Argentine Supreme Court Research Articles

‘The universal rhythm of justice’: the Argentine Supreme Court and labor law before, during, and after Peronism

ABSTRACT The birth of labor law in Argentina is as intricate as it is fascinating. The emergence of a regulatory mosaic in the country occurred in the shadow of extreme institutional instability and ideological change. This process included the country’s first military coup; the rise of J.D. Perón, under whose aegis labor protections gushed; and the fierce backlash against his regime. In this story, the Supreme Court played a somewhat secondary but significant role, which this article, at the intersection of legal history and judicial politics, explores. The article uses an original dataset of 539 Court decisions in labor disputes from 1935 to 1960. It draws on descriptive statistics, a discussion of the main trends in the Court’s decision making, and network analysis. What emerges from the study is a saga of increasing protection of workers’ rights, punctuated by episodic retraction that did not amount to a denial of them. The Court under Perón was prominent in the vindication of workers’ rights. Even under the more restrictive periods before and after Perón, however, the Court recognized labor law as an emerging field for the protection of workers. While the Court’s work displays this combination of oscillation and permanence in its substantive output, it shows a more radical break in a more symbolic respect. After the coup that deposed Perón, the Court was adamant about neglecting the Perón Court’s role and intervention. This shows that legal ideology can manifest itself in diverging ways, particularly in times of regime and judicial instability. It can emerge in justices’ substantive opinions, but also in the recognition of their previous colleagues’ work.

Argentine Supreme Court Rules That Source Protection Prevails over Prices Obtained in Normal Market Practices between Independent Parties

This article discusses the judgment of the Argentine Supreme Court in the 2021 Nidera case.

Judges as equilibrists: Explaining judicial activism in Latin America

Abstract Intense forms of judicial activism have emerged in Latin America in the last three decades. Judges dictated structural remedies decisions (SRDs) to create, design, and implement public policies to redress structural human rights violations, implementing permanent judicial monitoring of the policy process. In a region marked by judicial instability, SRDs are risky options for judges. They can be seen as strong challenges to the government and, thus, prompt retaliation. They can also damage judges’ reputations as they might be strongly criticized by influential conservative groups of society that oppose progressive structural reforms. What drives judges to pursue or avoid this kind of risky activism? I propose the equilibrist approach, an alternative model to standard accounts explaining judicial behavior in Latin America. It incorporates the legitimacy-building dimension of the strategic game and predicts some level of assertiveness but one that is careful about the preferences of elites, the mass public, and opinion leaders. I use the institutional yet fragile Argentine Supreme Court to test the model, as it decided several SDRs in the early 2000s.

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 “Conventionality control and international judicial supremacy”. Orunesu offers a critical analysis of how the Inter-American Court of Human Rights justifies and develops its conventionality control principle. She draws on the Argentine Supreme Court judgment in the Fontevecchia 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 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.

The Case Fontevecchia and D’amico Against Argentina

Este artigo científico foi baseado em um estudo de caso, julgado pela Suprema Corte Argentina. Nesse processo, o autor ajuizou ação na justiça cível para ressarcir os danos contra os autores da Revista Notícia, por entender que foram violados os direitos à intimidade, à privacidade, à honra e à imagem. O artigo buscou analisar a colisão de princípios, normas, direitos e jurisprudência que levou a Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos a se pronunciar a favor de Jorge Fontevecchia e Heitor D’amico. Estes foram condenados pelo Estado Argentino por entender que houve violação do Direito à Privacidade. No entanto, o tribunal internacional decidiu revogar a sentença proferida e julgada pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal da Nação Argentina, por entender que Fontevechia e D’amigo não violaram o Direito à Liberdade de Expressão, tornando a ação ilegal e, portanto, obrigando o Estado Argentno desistir da ação e também promover a devida reparação dos danos causados ​​aos autores da revista. Em 14 de fevereiro de 2017, o Estado Argentino rejeitou a decisão da Corte Interamericana, transformando este caso em um dos mais famosos “casos paradimáticos” do direito internacional público argentino. Finalmente, em 18 de outubro de 2017, a Corte Internacional emitiu outra resolução para tornar ineficaz a sentença no caso Fontevecchia y D’Amico. Concluiu-se, portanto, que mesmo com a reforma constitucional argentina de 1994 e a concessão de uma hierarquia constitucional aos padrões internacionais de direitos humanos, ficou definido que as regras dos tratados internacionais “não derrogam as disposições da primeira parte da Constituição Argentina” nos termos do artigo 75, inciso 22, mas atribuiu aos tratados internacionais um caráter de complementaridade, além da proibição, prevista no artigo 27 da Convenção de Viena sobre o Direito dos Tratados, de invocar razões de ordem interna, a fim de não cumprir com as obrigações internacionais. Para a elaboração deste artigo científico, utilizou-se o método dedutivo e a pesquisa qualitativa e descritiva. Como referências bibliográficas foram utilizados materiais publicados, literatura científica, Legislação e Jurisprudência que foram relevantes para os fins aqui discutidos.

Permanent Economic Emergency in Argentina and its Constitutional Implications

There is broad consensus among legal scholars about the existence of a permanent economic emergency in Argentina. This article examines the origin of the doctrine of economic emergency and its evolution in the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice decisions. Various regulatory devices implemented to face the economic crises are analyzed, and it is emphasized that the declaration of a state of emergency has not been made only by means of Congress formal legislation, but through the legislative powers of the President. The requirements for the validity of regulations of emergency are set forth in this article, including the actual existence of a state of emergency, a public interest, that the measure be reasonable, and the provisional nature of the emergency. Considering that courts have not exerted proper judicial review over the regulations of emergency, guideli¬nes to implement adequate judicial review over the subject at issue are presented. It is stated that the declaration of economic emergency and the factual circumstances underlying such declaration is a question subject to judicial review. In exercising the judicial review about this issue, two dimensions may be considered. First, timing, and, second, the correlation that must exist between a regulation —law, legislative delegation, or a decree of necessity and urgency— and the emergency situation it is intended to fight against. Finally, specific features of judicial review depending on the type of regulation that has declared the emergency are studied.

El precedente de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación Argentina

This paper deals with precedent in the Argentine Supreme Court by describing how it works both vertically and horizontally. It explains the current doctrine of precedent the Court develo-ped through its case law and analyses its workability in some recent cases. Finally, it examines some necessary techniques related to a proper use of precedent, such as the acknowledgment of the material facts, the structure and clarity of judicial decisions, its publication, and the identification of legitimate (and illegitimate or, at least, questionable) factors of overruling.

¿Es constitucional la división de la Corte Suprema en salas?

This article examines from a historical perspective several different proposals to divide the Argentine Supreme Court in panels and analyzes the constitutional problems of these kind of reform initiatives.

El fallo Castillo: ¿una nueva línea jurisprudencial o un nuevo eslabón en la cadena del «case law» de la Corte Suprema Argentina en Derecho a la Educación?

El foco de este trabajo se centra en la sentencia de la Corte argentina sobre la discusión acerca de la constitucionalidad de la obligatoriedad de la enseñanza religiosa en horario escolar en las escuelas públicas de educación primaria. Para poner la sentencia en contexto jurisprudencial, reconstruimos el case law de la Corte en materia de educación a los efectos de dar cuenta de la existencia de una serie de precedentes relevantes en la materia y que pueden ser considerados como antecedentes que guiaron al tribunal en su actual decisión. Luego, analizamos los argumentos plasmados en el fallo en concreto, prestando especial atención a aquellos vinculados con los principios de la neutralidad religiosa y la igualdad, en tanto ambos impactaron de especial modo en las interpretaciones que los jueces asumieron respecto de la naturaleza y los alcances del derecho a la educación y de las obligaciones del Estado (tanto federal como provincial) en la materia. Concluimos que si bien el fallo constituye un paso importante hacia la exigibilidad del derecho a la educación en Argentina, la Corte Suprema debió haber puesto un mayor énfasis argumentativo a los fines de asegurar una enseñanza pública laica, conforme a una interpretación progresiva y pro persona del desarrollo normativo educativo legal, constitucional y convencional de los derechos humanos en la Argentina.

Entrevista com Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni

O argentino Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni é juiz da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, professor emérito do Departamento de Direito Penal da Universidade Nacional de Buenos Aires e vice-presidente da Associação Internacional de Direito Penal. De 2003 a 2014, foi ministro da Suprema Corte Argentina. Zaffaroni é também um dos expoentes da criminologia crítica latino-americana, sendo Em busca das penas perdidas (publicado em 2010 pela Editora Revan) um de seus trabalhos mais renomados nessa área.

Law or strategic calculus? Abstention in the Argentine Supreme Court

Abstention theory suggests that self-interest leads voters to abstain. While this theory has been studied in different settings, abstention in courts has received scant attention. Jacobi and Kontorovich (2014) hypothesize that stare decisis renders abstention theory inapplicable to courts. We test this prediction empirically using data from the Argentine Supreme Court. Consistent with abstention theory, we show that Justices whose vote is pivotal have a lower probability of abstention than non-pivotal ones. In contrast, we fail to find evidence in support of the probability of abstention being positively related to appeals without stare decisis implications.

O passado no banco dos réus: uma análise das decisões das Cortes Supremas argentina e brasileira sobre a validade das “leis de impunidade”

Este trabalho faz uma análise comparada de demandas que questionavam a validade de leis que garantem e/ou garantiram a impunidade dos setores envolvidos com a repressão política praticada durante as ditaduras de Segurança Nacional. Foram selecionados dois casos para comparação: o “Caso Simón”, julgado em junho de 2005 pela Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación (CSJN) argentina, e a Arguição por Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental (ADPF) no 153, julgada em abril de 2010 pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal brasileiro. São comparadas as decisões e busca-se identificar o que as explica, verificando sua conexão com as políticas de memória implementadas em cada contexto.

Gatekeeping: Documents, Legal Knowledge, and Judicial Authority in Contemporary Argentina

AbstractThis article addresses the question of judicial authority by examining the mundane practices of legal knowledge‐making that unfold within the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice. Building on a larger ethnographic study of the court in the aftermath of the country's 2001–2002 crisis, this article focuses on the particular forms and documentary practices Supreme Court justices use to review a few select cases and then discard the majority without explanation. Analyzing these practices sheds light on the tensions that exist among different imaginaries of judicial adjudication and the court's role in the native legal field. In this context, this article argues that exclusion operates not only as a tool of docket management and control but also as a way to shape judicial authority and legitimacy in contemporary Argentina.

Testing Representational Advantage in the Argentine Supreme Court

AbstractEven if party capability theory has been well documented, parsing out the reasons why “haves” come out ahead has been challenging. Our study takes advantage of the Argentine Supreme Court’s power to dismiss appeals because they contain formal errors to ascertain the existence of representational advantage. We show that representational advantage plays a significant role, as individual appellants represent a larger proportion of appeals rejected on formal grounds than of those analyzed on their merits. In addition, certain areas of law where asymmetrical capability is prevalent and consistent, particularly labor law, are significantly overrepresented in appeals rejected on formal grounds.

The Power to Judge, the Power to Act: the Argentine Supreme Court as a Policymaker

AbstractEven though the role of courts to enforce economic, social and cultural rights through structural remedies is well established, the implementation stage of rulings following successful litigation seems to be an area of research still in the making. In the Global South, certain constitutional courts have taken on such litigation as a way to advance economic and social rights. The Judiciary Power thus became a key actor in the framing and execution of public policies. This paper examines how the Argentine Supreme Court has intervened after 2001 in public policies regarding the enforcement of social security, environmental and human rights.

La Corte Suprema Argentina y la Construcción Del Derecho Constitucional a Un Debido Proceso Colectivo

By analysing precedents and regulatory measures taken by the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice during the last ten years, this paper maintains the existence of a constitutional right to collective due process with defining notes which should be taken into account for a future (and urgent) legislation on the subject.

Relational Human Rights: Shed‐DNA and the Identification of the ‘Living Disappeared’ in Argentina

Through an ethnographic reading of an Argentine Supreme Court decision I explore the changing nature of the legal subject of human rights in light of emerging technologies. Guillermo Gabriel Prieto was suspected of being a ‘living disappeared’, one of the estimated 500 infants or young children forcibly abducted by the last military dictatorship in Argentina. They were raised by the perpetrators of the crime or their accomplices and kept unaware of their birth origins. The Court's deliberations focused on Guillermo's appeal of a lower‐court decision to carry out an identity test based on his shed‐DNA. The decision demonstrates that while the subject of human rights has often been equated with the bounded individual, new technologies challenge us to reconsider the subject's core characteristics: physical boundedness, autonomy, and individuality. I argue that the ruling offers us an alternative conception of the subject that could become the foundation for a new vision of human rights

Performing the Court: Public Hearings and the Politics of Judicial Transparency in Argentina

This article presents an understanding of transparency that draws on the instrumentality and performativity of a series of public encounters between the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice and subjects affected by river pollution. An ethnographic examination of those encounters illustrates how judicial adjudication articulates with a larger discourse of change and transparency that mushroomed after the 2001–2002 economic crisis giving the Court a public face. This crisis had a negative impact on the credibility of political and legal institutions. A focus on the performative character of public hearings implies an appreciation of transparency that is more comprehensive than the one enabled by visibility. As I argue in this article, this is because public hearings entail displays of the self that unfold through a complex sensorial experience that has effects on audiences. In the context of the Argentine Supreme Court's practices that this article examines, such audiences may extend far beyond the courtroom. Ultimately, the study demonstrates how transparency can be perceived as the performance of social positions that provide means and ends for a multitude of intended and unintended actors.

Joint Ownership of Trademarks and International Injunctions Related to Intellectual Property Rights. An ‘Italian Comedy’ With a ‘French Ending’. A Review of an Argentine Supreme Court Ruling Regarding an Application for Interim Relief in the Lawsuit

In a trademark joint-ownership lawsuit over the mark La Martina, pending at a local court, one of the joint-owners filed an application for a restrictive injunction intended to be enforced upon the Italian Patent and Trademark Office. Upon appeal, the Argentine Supreme Court delivered a decision upholding the jurisdiction of local courts over provisional measures to be enforced in foreign countries. The present review intends to answer the following questions: a) Is it possible in Argentina to apply for and be awarded interim relief intended to protect trademark rights in a foreign country?, b) Which is the legal framework of these measures?, c) Does Article 50 of TRIPS support interim injunctions intended to prevent amendments to a foreign trademark registration? d) What court has jurisdiction over co-ownership of a trademark pursuant to the Argentine law? e) What law governs trademark co-ownership? f) What are the rules governing this case, being a mixed case, which involves Italy? The Argentine Supreme Court clearly established that ownership issues are beyond the traditional territorial principle governing intellectual property rights (IPR's). Finally, framing provisional measures within Article 50.2 of TRIPS is a relevant development for the international defense and protection of IPRs. The solution is consistent with the latest doctrinal solutions, such as CLIP Principles and ALI Principles

Innovative Judicial Procedures and Redefinition of the Institutional Role of the Argentine Supreme Court

This article addresses the way in which the Argentine Supreme Court has set out to redefine its own institutional role through its procedures and decisions, since its institutional reform in 2003. It shows that the Court has developed innovative ways of judicial intervention in public policy and rights issues, which include the participation of new kinds of actors and entail an emerging new relationship between the Court and civil society organizations in Argentina. The article argues that this change can be understood as a way for the Court to rebuild its institutional legitimacy, and that the reform is connected to the presence of strong nongovernmental organizations whose claims for a change in the Court’s composition and procedures gained momentum in the aftermath of the social and political crisis of 2001–2002 in Argentina. Resumen: Este trabajo analiza el modo en que la Corte Suprema Argentina, a partir de su reforma en 2003, ha comenzado a redefinir su rol institucional a traves de sus procedimientos y decisiones. Se muestra como la Corte ha desarrollado formas innovadoras de intervencion judicial en el area de politicas publicas y derechos, que incluyen la participacion de nuevos tipos de actores e implican una redefinicion de las relaciones entre la Corte y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil en la Argentina. El trabajo argumenta que estos cambios pueden ser entendidos como un modo para la Corte de reconstruir su legitimidad institucional, y que esto esta relacionado con la presencia de prominentes organizaciones no gubernamentales, cuyos reclamos por un cambio en la composicion y en los procedimientos de la Corte adquirieron una inusitada relevancia en el contexto posterior a la crisis social y politica de 2001–2002 en la Argentina.