ as an external (global) dimension of individual freedom. According to the re- publican adage “No free individual without a free state”, this external dimension of individual freedom implies the absence of international domination of states by other states or internationally active agencies and bodies, just as the internal (domestic) dimension of individual freedom implies, among other things, the absence of individual domination by other individuals or agents. However, the author of this essay argues that sovereign liberties, as conceived, are inadequate to protect states and their people from certain kinds of external domination, namely, those arising from state-to-state relations in international law and the circumstances of global domination. Keywords: democratic theory, republicanism, freedom, domination (international dimension), basic liberties, sovereign liberties, Pettit (Philip) Summary: 1 The relationship between basic liberty and sovereign liberty in republican thought – 2 Basic liberties in a constitutional state – 3 Sovereign liberties in international law – 4 The unfinished business of sovereign liberties M. Victoria Kristan is Research Fellow, Pompeu Fabra University, Barce- lona (Spain) | Address: UPF Facultat de Dret – Campus de la Ciutadella – Edifici Roger de Llúria (40.031) – Carrer Ramón Trias Fargas, 25-27 – 08005 Barcelona – Spain | E-mail: mariavictoria.inostroza@upf.edu REVUS 46.indd 220 20. 06. 2023 18:20:45