Kategorie: Blog

Was war das Institut für Besatzungsfragen?

Der frühere Sitz des Instituts für Besatzungsfragen in der Stauffenbergstraße 32 in Tübingen[1]

Im Oktober 1947 wurde auf Betreiben des damaligen Justizministers und Stellvertreters des Staatspräsidenten, Carlo Schmid,[2] in der Staatskanzlei Württemberg-Hohenzollern ein „Referat für Verfassungs- und Besatzungsfragen“ eingerichtet. Anfang 1949 ging aus diesem Referat das Institut für Besatzungsfragen hervor, das 1950 eine Villa in der Stauffenbergstraße 32 auf dem Tübinger Österberg bezog. Formell war das Institut eine politisch unabhängige Einrichtung mit wissenschaftlichem Anspruch. Faktisch aber erfüllte es eine beratende und zuarbeitende Funktion für die württembergische Landesregierung. Bald schon weitete sich sein Blick auf alle drei westlichen Besatzungszonen. Seine erklärte Absicht war es, die Einwirkungen der Besatzungsmächte auf Deutschland zu dokumentieren, einen systematischen Überblick über besatzungsrechtliche Vorschriften zu schaffen und Besatzungslasten beziehungsweise -schäden finanziell zu beziffern.[3] Neben Publikationen zum Besatzungsrecht und zur Besatzungspraxis erstellte das Institut Rechtsgutachten für politische Institutionen und private beziehungsweise privatwirtschaftliche Akteure. Zwischen dem Institut für Besatzungsfragen und dem Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut (KWI) beziehungsweise dem Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (MPIL) bestanden zahlreiche inhaltliche wie personelle Schnittpunkte. Aus diesem Grund lagert seit seiner Auflösung 1960 ein großer Bestand der Unterlagen des Instituts für Besatzungsfragen im Bibliotheksmagazin des MPIL.

Leiter des Instituts für Besatzungsfragen wurde der Jurist Gustav von Schmoller (1907–1991). Schmoller stammte aus einer preußischen Offiziersfamilie und war Enkel des gleichnamigen Nationalökonomen und Historikers. Er hatte von 1925 bis 1929 unter anderem in Tübingen bei Carlo Schmid studiert, der 1928 Referent am Berliner KWI gewesen war und sich dort mit Reparations- und Restitutionsfragen aus dem Versailler Vertrag befasst hatte. Schmoller war im Mai 1933 in die NSDAP eingetreten. Ab Mai 1934 arbeitete er für einige Monate in Berlin als Assistent von Carl Schmitt, der 1933 als wissenschaftliches Mitglied in das KWI aufgenommen worden war. Offenbar war Schmoller eng eingebunden in die Entstehung des Aufsatzes Der Führer schützt das Recht,[4] mit dem Schmitt dem Vorgehen Hitlers im Zuge des sogenannten Röhm-Putschs eine juristische Absolution erteilte. 1935 wurde Schmoller Referent im Reichswirtschaftsministerium. Nach einer Zwischenstation in der freien Wirtschaft war er von November 1939 an auf wechselnden Positionen in der deutschen Protektoratsverwaltung für Böhmen und Mähren tätig.[5] 1941 verteidigte er seine von Schmitt betreute Dissertation über Großraumordnung und Neutralität.[6] Zweitgutachter der Arbeit war Viktor Bruns, der damalige Leiter des KWI für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht.

Schon kurz nach Kriegsende wurde Schmoller einer der engsten Berater von Carlo Schmid, der als Vertrauensperson der französischen Besatzungsmacht und Mitglied der wiedergegründeten SPD einer der tonangebenden Akteure für den Wiederaufbau des politischen Lebens in Tübingen und Württemberg-Hohenzollern war. Unter anderem ließ sich Schmid im August 1948 von Schmoller zum Verfassungskonvent auf Herrenchiemsee begleiten. Schmids Memoiren zufolge hatte Schmoller „hervorragenden Anteil an der Abfassung der Denkschrift […], in der Arbeitsweise und Beratungsergebnis des Konvents festgehalten wurden.“[7] Gestützt auf die Ressourcen des Instituts für Besatzungsfragen übernahm Schmoller außerdem eine wichtige Rolle bei der Aushandlung, Auslegung und Revision des Besatzungsstatuts, das die Beziehungen zwischen der Bundesrepublik und den drei westlichen Besatzungsmächten regelte.[8] Im Herbst 1952 trat Schmoller in den Auswärtigen Dienst ein. Nach Stationen in der Bonner Zentrale, als Botschaftsrat in Athen und als Generalkonsul in Istanbul wurde er 1965 Botschafter der Bundesrepublik in Stockholm.

Die Leitung des Instituts für Besatzungsfragen übernahmen nun die Juristin Hedwig Maier und der Volkswirt Achim Tobler. Ebenso wie Schmoller hatte auch der Deutsch-Schweizer Tobler eine „braune“ Vergangenheit. 1933 war er in die SS eingetreten, seit 1939 sogar für den Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführers SS tätig. 1935 hatte er bei Arnold Bergstraesser in Heidelberg promoviert.[9] Hedwig Maier (geb. Reimer) hingegen fiel biografisch aus der Reihe. Sie hatte Anfang der 1930er Jahre als eine der ersten Frauen überhaupt an der Universität Berlin in Jura promoviert und eine Anstellung im juristischen Staatsdienst gefunden. Erst Mitte der 1930er Jahre musste sie ihre Stelle infolge der frauenfeindlichen Politik der Nationalsozialisten aufgeben. 1937 heiratete sie den Juristen Georg Maier, der wiederholt mit dem NS-Regime in Konflikt geraten war, 1939 zur Wehrmacht eingezogen wurde und im Oktober 1945 in sowjetischer Kriegsgefangenschaft starb. Nach dem Krieg ließ sie sich Maier mit ihren vier Kindern in Tübingen nieder. Im Rahmen des Instituts für Besatzungsfragen nahm sie ihre juristische Tätigkeit wieder auf. Bald wurde sie Richterin und schließlich sogar Direktorin des Tübinger Landgerichts.[10]

In der Hochphase beschäftigte das Institut für Besatzungsfragen sechzehn feste Mitarbeiter:innen und zehn Hilfskräfte. In Kooperation mit der Universität Tübingen entstanden mehrere Promotionen, die dann vom Institut publiziert wurden. Dass die Arbeiten des Instituts für politisch bedeutsam und nützlich gehalten wurden, zeigt sich an seiner Finanzierung. Das Land Württemberg-Hohenzollern stellte jährlich 20.000 DM zur Verfügung. 1949 kam das Land Württemberg-Baden als weiterer Geldgeber hinzu. Seit 1950 beteiligten sich auch alle übrigen Bundesländer mit einem Jahresbeitrag von 10.000 DM. 1951 übernahm der Bund die Grundfinanzierung. Von 1954 an bis zu seiner Auflösung 1960 finanzierte sich das Institut dann offenbar vollständig selbst aus Spenden, dem Verkauf von Publikationen und Honoraren für Gutachten und Vorträge.[11]

Quellen und Forschungsstand

Aktenbestände des Instituts für Besatzungsfragen im Bibliotheksarchiv des MPIL[12]

Nach Einstellung seiner Arbeit übergab das Institut seine Unterlagen inklusive seiner Bibliothek und seiner umfangreichen Sachkartei an das MPIL, mit dem es schon vorher intensiv kommuniziert und kooperiert hatte. Die inhaltlichen Schnittmengen beider Einrichtungen waren groß. Auch das MPIL setzte sich in seiner Forschung und gutachterlichen Tätigkeit intensiv mit besatzungsrechtlichen Fragen auseinander, wobei vielfach Parallelen zur Situation Deutschlands nach dem verlorenen Ersten Weltkrieg und zur Rolle des Berliner KWI bei der Durchsetzung deutscher Rechtsstandpunkte gezogen wurden. Insbesondere die bis 1960 in Berlin bestehende Abteilung des Instituts befasste sich mit ,Kriegsfolgenforschung‘, worunter insbesondere Fragen zum rechtlichen Status von Berlin und zur Sowjetischen Besatzungszone, Fragen der Staatsangehörigkeit, Besatzungskosten, Kriegs- und Besatzungsschäden oder die Oder-Neiße-Linie fielen.[13] Als mit dem Deutschlandvertrag 1952 das Besatzungsstatut aufgehoben wurde und die Auflösung des Instituts für Besatzungsfragen im Raum stand, zeigten das MPIL und sein Direktor Carl Bilfinger beziehungsweise sein Nachfolger Hermann Mosler großes Interesse an dessen Aktenbeständen.[14] Hermann Mosler hatte bereits 1945 mit Richard Thoma und Ernst Friesenhahn an der Universität Bonn eine Beratungsstelle für Völker- und Besatzungsrecht eingerichtet und sich in der Folge unter anderem als Gutachter im Nürnberger Krupp-Prozess 1947/48 als vehementer Gegner der alliierten Demontage-Politik profiliert.[15]

Das MPIL wiederum gab einen Großteil des vom Institut für Besatzungsfragen überlassenen Materials 1970 an das Bundesarchiv Koblenz[16] sowie das Staatsarchiv Sigmaringen[17] ab. Ein Teil der Rechtsgutachten lagert jedoch bis heute im Magazin des MPIL in Heidelberg. Ergänzende Archivquellen finden sich in Beständen vormaliger Kooperationspartner und in Nachlässen ehemaliger Mitarbeiter:innen. Hinterlassen hat das Institut außerdem eine Vielzahl an Publikationen zur Besatzungspolitik der Alliierten in Deutschland[18] sowie eine zwanzigbändige Schriftenreihe zur deutschen Besatzungspolitik in Europa während des Zweiten Weltkriegs.[19] Ergebnisse der Institutsarbeit flossen außerdem in Aufsätze und Monografien von Mitarbeiter:innen ein.[20]

Angesichts der hervorragenden Quellenlage erstaunt es, dass das eng mit der Besatzungszeit und der Gründungsgeschichte der Bundesrepublik verflochtene Wirken des Instituts in der historischen Forschung bislang praktisch keine Beachtung gefunden hat. Einen Überblick zur Institutsgeschichte geben zwei Aufsätze von Schmoller, die als Zeitzeugenberichte aber keine neutrale Perspektive einnehmen.[21] Dirk Blasius hat sich kritisch mit Schmollers Biografie und seiner Beziehung zu Carl Schmitt befasst.[22] Das Institut für Besatzungsfragen erwähnt er aber nur am Rande. Unser Wissen über das Personal und die Aktivitäten des Instituts, über die Inhalte seiner Publikationen und Gutachten, über seinen politischen Einfluss und seine gesellschaftliche Resonanz ist – gut 75 Jahre nach seiner Gründung und 65 Jahre nach seiner Auflösung – äußerst gering. Über seine Wahrnehmung durch die Besatzungsmächte ist bis heute nichts bekannt.

Thesen zur historischen Bedeutung des Instituts

Karte der Besatzungszonen in Deutschland, 1945[23]

Dieser unbefriedigende Forschungsstand verwundert, war Institut für Besatzungsfragen doch nicht nur ein interessanter sozialer Mikrokosmos und ein wichtiger Impulsgeber des völkerrechtlichen Denkens der Besatzungsjahre, sondern in mehrerlei Hinsicht ein paradigmatischer und einflussreicher Akteur westdeutscher Nachkriegsgeschichte. Diese Einschätzung soll im Folgenden mithilfe von vier Thesen untermauert werden, die sich gleichzeitig als Perspektiven für eine ausführlichere Erforschung des Instituts, seiner Protagonist:innen und seiner Aktivitäten verstehen.

Die Geschichte des Instituts verweist, erstens, auf das intime Verhältnis von Wissenschaft (namentlich Rechtswissenschaft) und Politik. Unter dem Deckmantel einer angeblich neutralen, objektiven und von wissenschaftlichen Interessen geleiteten Dokumentation alliierter Besatzung in Deutschland betätigten sich seine Mitarbeiter:innen faktisch als Zulieferer einer nationalistisch grundierten Realpolitik. Trotz einer vorgeblich kooperativen Rhetorik gegenüber den westlichen Besatzungsmächten, zielte diese Politik auf eine möglichst rasche Rückgewinnung voller nationalstaatlicher Souveränität und eine künftige „Säuberung“ deutschen Rechts von alliierter Einflussnahme. Ebenso wie die politische Stoßrichtung des Instituts wurden auch die moralischen Hypotheken der NS-Zeit durch Verweise auf die Objektivität und Neutralität des Rechts kaschiert.

Vor diesem Hintergrund fungierte das Institut, zweitens, gleichermaßen als juristische Resozialisierungsinstanz und als Vorstufe bundesdeutscher Zentralverwaltung. So ermöglichte das Ethos des unpolitischen und objektiven Rechts dem Institut, sowohl NS-belastete Akteure wie Schmoller, Tobler oder den vormaligen Kommandeur der Sicherheitspolizei in Bordeaux und verurteilten Kriegsverbrecher Hans Luther[24] als auch eine „innere Emigrantin“ wie die 1936 aus dem Richteramt entfernte Hedwig Maier in seine Reihen aufzunehmen und scheinbar gegensätzliche Positionen wie die von Carlo Schmid und Carl Schmitt zusammenzudenken. Gleichzeitig war das Institut für Besatzungsfragen – ähnlich wie das MPIL, das Deutsche Büro für Friedensfragen in Stuttgart[25] oder der Heidelberger Juristenkreis[26] – ein Knotenpunkt jenes westdeutschen Netzwerks von Rechts- und Verwaltungsspezialisten, das gleichermaßen als Nukleus und Exerzierfeld künftiger Zentralverwaltung diente und erheblichen Einfluss auf die Entwicklung bundesdeutscher Eigenstaatlichkeit nehmen sollte. Auf diese Weise wurde eine Vielzahl an Einstellungen, Normen und Praktiken aus der Zeit vor 1945 in die bundesdeutsche Demokratie übernommen, die teils in die NS-Zeit, teils aber auch bis in die Weimarer Republik und das Kaiserreich zurückreichten. Die Besatzungszeit war in dieser Hinsicht alles andere als eine abseitige Episode, sondern eine entscheidende Phase deutscher Staatlichkeit.

Das Institut für Besatzungsfragen leistete, drittens, einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Formierung eines negativen historischen Narrativs über die alliierte Besatzung in Deutschland. Insbesondere das Bild von der angeblich von Ausbeutung, Bestrafung und Hunger geprägten „düsteren Franzosenzeit“[27] in Südwestdeutschland wurde wesentlich durch die Publikationen des Instituts mitbestimmt. Konstruktive Ansätze alliierter Besatzungspolitik wurden hingegen bewusst ausgeblendet. Gleichzeitig trat das Institut durch seine Publikationsreihe zur deutschen Besatzung in Europa als geschichtsrevisionistischer Akteur in Erscheinung. Denn hier bot sich ehemaligen Protagonisten der deutschen Besatzungsverwaltungen die Möglichkeit, ihr Handeln als rechtskonform darzustellen, den Mythos einer in weiten Teilen „korrekten“ Okkupation zu beschwören und vermeintlich positiven Aspekte deutscher Besatzung im Zweiten Weltkrieg neben die angeblich negativen Seiten alliierter Besatzung in Deutschland zu stellen.[28] Bis heute zitieren viele die tendenziösen Publikationen des Instituts zum Zweiten Weltkrieg als vermeintlich sachliche und verlässliche Quellen zur deutschen Besatzungspolitik. Schmoller, der wegen seiner NS-Vergangenheit 1968 als deutscher Botschafter in Stockholm zurücktreten musste,[29] veröffentlichte sogar noch 1979 in den angesehenen Vierteljahrsheften für Zeitgeschichte einen vorgeblich neutralen und objektiven Aufsatz über die deutsche Besatzung in Böhmen und Mähren.[30]

Das Institut ist insofern, viertens, ein Paradebeispiel für die inneren Widersprüche bundesdeutscher Demokratisierungsprozesse. Seine Erforschung kann einen Beitrag leisten zur Beantwortung der Frage, wie Mitmacher:innen und Mitläufer:innen der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft zu Protagonist:innen und Gestalter:innen einer im Großen und Ganzen funktionierenden Demokratie werden konnten. Am Beispiel des Instituts lassen sich dabei drei Pfade der Demokratisierung aufzeigen: die aktive Mitwirkung an demokratisch legitimierten Institutionen und Prozessen,[31] die Neuperspektivierung und narrative Umdeutung des eigenen Verhaltens im Nationalsozialismus[32] sowie die Abgrenzung gegenüber dem als totalitär charakterisierten, zunehmend mit dem Nationalsozialismus gleichgesetzten Kommunismus in Ostdeutschland und Osteuropa.[33] Alle drei Pfade machen deutlich, dass das Bekenntnis zur Demokratie auch und gerade unter Jurist:innen keine Herzensentscheidung war. Ob beziehungsweise in welchem Maße die Abwendung von autoritären Denkmustern und die Hinwendung zur Demokratie von den beteiligten Akteur:innen tatsächlich internalisiert wurden, wäre für jeden Einzelfall zu prüfen. So unbefriedigend und beunruhigend uns diese Feststellung erscheinen mag: Viele dürften schlichtweg von Mitläufer:innen des Nationalsozialismus zu Mitläufer:innen der Demokratie geworden sein.

***

[1] Foto: Gustav von Schmoller, Erneuter Souveränität entgegen. Wie es zur Gründung eines Instituts für Besatzungsfragen in Tübingen kam, in: Tübinger Blätter 64 (1977), 65–71, 65.

[2] Zur Biografie Carlo Schmids siehe, nach wie vor grundlegend: Petra Weber, Carlo Schmid, 1896–1979. Eine Biographie, München: Beck 1996.

[3] Gustav von Schmoller, Das Institut für Besatzungsfragen in Tübingen, in: Max Gögler/Gregor Richter (Hrsg.), Das Land Württemberg-Hohenzollern 1945–1952. Darstellungen und Erinnerungen, Sigmaringen: Thorbecke 1982, 447–470, 447.

[4] Carl Schmitt, Tagebücher 1930–1934, hg. von Wolfgang Schuller in Zusammenarbeit mit Gerd Giesler, Berlin: Akademie Verlag 2010, Eintrag vom 23.7.1934, 351.

[5] Dirk Blasius, Carl Schmitt und Botschafter Gustav von Schmoller. Zur juristischen Erblast im Auswärtigen Amt, Kritische Justiz 46 (2013), 67–79, 69–70.

[6] Gustav von Schmoller, Die Neutralität im gegenwärtigen Strukturwandel des Völkerrechts, Univ.-Diss., Berlin: Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität 1944.

[7] Carlo Schmid, Erinnerungen, Bern: Scherz 1979, 337.

[8] Schmoller, Das Institut (Fn. 3), 450–452.

[9] Vgl. Wolfgang Bocks, Dr. Achim Tobler. Manager in der Kriegswirtschaft, in: Wolfgang Proske (Hrsg.), Täter, Helfer, Trittbrettfahrer, Bd. 6: NS-Belastete aus Südbaden, Gerstetten: Kugelberg 2017, 343–354.

[10] Vgl. Marion Röwekamp, Juristinnen. Lexikon zu Leben und Werk, Baden-Baden: Nomos 2005, 232–235.

[11] Schmoller, Das Institut (Fn. 3), 448–449; Schmoller, Souveränität (Fn. 1), 69.

[12] Foto: MPIL.

[13] Hierzu sind sämtliche Gutachten der Berliner Abteilung im Bibliotheksmagazin des MPIL überliefert. Aber auch das Heidelberger Institut befasste sich mit den Folgen der Besatzung: Vgl. Hermann Mosler/Karl Doehring (Hrsg.), Die Beendigung des Kriegszustands mit Deutschland nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg. Bearbeitet mit einer Studiengruppe des Max-Planck-Instituts für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1963. Auch die Heidelberger Gutachten sind im Bibliotheksmagazin überliefert.

[14] Siehe hier: Korrespondenz zwischen dem MPIL und dem Institut für Besatzungsfragen, Ordner „Übernahme des Instituts für Besatzungsfragen durch das Max-Planck-Institut für Völkerrecht“, Bestand MPIL.

[15] Felix Lange, Praxisorientierung und Gemeinschaftskonzeption. Hermann Mosler als Wegbereiter der westdeutschen Völkerrechtswissenschaft nach 1945, Berlin: Springer 2017, 131–132.

[16] BArch Koblenz, B 120 Institut für Besatzungsfragen (1947–1960).

[17] Staatsarchiv Sigmaringen, Wü 6 T 1 Institut für Besatzungsfragen (1946–1960).

[18] Siehe etwa Institut für Besatzungsfragen, Besatzungskosten – ein Verteidigungsbeitrag?, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1950; Institut für Besatzungsfragen, Das DP-Problem. Eine Studie über die ausländischen Flüchtlinge in Deutschland, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1950; Institut für Besatzungsfragen, Sechs Jahre Besatzungskosten. Eine Untersuchung des Problems der Besatzungskosten in den drei Westzonen und in Westberlin 1945–1950, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1951.

[19] Studien des Instituts für Besatzungsfragen in Tübingen zu den deutschen Besetzungen im 2. Weltkrieg, 20 Bde., Tübingen: Institut für Besatzungsfragen, 1953–1961.

[20] Siehe etwa Gustav von Schmoller/Hedwig Maier/Achim Tobler, Handbuch des Besatzungsrechts, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1957.

[21] Schmoller, Das Institut (Fn. 3); Schmoller, Souveränität (Fn. 1).

[22] Blasius, Carl Schmitt (Fn. 5).

[23] Foto: Wikimedia.

[24] So konnte Luther, der während des Krieges als Kommandeur der Sicherheitspolizei und des Sicherheitsdienstes in Bordeaux tätig war und dafür 1953 in Frankreich verurteilt wurde, in der Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Besatzungsfragen seine eigene, apologetische Sicht auf die deutsche Besatzungspolitik und die Bekämpfung der Résistance darlegen: Vgl. Hans Luther, Der französische Widerstand gegen die deutsche Besatzungsmacht und seine Bekämpfung, Tübingen: Institut für Besatzungsfragen 1957; Siehe auch Gerhard Bökel, Bordeaux und die Aquitaine im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Nazi-Besatzung und Kollaboration, Widerstand der Résistance und bundesdeutsche Nachkriegskarrieren, Frankfurt a.M.: Brandes & Apsel 2022, insbes.  211–232.

[25] Siehe Heribert Piontkowitz, Anfänge westdeutscher Außenpolitik 1946–1949. Das Deutsche Büro für Friedensfragen, Stuttgart: DVA 1978.

[26] Siehe Philipp Glahé, Amnestielobbyismus für NS-Verbrecher. Der Heidelberger Juristenkreis und die alliierte Justiz 1949–1955, Göttingen: Wallstein 2024.

[27] Siehe Edgar Wolfrum, Das Bild der „düsteren Franzosenzeit“. Alltagsnot, Meinungsklima und Demokratisierungspolitik in der französischen Besatzungszone nach 1945, in: Stefan Martens (Hrsg.), Vom „Erb- feind“ zum „Erneuerer“. Aspekte und Motive der französischen Deutschlandpolitik nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, Sigmaringen: Thorbecke 1993, 87–113; Corine Defrance/Ulrich Pfeil, Deutsch-Französische Geschichte, Bd. 10: Eine Nachkriegsgeschichte in Europa 1945 bis 1963, Darmstadt: WBG 2011, 145–159.

[28] Vgl. etwa: Luther, Widerstand (Fn. 24); Otto Bräutigam, Überblick über die besetzten Ostgebiete während des 2. Weltkrieges, Tübingen: Institut für Besatzungsfragen 1954; Robert Herzog, Besatzungsverwaltung in den besetzten Ostgebieten – Abteilung Jugend – Insbesondere: Heuaktion und SS-Helfer-Aktion, Tübingen: Institut für Besatzungsfragen 1960.

[29] Blasius, Carl Schmitt (Fn. 5), 70–71.

[30] Gustav von Schmoller, Heydrich im Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren, in: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 27 (1979), 626–645.

[31] Siehe dazu die sogenannte „Behördenforschung“ der letzten zwei Jahrzehnte, die einerseits das hohe Maß an NS-Belastung in den bundesdeutschen Behörden und Ministerien nach 1945, andererseits aber auch die erstaunlich reibungslose Eingliederung vormaliger Nationalsozialist:innen und Mitläufer:innen in die neue, demokratische Ordnung herausgearbeitet hat: Vgl. etwa Eckart Conze/Annette Weinke, Krisenhaftes Lernen? Formen der Demokratisierung in deutschen Behörden und Ministerien, in: Tim Schanetzky et al. (Hrsg.), Demokratisierung der Deutschen. Errungenschaften und Anfechtungen eines Projekts, Göttingen: Wallstein 2021, 87–101.

[32] Siehe dazu etwa: Hanne Leßau, Entnazifizierungsgeschichten. Die Auseinandersetzung mit der eigenen NS-Vergangenheit in der frühen Nachkriegszeit, Göttingen: Wallstein 2020; Mikkel Dack, Everyday Denazification in Postwar Germany. The Fragebogen Questionnaire and Political Screening during the Allied Occupation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2023.

[33] Siehe dazu etwa Stefan Creuzberger/Dierk Hoffmann (Hrsg.), „Geistige Gefahr“ und „Immunisierung der Gesellschaft“. Antikommunismus und politische Kultur in der frühen Bundesrepublik, München: Oldenbourg 2014.

What was the Institute for Occupation Studies?

The former headquarters of the Institute for Occupation Studies at Stauffenbergstraße 32 in Tübingen[1]

In October 1947, a ‘Department for Constitutional and Occupation Issues’ was set up in the Württemberg-Hohenzollern State Chancellery at the instigation of the then Minister of Justice and Deputy State President, Carlo Schmid.[2] At the beginning of 1949, the Institute for Occupation Studies (Institut für Besatzungsfragen) emerged from this department and moved into a villa at Stauffenbergstraße 32 on the Österberg in Tübingen in 1950. Formally, the Institute was a politically independent organisation with academic aspirations. In fact, however, it fulfilled an advisory and collaborative function for the Württemberg state government. Its focus soon expanded to include all three western occupation zones. Its declared intention was to document the impact of the occupying powers on Germany, to create a systematic overview of the norms of occupation law and to quantify the financial burden and damage caused by allied occupation.[3] In addition to publications on occupation law and practice, the Institute prepared legal opinions for political institutions and private or private-sector actors. The Institute for Occupation Studies and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (KWI) and the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (MPIL) had numerous connections in terms of the subject matter of their work and in terms of personnel. For this reason, a large collection of documents from the Institute for Occupation Studies has been stored in the MPIL’s library since its termination in 1960.

Gustav von Schmoller (1907–1991) became head of the Institute for Occupation Studies. Schmoller came from a family of Prussian army officers and was the grandson of the national economist and historian of the same name. From 1925 to 1929, he had studied law, partly in Tübingen under Carlo Schmid, who had been a lecturer at the KWI in Berlin in 1928 and had dealt with reparations and restitution issues arising from the Treaty of Versailles. Schmoller had joined the NSDAP in May 1933. From May 1934, he worked for several months in Berlin as an assistant to Carl Schmitt, who had become as a scientific member of the KWI in 1933. Schmoller was apparently closely involved in the writing of the essay Der Führer schützt das Recht (“The Führer Upholds the Law”),[4] in which Schmitt gave legal absolution to Hitler’s actions in the course of the so-called Röhm Purge (also known as “The Night of the Long Knives”). In 1935, Schmoller became an officer in the Reich Ministry of Economics. After a stopover in the private sector, he held various positions in the German protectorate administration for Bohemia and Moravia from November 1939 onwards.[5] In 1941 he defended his dissertation, supervised by Schmitt, on the so-called Großraum-order and neutrality.[6] The second examiner of the thesis was Viktor Bruns, then head of the KWI for Comparative Public Law and International Law.

Just shortly after the end of the war, Schmoller became one of the closest advisors to Carlo Schmid, who, as a confidant of the French occupying power and member of the re-established Social Democratic Party of Germany (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD), was one of the leading players in the reconstruction of political life in Tübingen and Württemberg-Hohenzollern. Among other things, Schmoller accompanied Schmid to the constitutional convention on Herrenchiemsee island in August 1948. According to Schmid’s memoirs, Schmoller ‘played an outstanding role in the drafting of the memorandum […] in which the convention’s working methods and conclusions were recorded.’[7] Drawing on the resources of the Institute for Occupation Studies, Schmoller also played an important role in the negotiation, interpretation and revision of the Occupation Statute, which governed relations between the Federal Republic and the three Western occupying powers.[8] Schmoller joined the Foreign Service in autumn 1952. After working at the Bonn headquarters, as a counsellor in Athens and as consul general in Istanbul, he became the Federal Republic’s ambassador in Stockholm in 1965.

Hedwig Maier, a lawyer, and Achim Tobler, an economist, now took over the management of the Institute for Occupation Studies. Like Schmoller, the German-Swiss Tobler also had a ‘brown’ past. He had joined the SS (Schutszstaffel, literally: ‘Protection Squadron’) in 1933 and had even worked for the so called ‘Security Service of the Reichsführer-SS’ (Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsführer SS) since 1939. In 1935, he had completed his doctorate under Arnold Bergstraesser in Heidelberg.[9] Hedwig Maier (née Reimer), on the other hand, was biographically out of the ordinary: In the early 1930s, she was one of the first women ever to gain a doctorate in law at the University of Berlin and found a position civil service. It was not until the mid-1930s that she had to give up her job due to the anti-women policies of the National Socialists. In 1937, she married the lawyer Georg Maier, who had repeatedly come into conflict with the Nazi regime, was drafted into the Wehrmacht in 1939 and died as a Soviet prisoner of war in October 1945. After the war, Maier settled in Tübingen with her four children. She resumed her legal work at the Institute for Occupation Studies. She soon became a judge and eventually even director of the Tübingen district court.[10]

At its peak, the Institute for Occupation Studies employed sixteen permanent staff members and ten assistants. In co-operation with the University of Tübingen, several doctoral theses were produced, which were then published by the Institute. The fact that the Institute’s work was considered politically significant and useful is reflected in its funding. The state of Württemberg-Hohenzollern provided 20,000 Deutsche Mark annually. In 1949, the state of Württemberg-Baden was added as a further sponsor. From 1950, all other states also contributed an annual sum of 10,000 Deutsche Mark. In 1951, the federal government took over the basic funding. From 1954 until its dissolution in 1960, the Institute was apparently financed entirely by donations, the sale of publications, and fees for expert opinions and lectures.[11]

Sources and Current State of Research

Files of the Institute for Occupation Studies in the MPIL library archive[12]

After its termination, the Institute handed over its documents, including its library and its extensive subject index, to the MPIL, with which it had already communicated and cooperated intensively beforehand. The two institutions had a great deal of overlap in terms of their work. The MPIL also dealt intensively with occupation law issues in its research and expert opinions, often drawing parallels with the situation in Germany after the First World War and the role of the Berlin KWI in the enforcement of German legal positions then. In particular, the Institute’s department in Berlin, which existed until 1960, dealt with ‘research on the consequences of the war’ (Kriegsfolgenforschung), which included in particular issues relating to the legal status of Berlin and to the Soviet occupation zone, as well as questions of citizenship, occupation costs, damages resulting from the war and occupation and the Oder-Neisse line.[13] When the occupation statute was abolished with the Bonn-Paris Conventions of 1952 and the dissolution of the Institute for Occupation Studies was on the cards, the MPIL and its directors, Carl Bilfinger and subsequently Hermann Mosler, showed great interest in its files.[14] Hermann Mosler had already set up an advisory centre for international law and the law of occupation at the University of Bonn in 1945, together with Richard Thoma and Ernst Friesenhahn, and subsequently made a name for himself as a vehement opponent of the Allied policy of German deindustrialization, for example as an expert witness in the Nuremberg Krupp Trial in 1947/48.[15]

The MPIL handed over a large part of the material provided by the Institute for Occupation Studies to the Federal Archive in Koblenz[16] and the Sigmaringen State Archive[17] in 1970. However, some of the legal opinions are still stored in the MPIL Archive in Heidelberg. Additional archival sources can be found in the collections of former cooperation partners and in the estates of former employees. The Institute has left behind a large number of publications on Allied occupation policy in Germany[18] as well as a twenty-volume series on German occupation policy in Europe during the Second World War.[19] The results of the Institute’s work have also been incorporated into articles and monographs by its staff members.[20]

In view of the multitude of sources available, it is surprising that the work of the Institute, which is closely intertwined with the occupation period and the founding history of the Federal Republic of Germany, has received virtually no attention in historical research to date. Two essays by Schmoller provide an overview of the Institute’s history, but, as eyewitness accounts, they do not adopt a neutral perspective.[21] Dirk Blasius takes a critical look at Schmoller’s biography and his relationship with Carl Schmitt.[22] However, he only mentions the Institute for Occupation Studies in passing. Our knowledge of the Institute’s staff and activities, the content of its publications and expert opinions, its political influence, and its social resonance is extremely limited – a good 75 years after its foundation and 65 years after its dissolution. To this day, nothing is known about how it was perceived by the occupying powers.

Theses on the Historical Relevance of the Institute

Map of the occupation zones of Germany in 1945[23]

This unsatisfactory state of research is surprising, as the Institute for Occupation Studies was not only an interesting social microcosm and key actor of international law scholarship during the occupation years, but also a paradigmatic and influential player in West German post-war history more broadly. This assessment will be substantiated in the following with the help of four theses, which at the same time serve as perspectives for a more detailed study of the Institute, its protagonists and its activities.

Firstly, the history of the Institute points to the intimate relationship between research (namely jurisprudence) and politics. Under the guise of a supposedly neutral, objective documentation of the Allied occupation in Germany, guided by scientific interests, its staff effectively acted as suppliers of a realpolitik grounded in nationalist dogma. Despite an ostensibly co-operative rhetoric towards the Western occupying powers, this policy aimed to regain full national sovereignty as quickly as possible and to ‘cleanse’ German law of Allied influence in the future. Just like the political aims of the Institute, the questionable takeovers from the Nazi era were concealed by references to the objectivity and neutrality of the law.

Secondly, the Institute thus acted as both an institution of legal resocialisation and as a precursor to the central administration of the Federal Republic of Germany. The ethos of apolitical and objective jurisprudence enabled the Institute to accept into its ranks Nazi-incriminated actors such as Schmoller, Tobler or the former commander of the security police in Bordeaux and convicted war criminal Hans Luther[24] as well as an ‘inner emigrant’ like Hedwig Maier, who was removed from the judiciary in 1936, and to bring together seemingly contradictory positions such as those of Carlo Schmid and Carl Schmitt. At the same time, the Institute for Occupation Studies – similar to the MPIL, the Deutsches Büro für Friedensfragen (‘German Office for Peace Issues’) in Stuttgart[25] or the Heidelberger Juristenkreis (‘Heidelberg Lawyers’ Circle’)[26] – was a hub of precisely that West German network of legal and administrative specialists that served both as a nucleus and a training ground for the future central administration and was to exert considerable influence on the development of West German statehood. In this way, attitudes, norms, and practices from the period before 1945 were adopted into West German democracy on a large scale, some of which dated back to the Nazi era, and others to the Weimar Republic and the German Empire. In this respect, the occupation period was anything but an inconsequential episode, but rather a decisive phase of German statehood.

Thirdly, the Institute for Occupation Studies made an important contribution to the formation of a negative historical narrative about the Allied occupation in Germany. In particular, the image of the ‘gloomy French period’[27] in south-west Germany, allegedly characterised by exploitation, punishment and hunger, was significantly influenced by the Institute’s publications. Constructive approaches to Allied occupation policy, on the other hand, were deliberately ignored. At the same time, the Institute appeared as a historical revisionist actor through its series of publications on the German occupations in Europe. This was because it offered former protagonists of the German occupation administrations the opportunity to present their actions as legally compliant, to conjure up the myth of a largely ‘proper’ occupation and to present supposedly positive aspects of German occupation in the Second World War alongside the allegedly negative aspects of Allied occupation in Germany.[28] To this day, many cite the Institute’s tendentious publications on the Second World War as supposedly factual and reliable sources on German occupation policy. Schmoller, who had to resign as German ambassador in Stockholm in 1968 because of his Nazi past,[29] even published a supposedly neutral and objective essay on the German occupation in Bohemia and Moravia in the prestigious Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte as late as 1979.[30]

Fourthly, the Institute is insofar a prime example of the internal contradictions of the German democratisation processes. Researching it can contribute to answering the question of how those who participated in the Nazi tyranny could become protagonists and shapers of a generally well-functioning democracy. Using the example of the Institute, three paths of democratisation can be identified: active participation in democratically legitimised institutions and processes,[31] the re-perspectivisation and narrative reinterpretation of one’s own behaviour under National Socialism[32], and the distinction from communism in East Germany and Eastern Europe, which was characterised as totalitarian and increasingly equated with National Socialism.[33] All three paths make it clear that in committing themselves to democracy, lawyers did not follow their hearts. Whether or to what extent the rejection of authoritarian thought patterns and the turn towards democracy were truly internalised by the actors involved would have to be examined for each individual case. As unsatisfactory and unsettling as this finding may seem to us, it is likely that many simply turned from Mitläufer (hangers-on) of National Socialism into Mitläufer of democracy.

***

Translation from the German original: Sarah Gebel

[1] Photo: Gustav von Schmoller, Erneuter Souveränität entgegen. Wie es zur Gründung eines Instituts für Besatzungsfragen in Tübingen kam, in: Tübinger Blätter 64 (1977), 65–71, 65.

[2] On Carlo Schmids biography, see, still foundational: Petra Weber, Carlo Schmid, 1896–1979. Eine Biographie, Munich: Beck 1996.

[3] Gustav von Schmoller, Das Institut für Besatzungsfragen in Tübingen, in: Max Gögler/Gregor Richter (eds.), Das Land Württemberg-Hohenzollern 1945–1952. Darstellungen und Erinnerungen, Sigmaringen: Thorbecke 1982, 447–470, 447.

[4] Carl Schmitt, Tagebücher 1930–1934, ed. by Wolfgang Schuller in cooperation with Gerd Giesler, Berlin: Akademie Verlag 2010, Entry of 23.7.1934, 351.

[5] Dirk Blasius, Carl Schmitt und Botschafter Gustav von Schmoller. Zur juristischen Erblast im Auswärtigen Amt, Kritische Justiz 46 (2013), 67–79, 69–70.

[6] Gustav von Schmoller, Die Neutralität im gegenwärtigen Strukturwandel des Völkerrechts, dissertation, Berlin: Friedrich Wilhelm University 1944.

[7] Carlo Schmid, Erinnerungen, Bern: Scherz 1979, 337.

[8] Schmoller, Das Institut (fn. 3), 450–452.

[9] See: Wolfgang Bocks, Dr. Achim Tobler. Manager in der Kriegswirtschaft, in: Wolfgang Proske (ed.), Täter, Helfer, Trittbrettfahrer, Vol. 6: NS-Belastete aus Südbaden, Gerstetten: Kugelberg 2017, 343–354.

[10] See: Marion Röwekamp, Juristinnen. Lexikon zu Leben und Werk, Baden-Baden: Nomos 2005, 232–235.

[11] Schmoller, Das Institut (fn. 3), 448–449; Schmoller, Souveränität (fn. 1), 69.

[12] Photo: MPIL.

[13] All legal opinions on this by the Berlin department can be found in the MPIL’s library. But the Heidelberg Institute also dealt with the consequences of occupation, see: Hermann Mosler/Karl Doehring (eds.), Die Beendigung des Kriegszustands mit Deutschland nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg. Edited in cooperation with a study group from the MPIL, Cologne: Carl Heymanns Verlag 1963. The Heidelberg legal opinions are also stored in the library.

[14] See: Correspondence between the MPIL and the Institute for Occupation Studies, Folder ‘Übernahme des Instituts für Besatzungsfragen durch das Max-Planck-Institut für Völkerrecht’ (‘Takeover of the Institute for Occupation Studies by the Max Planck Institute for International Law’), MPIL Archive.

[15] Felix Lange, Praxisorientierung und Gemeinschaftskonzeption. Hermann Mosler als Wegbereiter der westdeutschen Völkerrechtswissenschaft nach 1945, Berlin: Springer 2017, 131–132.

[16] Federal Archive Koblenz, B 120 Institut für Besatzungsfragen (1947–1960).

[17] State Archive Sigmaringen, Wü 6 T 1 Institut für Besatzungsfragen (1946–1960).

[18] See, for example: Institut für Besatzungsfragen, Besatzungskosten – ein Verteidigungsbeitrag?, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1950; Institut für Besatzungsfragen, Das DP-Problem. Eine Studie über die ausländischen Flüchtlinge in Deutschland, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1950; Institut für Besatzungsfragen, Sechs Jahre Besatzungskosten. Eine Untersuchung des Problems der Besatzungskosten in den drei Westzonen und in Westberlin 1945–1950, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1951.

[19] Studien des Instituts für Besatzungsfragen in Tübingen zu den deutschen Besetzungen im 2. Weltkrieg, 20 Vols., Tübingen: Institut für Besatzungsfragen, 1953–1961.

[20] See, for example: Gustav von Schmoller/Hedwig Maier/Achim Tobler, Handbuch des Besatzungsrechts, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1957.

[21] Schmoller, Das Institut (fn. 3); Schmoller, Souveränität (fn. 1).

[22] Blasius, Carl Schmitt (fn. 5).

[23] Photo: Wikimedia.

[24] For example, Luther, who had been commander of the ‘Security Police’ (Sicherheitspolizei) and ‘Security Service’ in Bordeaux during the war and was sentenced for this in France in 1953, was able present his own apologetic view of German occupation policy and the fight against the Resistance in the Institute for Occupation Studies’ publication series, see: Hans Luther, Der französische Widerstand gegen die deutsche Besatzungsmacht und seine Bekämpfung, Tübingen: Institut für Besatzungsfragen 1957; see also: Gerhard Bökel, Bordeaux und die Aquitaine im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Widerstand der Résistance und bundesdeutsche Nachkriegskarrieren, Frankfurt a.M.: Brandes & Apsel 2022, esp. 211–232.

[25] See: Heribert Piontkowitz, Anfänge westdeutscher Außenpolitik 1946–1949. Das Deutsche Büro für Friedensfragen, Stuttgart: DVA 1978.

[26] See: Philipp Glahé, Amnestielobbyismus für NS-Verbrecher. Der Heidelberger Juristenkreis und die alliierte Justiz 1949–1955, Göttingen: Wallstein 2024.

[27] See: Edgar Wolfrum, Das Bild der “düsteren Franzosenzeit”. Alltagsnot, Meinungsklima und Demokratisierungspolitik in der französischen Besatzungszone nach 1945, in: Stefan Martens (ed.), Vom “Erbfeind”  zum “Erneuerer”. Aspekte und Motive der französischen Deutschlandpolitik nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, Sigmaringen: Thorbecke 1993, 87–113; Corine Defrance/Ulrich Pfeil, Deutsch-Französische Geschichte, Vol. 10: Eine Nachkriegsgeschichte in Europa 1945 bis 1963, Darmstadt: WBG 2011, 145–159.

[28] See, for example: Luther, Widerstand (fn. 24); Otto Bräutigam, Überblick über die besetzten Ostgebiete während des 2. Weltkrieges, Tübingen: Institut für Besatzungsfragen 1954; Robert Herzog, Besatzungsverwaltung in den besetzten Ostgebieten – Abteilung Jugend – Insbesondere: Heuaktion und SS-Helfer-Aktion, Tübingen: Institut für Besatzungsfragen 1960.

[29] Blasius, Carl Schmitt (fn. 5), 70–71.

[30] Gustav von Schmoller, Heydrich im Protektorat Böhmen und Mähren, in: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 27 (1979), 626–645.

[31] See the so-called “research on authorities” (Behördenforschung) of the last two decades, which on the one hand has highlighted the high level of Nazi contamination in the Federal German authorities and ministries after 1945, but on the other hand also the surprisingly smooth integration of former National Socialists and hangers-on into the new, democratic order: See, for example: Eckart Conze/Annette Weinke, Krisenhaftes Lernen? Formen der Demokratisierung in deutschen Behörden und Ministerien, in: Tim Schanetzky et al. (eds.), Demokratisierung der Deutschen. Errungenschaften und Anfechtungen eines Projekts, Göttingen: Wallstein 2021, 87-101.

[32] See on this, for example: Hanne Leßau, Entnazifizierungsgeschichten. Die Auseinandersetzung mit der eigenen NS-Vergangenheit in der frühen Nachkriegszeit, Göttingen: Wallstein 2020; Mikkel Dack, Everyday Denazification in Postwar Germany. The Fragebogen Questionnaire and Political Screening during the Allied Occupation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2023.

[33] See on this, for example: Stefan Creuzberger/Dierk Hoffmann (eds.), „Geistige Gefahr“ und „Immunisierung der Gesellschaft“. Antikommunismus und politische Kultur in der frühen Bundesrepublik, Munich: Oldenbourg 2014.

El Instituto Max Planck de Derecho Comparado cumple cien años y el Instituto Iberoamericano de Derecho Constitucional (IIDC), cincuenta. Un punto habitual de encuentro para los constitucionalistas iberoamericanos ha sido el Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas (IIJ) de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, sede del IIDC. Las tres instituciones profesan una clara afinidad académica y humana.

Entre los protagonistas de esa relación, por parte del IIJ, merecen una referencia especial Héctor Fix-Zamudio, Jorge Carpizo y Héctor Fix-Fierro, que dejaron una huella profunda en el quehacer institucional y en la memoria de quienes tuvimos el privilegio de compartir afanes y afectos con ellos; por el Max Planck las figuras propiciatorias de esa fecunda relación son Armin von Bogdandy y Mariela Morales, que han tendido un puente entre las ciencias jurídicas de América Latina y Europa. En cuanto al IIDC, que hoy cuenta con veintisiete secciones nacionales, recibió su impulso inicial gracias al entusiasmo de sus fundadores, Alberto Meneses Direito (Brasil), Carlos Restrepo Piedrahita (Colombia), Domingo García Belaunde (Perú), Enrique Véscovi (Uruguay), Germán J. Bidart Campos (Argentina), Jorge Mario García Laguardia (Guatemala), Jorge R. Vanossi (Argentina), Luis Carlos Sáchica (Colombia), Luis Pinto Ferreira (Brasil), Manuel Barquín (México), Manuel García Pelayo (España – Venezuela), Mario Justo López (Argentina), Pedro José Frías (Argentina), Rolando Tamayo (México), además de los mencionados profesores Fix-Zamudio y Carpizo, y yo mismo.

Armin von Bogdandy y Diego Valadés en el 20º aniversario del Coloquio Iberoamericano de febrero de 2024 en Heidelberg [1]

La cercana colaboración entre las tres instituciones ha generado un extenso espacio para experiencias profesionales y personales compartidas que nos permiten avanzar por senderos innovadores. Hemos construido una sólida fraternidad multinacional en torno a la comunión de preocupaciones y convicciones: los derechos fundamentales y las instituciones democráticas como esencia del Estado constitucional. Con esto, contribuimos al estudio comparado del derecho y de las culturas constitucionales y al diseño de instituciones públicas nacionales. Una de las indagaciones más prolíficas es la iniciada y alentada por el profesor Von Bogdandy en torno al ius constitutionale commune, que permite identificar la interacción entre el derecho nacional y el internacional, con un énfasis especial en los derechos fundamentales.

A las conmemoraciones y celebraciones que mencioné al inicio, añado que en 2024 los mexicanos festejaremos doscientos años de la primera Constitución del México independiente que, a pesar de su orientación confesional, limitativa de las libertades, introdujo dos sistemas relevantes, el federal y el presidencial. En los dos siglos transcurridos hemos experimentado cambios en cuanto al Estado laico, pero acumulamos rezagos en cuanto a la igualdad de derechos por un mal diseño federal y presentamos un considerable atraso en lo que atañe al sistema presidencial. En la búsqueda de trazos generales connotativos del derecho constitucional común, como parte de la reflexión convocada por el colega alemán, presento a continuación algunas consideraciones acerca del poder político, desde la perspectiva de la teoría constitucional.

En el constitucionalismo es esencial preservar los mayores espacios posibles para las libertades, como base de la igualdad, la seguridad jurídica, la verdad y la justicia. El constitucionalismo contemporáneo cuenta con los instrumentos para mantener al poder político en los cauces de lo razonable. Para conseguirlo, en la organización y ejercicio del poder se deben aplicar las siguientes prevenciones: legitimarlo, distribuirlo, equilibrarlo, supervisarlo, limitarlo y controlarlo.

Mariela Morales entrega a Diego Valadés un ejemplar del libro «The Impact of the Inter-American Human Rights System» en nombre del MPIL.

Legitimidad: Las formas de legitimación democrática están bien identificadas; sin embargo, no siempre son diseñadas con el cuidado necesario. El sistema electoral debe ser construido midiendo todos los efectos de su contenido. Por ejemplo, a veces se considera que la fuente de legitimidad está en la mayoría absoluta de los electores. La experiencia demuestra que es un error, pues a trueque de conseguirla se pulveriza a los partidos y se fuerza a los electores a votar por opciones secundarias, con las que no se identifica y a las que sólo acude para sortear un episodio electoral coyuntural. Esto desnaturaliza a los partidos, en detrimento de la confianza ciudadana.

Distribución: La separación de poderes es un elemento medular en el proceso evolutivo del constitucionalismo. Si bien su implantación fue influenciada por Montesquieu, conviene tener en cuenta que las bondades de distribuir el poder fueron valoradas desde la antigüedad. En el libro VI de Política, Aristóteles hizo un extenso análisis de las funciones del poder público y de las razones por las cuales conviene mantenerlas separadas, haciéndolas parte de magistraturas diferentes. De esta manera, dijo, nadie sería depositario de la totalidad del poder ni podría hacer por sí solo todos los bienes ni causar todos los males. Su perspectiva se apoyaba en el estudio de las instituciones de su época, por lo que el número de magistraturas mencionadas era muy elevado. Sería excesivo forzar la lectura de Política, como lo hizo en su poco fiel traducción Patricio de Azcárate en 1873, atribuyendo al filósofo griego conceptos que no escribió; pero aun así la idea de un poder público repartido está presente en ese tratado.

En cuanto a una formulación orgánica y funcional, la anticipó Pomponio desde el siglo II. El jurista se caracterizó por una obra prolífica y por un estilo elegante y erudito cuya influencia se extendió por siglos. El Digesto reproduce diversos fragmentos de su obra De origine iuris, relacionados con la formación de la república romana. A la caída de la monarquía, en forma sucesiva fueron establecidas diversas instituciones para asegurar el orden y la libertad.Pomponio indicaba que, una vez puesta en vigor la ley de las Doce Tablas, surgieron las normas conocidas como plebiscita, formuladas por “la plebe”. Luego, para compensar un proceso desestructurado del ejercicio del poder por parte de las bases populares, se decidió investir al Senado de facultades normativas, de las que surgió el derecho denominado senatusconsultum, “o constituciones del Senado”. Esta atribución se diferenció de la llevada a cabo por los magistrados que “sentenciaban causas”, y “últimamente, así como la facultad de constituir leyes se había otorgado a menos sujetos […] fue necesario que uno solo mirase por la República, porque no podía el Senado gobernar igualmente bien todas las provincias. Por este motivo fue elegido un príncipe; se le dio la facultad de que todo cuanto determinase se tuviese por firme y válido.”[2] Aparece aquí una justificación del poder concentrado por el emperador

Más adelante resumió así la distribución de las funciones del Estado entre legisladores, jueces y gobernantes: “[…] en nuestra ciudad se determina todo o por derecho, esto es por ley […] o por acciones legítimas que contienen la forma de litigar […] [o por] determinación del príncipe […].[3] El propio Pomponio se preguntaba: “¿de qué sirven las leyes en una ciudad si faltan sujetos que gobiernen conforme a ellas”.[4] La respuesta estaba en la presencia del príncipe que, no obstante su predominio, no invalidaba la acción de otras magistraturas. La tensión entre distribuir y concentrar el poder es una constante histórica, y la distribución se ha convertido en una de las claves del constitucionalismo moderno y contemporáneo.

Equilibrio: La concentración del poder es una propensión atávica. Las pulsiones hegemonistas están presentes, siempre, en toda organización. El constitucionalismo es el mayor esfuerzo político que se haya hecho nunca para organizar y hacer funcionar al poder conforme a pautas previsibles, reguladas y razonables. Conforme a ese propósito, los sistemas políticos y la experiencia muestran que la sola distribución de facultades no es suficiente. Las asimetrías, deliberadas o imprevistas, perturban la actividad institucional, por lo que es indispensable adoptar equilibrios entre los órganos y las funciones que les son asignadas, de manera que no se evite al máximo posible que haya predominios o bloqueos en el interior de las estructuras del Estado que mermen la eficacia del aparato del poder en perjuicio de la gobernabilidad.

La teoría clásica ofrece numerosas respuestas para intentar esos equilibrios, pero subsisten viejas incógnitas y surgen nuevas dificultades acerca de las cuales se hace necesario actualizar los constructos. El contractualismo ha avanzado por nuevas sendas pero la influencia pública de las ideas tiende a decrecer ante la inmediatez de las respuestas públicas. El equilibrio entre los órganos del poder se ve limitado por el contraste que presentan los órganos jurisdiccionales, que se han convertido en el principal espacio público de conocimiento, análisis y reflexión, ante los órganos políticos de gobierno y representación, dominados por la improvisación, la emotividad y los intereses coyunturales.

La calidad de los gobernantes pasa por una etapa decadente, con lo que se abren oportunidades para el arribo de la demagogia que invalida las previsiones normativas de equilibrio institucional. Este es un problema que trasciende al diseño de las instituciones pues se inscribe en un proceso anómico. Lo normal es que la circunstancia sea pasajera y se inscriba como una etapa normal entre las vicisitudes del Estado constitucional. Así parezca que los equilibrios son difíciles de alcanzar, el sentido progresivo de las instituciones lleva hacia allá.

Supervisión: El poder tiene por definición un componente jerárquico, de ahí que para distribuirlo y ejercerlo se tenga que contar con niveles superpuestos dentro de los mismos órganos y con estructuras laterales propias de otros órganos. La idea de supervisar al poder es sencilla de enunciar, pero no todas las actuaciones del poder son fáciles de identificar e individualizar. Así parezca un oxímoron, lo que se vuelve público del poder púbico es apenas un segmento de un quehacer cuya mayor parte se lleva a cabo en una zona umbrosa. Trasciende lo que interesa al poderoso o lo que no consigue evitar que aflore.

Por lo mismo, la supervisión del poder requiere mecanismos que permitan acceder al menos a una parte de sus secretos. Las fuentes documentales son las más relevantes; también cuentan las testimoniales. Cada sistema tiene sus formas de tomar decisiones y de dejar constancia del proceso decisorio; varía asimismo el rigor para elaborar y resguardar la documentación correspondiente. Por estas razones, además del acceso a la información pública del que toda persona dispone en las sociedades abiertas, es indispensable adoptar al menos un par de medidas: atribuir facultades de investigación a las minorías parlamentarias de manera que dispongan del instrumental adecuado para indagar todo lo que resulte de relevancia institucional, y además instituir el derecho a la verdad por virtud del cual los titulares de los órganos del poder deban documentar sus decisiones. Esto sucede con los juzgadores, a través de sus resoluciones, y con los parlamentarios con motivo de sus debates, pero donde los gobiernos no cuentan con administraciones profesionales desvinculadas de la lucha política, y donde los altos cargos no son responsables ante los parlamentos, las razones del gobierno suelen tramitarse como secretos palaciegos.

En un Estado constitucional es posible conocer el por qué y el cómo de las decisiones del poder; las que se traducen en actos, las que se convierten en omisiones, o las que se quedan como proyectos. Todo es significativo para valorar el desempeño del poder. El hecho de saberse sujeto al escrutinio hace que los agentes del poder midan el impacto de sus decisiones y prevean que, la temporalidad de la función encomendada dificulta la perduración de sus secretos y la intangibilidad de sus acciones. La reserva de información se determina en función de los intereses colectivos, calificados por el Estado, y no de los intereses individuales de las personas que transitan por los órganos del poder.

Limitación: Además de evitar la concentración del poder y su ejercicio críptico, el Estado constitucional implica otras salvaguardias para su forma democrática. La limitación del poder político se produce por diversas vías entre las que sobresalen una temporalidad razonable en la titularidad de los órganos políticos y la menor discrecionalidad posible en cuanto a las decisiones.

El límite temporal está relacionado con los periodos electorales, de manera que incluso donde la reelección esté permitida, la ciudadanía disponga de la posibilidad de no refrendar el mandato. La lógica de los nombramientos vitalicios o por plazos largos que caracterizan a los integrantes de las cortes de justicia se explica porque en su caso la temporalidad como salvaguardia opera en el sentido de garantizar su independencia, en tanto que los gobernantes y representantes deben someterse a evaluaciones periódicas por parte de los gobernados y representados. Los periodos de gobierno extensos o la reelección de los gobernantes carecen de justificación democrática en la medida misma en la que los límites se imponen a los electores.

En algunos sistemas se ha manejado la idea de la reelección o de la duración amplia en los cargos como una especie de derechos de los mandatarios. Es una construcción teórica inadecuada pues recoge de manera inercial las tesis procedentes del monarquismo sin advertir que la contraparte de esos hipotéticos derechos son los deberes de los ciudadanos. Como resulta evidente, esto no coincide con la argumentación democrática basada en la soberanía popular.

Control: Las modalidades de control son muchas. Desde la perspectiva de quienes ejercen el control en un Estado constitucional, lo hay administrativo, jurisdiccional, político y social; por lo que respecta al ámbito donde se llevan a cabo, hay controles intraorgánicos e interorgánicos; en lo que atañe a la interacción entre los órdenes del poder, los controles pueden ser verticales, si los agentes se encuentran en planos jurídicos diferenciados u horizontales si se relacionan de manera lateral.

La teoría del control está muy desarrollada toda vez que uno de los enunciados básicos del constitucionalismo moderno consistió en que el poder debía controla al poder. Esta es, por lo demás, una regularidad en el ejercicio del poder en tanto que no es posible la existencia de un poder absoluto porque se liquidaría a sí mismo. Las instancias y procedimientos de control son una aportación del constitucionalismo, pero como fenómeno propio del poder siempre han existida resistencias o condiciones que en cierta forman funcionaban como un sistema de poderes y contrapoderes. Incluso en sus versiones más arcaicas la hegemonía de los jefes tribales ha debido corresponder al menos a algún tipo de rito y contar con la asistencia de algún subordinado, a su vez detentador de una cuota mínima de poder.

Para el constitucionalismo lo relevante está en que los controles sean diseñados conforme a una arquitectura que los haga funcionales en el sentido de evitar excesos sin inhibir la acción del controlado. Lo que se persigue es que el poder público alcance los mejores resultados posibles y evite sus peores defectos, entre ellos los de arbitrariedad, discrecionalidad y corrupción.

Esos seis factores: legitimidad, distribución, equilibrio, supervisión, limitación y control, son el mínimo que un ordenamiento bien construido debe incluir para que el poder político funcione de la manera más razonable posible. Tales factores sólo son posibles donde el sistema de derechos fundamentales incluye el acceso al poder mediante sufragio universal, secreto, libre, directo e informado. Además, según el enfoque desde el cual se contemple el diseño constitucional, se incluirán otros elementos. Por ejemplo, si el diseño se hace con la perspectiva de la razón pública, se tendrán presentes los valores aceptados y practicados por la ciudadanía.[5] En síntesis, los contenidos específicos de los factores mencionados deben ser afines con los objetivos procurados. Por esta razón, cada diseño es diferente. Puede ocurrir, y esto es frecuente, que los actores que participan en el diseño normativo no tengan claros los objetivos y sólo actúen de manera mecánica o por impulsos coyunturales. Además, cuando el ordenamiento es reformado de manera asistemática suelen combinarse elementos institucionales correspondientes a finalidades diferentes o incluso contrapuestas, lo que hace disfuncional al ordenamiento y entorpece el desempeño razonable de los órganos del poder.

Por todo lo anterior resulta útil adentrarse en el ius constitutionale commune, como parte de un ejercicio académico compartido, pues entre otras cosas permite identificar las constantes de las que se obtienen buenos resultados institucionales y advertir las complicaciones que surgen por adoptar criterios constructivos excluyentes entre sí. La coherencia conceptual debe acompañar a todo buen diseño institucional.

***

[1] Foto: MPIL.

[2] Digesto, I,2,11.

[3] Digesto, I,2,12.

[4] Digesto, I,2,13.

[5] Véase: John Rawls, The Law of Peoples, with the “Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, Harvard University Press: Cambridge 2001, pp. 131 y ss.

The Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (MPIL) celebrates its centenary while the Ibero-American Institute of Constitutional Law (IIDC) marks its fiftieth anniversary. A common meeting point for Ibero-American constitutionalists has been the Legal Research Institute (IIJ) of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), home to the IIDC. These three institutions are academically and personally interconnected.

Among the key figures of this relationship, on behalf of the IIJ, special mention must be made of Héctor Fix-Zamudio, Jorge Carpizo, and Héctor Fix-Fierro, who left a profound impact on institutional work and on the memories of those of us who had the privilege of sharing efforts and camaraderie with them. From theMPIL, the figures who have fostered this fruitful relationship are Armin von Bogdandy and Mariela Morales, who have built a bridge between Latin American and European legal scholarship. Regarding the IIDC, which today comprises twenty-seven national chapters, its initial momentum came from the enthusiasm of its founders: Alberto Meneses Direito (Brazil), Carlos Restrepo Piedrahita (Colombia), Domingo García Belaunde (Peru), Enrique Véscovi (Uruguay), Germán J. Bidart Campos (Argentina), Jorge Mario García Laguardia (Guatemala), Jorge R. Vanossi (Argentina), Luis Carlos Sáchica (Colombia), Luis Pinto Ferreira (Brazil), Manuel Barquín (Mexico), Manuel García Pelayo (Spain – Venezuela), Mario Justo López (Argentina), Pedro José Frías (Argentina), Rolando Tamayo (Mexico), as well as the aforementioned professors Fix-Zamudio, Carpizo, and myself.

Armin von Bogdandy and Diego Valadés at the 20th anniversary of the Ibero-American Colloquium in Heidelberg in February 2024[1]

The close collaboration among the three institutions has created a vast space for shared professional and personal experiences that allow us to advance along innovative paths. We have built a solid multinational fraternity based on shared concerns and convictions: fundamental rights and democratic institutions as the essence of the constitutional state. Through this, we contribute to the comparative study of law and constitutional cultures, as well as the design of national public institutions. One of the most prolific inquiries has been initiated and encouraged by Professor von Bogdandy, focusing on the ius constitutionale commune, which helps identify the interaction between national and international law, with a special emphasis on fundamental rights.

To the commemorations and celebrations mentioned earlier, I should add that in 2024, we Mexicans will celebrate two hundred years since the first Constitution of independent Mexico, which, despite its confessional orientation and restrictive approach to liberties, introduced two significant systems: the federal and the presidential. Over the past two centuries, we have seen changes in terms of secularization, yet we continue to face shortcomings regarding the equality of rights due to poor federal design and a considerable lag in matters related to the presidential system In the search for general connotative traits of common constitutional law, as part of the reflection convened by my German colleague, I present below some considerations regarding political power from the perspective of constitutional theory.

In the context of constitutionalism, it is essential to preserve the greatest possible space for freedom, as the foundation for equality, legal certainty, truth, and justice. Contemporary constitutionalism has the tools to keep political power within reasonable bounds. To achieve this, the organization and exercise of power must apply the following precautions: legitimizing it, distributing it, balancing it, supervising it, limiting it, and controlling it.

Legitimacy: The forms of democratic legitimation are well established; however, they are not always designed with the necessary care. The electoral system must be constructed by considering all the effects of its content. For instance, it is sometimes believed that the source of legitimacy lies in the absolute majority of voters. Experience shows that this is a mistake, as, in exchange for achieving it, political parties become fragmented and voters are forced to choose secondary options with which they do not identify, only resorting to them to navigate a particular electoral moment. This undermines the nature of political parties, to the detriment of public trust.

Distribution: The separation of powers is a core element in the development of constitutionalism. Although its implementation was influenced by Montesquieu, it is worth noting that the merits of distributing power were valued as far back as antiquity. In Book VI of Politics, Aristotle provided an extensive analysis of the functions of public powers and the reasons as to why it is beneficial to keep them separate, assigning them to different magistracies. In this way, he argued, no one would hold all power, nor could a single person achieve all good or cause all harm. His perspective was rooted in the study of the institutions of his time, resulting in a high number of magistracies mentioned. It would be excessive to force an interpretation of Politics, as Patricio de Azcárate did in his unfaithful 1873 translation, attributing to the Greek philosopher concepts he did not write; yet, the idea of divided public power is still present in that work.

An organic and functional formulation was pioneered by Pomponius as early as the 2nd century. This jurist was known for his prolific work and an elegant, erudite style, influencing several centuries to come. The Digest reproduces several excerpts from his work De origine iuris, related to the formation of the Roman Republic. Following the fall of the monarchy, various institutions were successively established to ensure order and liberty. Pomponius noted that once the Law of the Twelve Tables was enacted, the norms known as plebiscita, formulated by the plebs, emerged. Then, to counterbalance an unstructured process of power exercised by popular bases, it was decided to grant the Senate legislative powers, from which the law known as senatus consultum, or Senate decrees, arose. This authority was distinct from that exercised by the magistrates who ruled on cases, and “[f]inally as it became necessary for the commonwealth that the public welfare should be attended to by one person, for the mode of enacting laws seemed to have progressed little by little as occasion demanded; and since the Senate could not properly direct the affairs of all the provinces, a supreme ruler was selected, and he was given authority, so that whatever he decided should be considered valid”[2] Here, a justification for the concentrated power of the emperor appears.

Later, he summarized the distribution of the functions of the State among legislators, judges, and rulers as follows: “[…] in our commonwealth everything depends either upon statute, that is upon legal enactment […] or there are the statutory actions which contain the method of procedure […] or there is the Imperial Constitution, that is, that whatever the Emperor himself formulates shall be observed as the law.”[3] Pomponius himself asked: “[H]ow much law could there be in a State unless there are persons who can administer it?”[4] The answer lays in the presence of the Emperor who, despite his predominance, did not invalidate the actions of other magistracies. The tension between distributing and concentrating power is an enduring historical pattern, and distribution of powers has become one of the cornerstones of modern and contemporary constitutionalism.

Balance: The concentration of power is an atavistic tendency. Hegemonic impulses are always present in any organization. Constitutionalism is the greatest political effort ever made to organize and operate power according to predictable, regulated, and reasonable guidelines. According to this purpose, political systems and experience show that merely distributing powers is not sufficient. Deliberate or unforeseen asymmetries disrupt institutional activity, making it essential to adopt balances among the bodies and functions assigned to them to the greatest extent possible, in order to avoid predominance or blockages within state structures that undermine the effectiveness of the power apparatus to the detriment of governance.

Classical theory offers numerous responses for achieving these balances, yet old questions persist, and new difficulties arise, making it necessary to update existing frameworks. Contractualism has advanced along new paths, but the public influence of ideas tends to diminish in the face of the immediacy of public responses. The balance among branches of power is limited by the contrast presented by judicial bodies, which have become the main public arena for knowledge, analysis, and reflection, as opposed to political bodies of governance and representation, dominated by improvisation, emotion, and short-term interests.

The quality of rulers is experiencing a period of decline, creating opportunities for the rise of demagoguery that undermines the normative provisions for institutional balance. This is a problem that transcends institutional design, as it is part of an anomic process. Typically, such circumstances are temporary and represent a normal phase among the vicissitudes of the constitutional state. While it may seem that achieving balance is difficult, the progressive nature of institutions moves in that direction.

Supervision: Power, by definition, has a hierarchical component, which is why distributing and exercising it requires overlapping levels within the same bodies and lateral structures belonging to other bodies. The idea of supervising power is easy to state, but not all actions of power are easily identifiable or individualized. Although it may seem like an oxymoron, what becomes public about public power is only a segment of an activity, most of which takes place in a shadowy area. It transcends what interests those in power or what they cannot prevent from coming to light. For this reason, the supervision of power requires mechanisms that enable access to at least part of its secrets. Documentary sources are the most significant, but testimonial sources also matter. Each system has its ways of making decisions and recording the decision-making process, and the rigor with which documentation is created and safeguarded varies as well.

For these reasons, beyond the public access to information available to everyone in open societies, at least a couple of measures must be adopted: granting investigative powers to parliamentary minorities so that they have the appropriate tools to investigate anything of institutional relevance and establishing the right to the truth, under which the heads of power bodies must document their decisions. This applies to judges, in their rulings, and to parliamentarians in their debates, but in cases where governments lack professional administrations detached from political struggle and where high officials are not accountable to parliaments, government reasoning is often treated as palace secrets.

In a constitutional state, it is possible to know the reasons and processes behind the decisions of power: those that translate into actions, those that become omissions, or those that remain as projects. All of this is significant for assessing the performance of power. The awareness of being subject to scrutiny makes power agents consider the impact of their decisions and anticipate that the temporality of their function complicates the permanence of their secrets and the intangibility of their actions. The confidentiality of information is determined by collective interests, as qualified by the State, and not by the individual interests of the people who pass through the organs of power.

Mariela Morales presents Diego Valadés with a copy of the book “The Impact of the Inter-American Human Rights System” on behalf of the MPIL (photo: MPIL)

Limitation. Beyond preventing the concentration of power and its cryptic exercise, the constitutional state entails other safeguards for its democratic form. The limitation of political power occurs through various means, most importantly a reasonable temporality in holding political office and minimizing discretion in decision-making.

The temporal limit is related to electoral terms, ensuring that even where re-election is permitted, citizens have the opportunity not to renew the mandate. The logic behind lifetime or long-term appointments characteristic of members of the courts of justice is explained by the fact that, in their case, temporality as a safeguard functions to guarantee independence, while rulers and representatives must undergo periodic evaluations by the governed and represented. Long terms of governance or the re-election of leaders lack democratic justification to the extent that such limits are imposed on the electorate.

In some systems, the idea of re-election or extended terms in office has been treated as a type of right for officeholders. This is an inadequate theoretical construct as it inertially adopts theories stemming from monarchism without recognizing that the counterpart to those hypothetical rights are the duties of the citizens. Evidently, this does not align with democratic reasoning based on popular sovereignty.

Control. There are many forms of control. From the perspective of those who exercise control in a constitutional state, it can be administrative, judicial, political, or social. Regarding the sphere where it is conducted, there are intra-organic and inter-organic control mechanisms. In terms of the interaction between power structures, control can be vertical, if the agents are on differentiated legal planes, or horizontal, if they relate laterally.

The theory of control is well developed, given that one of the basic tenets of modern constitutionalism was that power must control power. Moreover, this is a regular feature of the exercise of power, as absolute power cannot exist because it would ultimately destroy itself. The instances and procedures of control are a contribution of constitutionalism, but as an inherent phenomenon of power, there have always been resistances or conditions that, in some way, functioned as a system of powers and counter-powers. Even in its most archaic forms, the hegemony of tribal leaders had to align with at least some type of ritual and involve the assistance of a subordinate who held a minimal share of power.

For constitutionalism, what matters is that controls are designed according to an architecture that makes them functional, preventing excesses without inhibiting the actions of those being controlled. The aim is for public power to achieve the best possible outcomes and avoid its worst flaws, such as arbitrariness and corruption.

These six conditions – legitimacy, distribution, balance, supervision, limitation, and control – are the minimum that a well-constructed legal framework must include for political power to function in the most reasonable way possible. Such conditions are only achievable where the system of fundamental rights includes access to power through universal, secret, free, direct, and informed voting. Additionally, depending on the approach to constitutional design, other elements may be included. For instance, if the design is approached from the perspective of public reason, the values accepted and practiced by the citizens will be considered.[5] In summary, the specific content of these conditions must align with the intended objectives. For this reason, each design is different. It is possible, and common, for actors involved in normative design to not have clear objectives and act only mechanically or driven by situational impulses. Furthermore, when the legal framework is reformed in an unsystematic manner, institutional elements with differing or even opposing purposes are often combined, rendering the framework dysfunctional and hindering the reasonable performance of power structures.

For all these reasons, it is useful to delve into ius constitutionale commune as part of a shared academic exercise, as it allows for the identification of constants that yield good institutional results and the recognition of complications that arise from adopting mutually exclusive constructive criteria. Conceptual coherence must accompany any well-designed institutional framework.

***

Translation from the Spanish Original: Carolina Bejarano Martinez

[1] Photo: MPIL.

[2] Digest, I,2,11, translation (here and below) following: S.P. Scott, The Civil Law. The Twelve Tables, The Institutes of Gaius, The Rules of Ulpian, The Opinions of Paulus, The Enactments of Justinian, and The Constitutions of Leo: Translated from the original Latin, edited, and compared with all accessible systems of jurisprudence ancient and modern, Cincinnati: The Central Trust Company 1932.

[3] Digest, I,2,12.

[4] Digest, I,2,13.

[5] See: John Rawls, The Law of Peoples, with the “Idea of Public Reason Revisited”, Harvard University Press: Cambridge 2001, 131 ff.

El propósito de este artículo conmemorativo es reconocer al MPIL por su enfoque ejemplar e innovador del derecho público en América Latina, en especial del derecho constitucional y el derecho de los derechos humanos. Tras referirme a la importancia (1.) y a las características más destacadas (2.) de este enfoque, formularé algunas reflexiones sobre los retos que hay que afrontar (3.).

1. La importancia de otorgar valor

Las experiencias constitucionales de América Latina fueron infravaloradas en los estudios comparados por varias razones. Subrayo dos, que aún se mantienen, si bien han perdido peso desde finales del siglo XX.

La primera, es la importancia de la contribución de los Estados Unidos al constitucionalismo mundial. Durante casi dos siglos, este país fue un polo de atracción ineludible para el estudio del Derecho constitucional, gracias a su Constitución pionera, la sabiduría de los Federalist Papers, las sentencias y el papel de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, y la profundidad de los escritos de los profesores universitarios estadounidenses. Su proyección como potencia mundial también ha otorgado un lugar preeminente al derecho constitucional estadounidense. Sin embargo, poco después de las guerras de independencia, el derecho constitucional cobró importancia en la región. Los Estados latinoamericanos son más antiguos que la mayoría de los europeos. Cada uno de ellos inició su independencia con una constitución. Aunque las primeras constituciones no duraron mucho, fueron sustituidas por otras a veces más estables. En la lista de las constituciones más duraderas del mundo figuran algunas de América Latina.

Manuel José Cepeda en el Coloquio Iboamericano N° 286 en Heidelberg en abril de 2023[1]

La segunda razón es que los conflictos armados y las guerras civiles del siglo XIX, y las dictaduras de la segunda mitad del siglo XX contribuyeron a eclipsar este fenómeno. Desde mediados de la década de 1980, la transición de la dictadura a la democracia en la mayoría de los países latinoamericanos impulsó una renovación del derecho constitucional. Esto se complementó con la aprobación de nuevas constituciones o profundas reformas constitucionales en los países más grandes de la región. En ellos se adoptaron declaraciones de derechos y se reforzaron los mecanismos para su garantía y protección. Algunos crearon tribunales constitucionales y limitaron el poder presidencial, buscando un nuevo equilibrio de poderes. Las sentencias de los jueces constitucionales resolvieron cuestiones de gran importancia en sus respectivos países e introdujeron doctrinas innovadoras. Al mismo tiempo, la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos adquirió una mayor proyección regional. Profirió sentencias sobre casos contenciosos que tenían una orientación fundamental para la consolidación y profundización de la democracia.

El MPIL no solo identificó la renovación del constitucionalismo en la región, sino que la abordó de una manera que merece ser elogiada. En primer lugar, dio valor en perspectiva comparada a lo que ocurría en cada país de la región y en la Corte Interamericana. Este no es un punto menor. Incluso latinoamericanos no habían dado a estos desarrollos el valor que merecen. Pocos lo hacen en su propio país, y aún menos lo hacen con otros países de la región. En segundo lugar, lejos de promover la aplicación de ideas o doctrinas europeas en América Latina, los proyectos del Instituto se han centrado en identificar y llamar la atención sobre las características y dinámicas distintivas del constitucionalismo en la región. Además, ha promovido un análisis comparativo que resulta útil para abordar temas emergentes en Europa. En tercer lugar, ha identificado tendencias comunes en el desarrollo del derecho constitucional, especialmente en relación con la protección de los derechos humanos y la consolidación de la democracia en la región. Esto lo ha hecho a través de dos nociones centrales: el ius commune en América Latina y el constitucionalismo transformador. Esto ha creado espacios para la deliberación y la investigación sobre la evolución del derecho público en América Latina y ha estimulado diálogos que, de otro modo, no habrían tenido tanto alcance e impacto en el derecho comparado. En cuarto lugar, este enfoque ha tenido la virtud de incorporar los problemas estructurales que aquejan a los países de la región. Por lo tanto, lejos de ser un proyecto aspiracional, ha actuado como polo de apoyo para analizar los retos que el derecho tiene que enfrentar debido a la complejidad de nuestras realidades, así como para exaltar las respuestas del derecho a nuestros problemas sistémicos. En Colombia, esta aproximación al papel de la Constitución y de la Corte Constitucional ha sido denominada “constitucionalismo responsivo” (responsive constitutionalism), concepto generosamente acogido por su director -vale la pena anotar que la generosidad intelectual es otra de las características que da brillo al trabajo del MPIL en la región.

2. El enfoque del MPIL y su contribución al constitucionalismo transformador

Por eso, cuando fui invitado por la American Association of International Law (ASIL) a ser el Discussant de la Grotius Lecture dictada por la profesora Kim Lane Scheppele en marzo de 2023, destaqué la contribución del MPIL al estudio de las funciones que el derecho internacional puede cumplir en la restauración de la democracia, precisamente, a partir de la experiencia de América Latina. Transcribo algunos párrafos de lo que subrayé entonces, antes de saber que sería invitado a escribir en ocasión del centenario del MPIL. Tomo la versión original que se publicó, debidamente editada, en las actas de la reunión anual de la ASIL y en el volumen 39 de la American University International Law Review:

“Como sé que los latinoamericanos tendemos a caer en la ingenua creencia de que la solución a un problema es adoptar una nueva norma jurídica, cito la opinión de Armin von Bogdandy, Director del Instituto Max Planck de Derecho Público Comparado y Derecho Internacional, en Heidelberg, Alemania. Él ha desarrollado varios proyectos de investigación sobre el constitucionalismo transformador en América Latina, un fenómeno que comenzó varios años antes del conocido caso de Sudáfrica^[2] pero que no había sido conceptualizado como tal en la región.^[3]

“El 18 de julio de 1978 entró en vigor la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Cuarenta años después, se ha convertido en la piedra angular del constitucionalismo transformador latinoamericano. A nivel mundial, la Convención es quizás el instrumento internacional más importante de esta naturaleza, lo que lleva a preguntarse cómo fue posible un desarrollo tan extraordinario.”^[4]

Esto fue posible debido a una mezcla de factores muy diversos. Uno de ellos es que las intervenciones judiciales de la Corte Interamericana tienen características distintivas. En primer lugar, se toman muy en serio el contexto. Los hechos individuales del caso se consideran una expresión de ese contexto^[5] . En segundo lugar, el contexto se analiza como reflejo de fallos sistémicos^[6] . En tercer lugar, las reparaciones adoptadas por la Corte buscan un impacto más allá del caso concreto^[7] y pueden requerir reformas legales y constitucionales^[8] .  En cuarto lugar, la Corte busca, en palabras de la profesora Scheppele, mantener la democracia restaurada y disuadir a cualquiera de sucumbir de nuevo a tentaciones autoritarias. Esta cuarta característica fue elocuentemente sintetizada en la expresión argentina “Nunca Más”, que fue el nombre del informe final de la comisión de la verdad presidida por el escritor Ernesto Sábato.^[9]”

3. Tres retos

Manuel José Cepeda en el Coloquio Iboamericano N° 286 en Heidelberg en abril de 2023[10]

Este aniversario es una ocasión propicia para compartir tres breves reflexiones sobre los desafíos del constitucionalismo transformador y el ius commune en América Latina. Primero, el desafío derivado del fortalecimiento del rol de los jueces en la región. En efecto, en la medida en que el papel de la Corte Interamericana adquiere mayor relevancia e intensidad, se hace imprescindible encontrar puntos de equilibrio que aseguren la sostenibilidad del fructífero diálogo entre la jurisprudencia de la Corte regional y los jueces constitucionales nacionales de los países, que también se ha fortalecido en las últimas tres décadas, al punto de adquirir notoriedad en el derecho comparado mundial. Sería perjudicial para la profundización de la democracia en la región que se impusieran las perspectivas soberanistas, por un lado, o que se subestimara la diversidad de los sistemas constitucionales democráticos de la región, por el otro. En segundo lugar, los retos derivados de la polarización y los nuevos autoritarismos. Dado que los gobiernos de la región tienden a representar posiciones extremas en el espectro ideológico y que en algunos países emerge un autoritarismo no militarista, la necesidad de salvaguardar enérgicamente los principios democráticos fundamentales será tan grande como el imperativo de defenderlos de una forma que sea receptiva y sensible a los contextos de cada país. En tercer lugar, el desafío de la persistencia de la exclusión y la marginación. Aunque los países de la región han avanzado en la reducción de la pobreza y en la apertura del juego político, América Latina sigue afectada por altos niveles de exclusión y marginalidad. Durante las últimas tres décadas, se han adoptado gradualmente innovaciones jurídicas a nivel nacional e interamericano para promover la inclusión política, social y económica. Sin embargo, los problemas estructurales persisten. La solución probablemente esté en superar las graves disfunciones de los sistemas políticos, mejorar la calidad de las políticas públicas y ser más eficaces en la lucha contra la corrupción, pero el derecho también tiene una voz que debe encontrar la manera de expresarse con mayor impacto en la vida de millones de latinoamericanos. No me cabe duda de que el MPIL ha identificado estos y otros retos y estoy seguro de que seguirá contribuyendo significativamente a superarlos, con un enfoque ejemplar e innovador.

***

[1] Foto: MPIL.

[2] Karl Klare, Legal Culture and Transformative Constitutionalism, South African Journal on Human Rights 14 (1998) .

[3] La Constitución colombiana de 1991 fue adoptada como un instrumento transformador y la Corte Constitucional fue creada con el mandato de asegurar que la Constitución “mordiera” y “generara cambios”, en contraste con la anterior Constitución de 1886 que mantenía a Colombia como una “sociedad bloqueada”. Al ser promovida por dos gobiernos con este propósito, la palabra política utilizada para transmitir el mensaje de la convulsión que se avecinaba fue “el revolcón”, menos glamurosa que constitucionalismo transformador. Para un balance de 30 años de transformaciones véase: Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, La Constitución de 1991: Viviente y Transformadora, Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes 2022; La Constitución brasileña de 1988 tenía elementos de constitucionalismo transformador. Antes, la Constitución mexicana de 1917, aún vigente, apuntaba a una transformación radical ya que fue adoptada en un momento revolucionario en Querétaro, véase: Rainer Grote, La Constitución Mexicana de 1917: An Early Example of Radical Transformative Constitutionalism, en: Armin von Bogdandy et al., Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America: El Surgimiento de un Nuevo Ius Commune, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2017. Las recientes constituciones de Venezuela (1999) y Bolivia (2009), llamadas bolivarianas, apuntaban más a una convulsión revolucionaria que a un proceso transformador.

[4] Armin von Bogdandy, El mandato transformador del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos. Legalidad y legitimidad de un proceso jurisgenerativo extraordinario, Revista del Centro de Estudios Constitucionales 9 (2019), 113-142, MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2019-16.

[5] Jo M. Pasqualucci, La práctica y el procedimiento de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012.

[6] Victor Abramovich, De Las Violaciones Masivas a Los Patrones Estructurales: Nuevos Enfoques y Clásicas Tensiones En El Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, Revista Sur 6 11 (2009), 7-40.

[7] Por ejemplo, las órdenes destinadas a cambiar la forma en que los fiscales llevan a cabo las investigaciones (IACHR, Radilla-Pacheco c. Mexico, 2009, ser. C No. 209), la forma en que se forma a los agentes de policía (IACHR, Gonzalez (“Cotton Field”) c. Mexico, 2009, ser. C No. 205), o la forma en que los tribunales contratan y despiden a los jueces (IACHR, Apitz Barbera c. Venezuela, 2008, ser. C No. 182). En Cottonfield c. México, las órdenes incluían exigir al Estado que instruyera a los funcionarios sobre los derechos humanos de las mujeres; que creara una base de datos de ADN de las mujeres desaparecidas en Ciudad de Juárez; y que reestructurara la jurisdicción militar.

[8] El artículo 2 de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos establece: “Cuando el ejercicio de cualquiera de los derechos o libertades mencionados en el artículo 1 no esté ya garantizado por disposiciones legislativas o de otro tipo, la Los Estados Partes se comprometen a adoptar, de conformidad con sus procesos constitucionales y las disposiciones del presente Convenio, las medidas legislativas o de otro tipo que sean necesarias para hacer efectivos dichos derechos o libertades”.

[9] Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas (CONADEP), Informe “Nunca Más” [Informe final de la Comisión Sabato], 1984.

[10] Foto: MPIL.

The purpose of this commemorative article is to recognize the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (MPIL) for its innovative and exemplary approach to public law in Latin America, especially constitutional law and human rights law. After referring to the importance (1.) and the salient characteristics (2.) of this approach, I will formulate some reflections on the challenges to be faced (3.).

1. The Importance of Assigning Value

The constitutional experiences of Latin America have been undervalued in comparative studies for several reasons. I will underline two of them that are still present but have lost weight since the end of the 20th century.

The first reason is the significance of the contributions of the United States of America to world constitutionalism. The United States, for nearly two centuries, was an obligatory pole of attraction for the study of constitutional law, due to its pioneering Constitution, the wisdom of the Federalist Papers, the rulings and role of the Supreme Court of Justice, and the depth of the writings of US university professors. Its role as a world power also gave a preeminent place to American constitutional law. However, soon after the wars of independence, constitutional law gained importance in the region. Latin American states are older than most European states. Each one began its independence with a constitution. Although the first constitutions did not last long, they were replaced by other ones that were sometimes more stable. On the list of the most durable constitutions in the world are some from Latin America.

Manuel José Cepeda at the Iboamerican Colloquium  N° 286 in Heidelberg in April 2023[1]

The second reason is that the armed conflicts and civil wars of the 19th century and the dictatorships of the second half of the 20^th century contributed to overshadowing this phenomenon. The transition from dictatorship to democracy in most Latin American countries since the mid-1980s prompted a renewal of constitutional law. This was complemented by the approval of new constitutions or profound constitutional reforms in the largest countries in the region. Here, bills of rights were adopted and the mechanisms for their guarantee and protection were strengthened. Some states created constitutional courts and limited presidential power, seeking a new balance of powers. The rulings of constitutional judges resolved issues of great importance in their respective countries and introduced innovative doctrines. At the same time, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights acquired a greater regional relevance. It issued rulings on contentious cases that entailed an orientation pivotal for the consolidation and deepening of democracy.

The MPIL not only identified the renewal of constitutionalism in the region but approached it in a way that deserves to be praised. Firstly, it assigned value, in comparative perspective, to what was happening in each country in the region and at the Inter-American Court. This is not a minor point. Latin Americans themselves had not assigned the appropriate value to these developments. Few did that with regard to their own country, and even fewer in regard to other countries in the region. Secondly, far from promoting the application of European ideas or doctrines in Latin America, the Institute’s projects have focused on identifying and calling attention to the distinctive features and dynamics of constitutionalism in the region. Moreover, it has promoted a comparative analysis useful for addressing arising European issues. Thirdly, the MPIL has identified common trends in the development of constitutional law, especially regarding the protection of human rights and the consolidation of democracy in the region. This was done through two core notions: ius commune in Latin American and transformative constitutionalism. This has created spaces for deliberation and research on the evolution of public law in Latin America and has stimulated dialogues that otherwise would not have had as much scope and impact on comparative law. Fourthly, this approach has had the virtue of incorporating the structural problems that afflict the countries of the region. Therefore, far from being an aspirational project, it has acted as a corner stone for analysing the challenges that law has to address due to the complexity of our realities, as well as to exalt the law’s responses to our systemic problems. In Colombia, this approach to the role of the Constitution and the Constitutional Court has been called “responsive constitutionalism” (constitucionalismo responsivo), a concept generously embraced by the MPIL’s director – it is worth noting that intellectual generosity is another feature that distinguishes the Institute’s work in the region.

2. The MPIL Approach and its Contribution to Transformative Constitutionalism

For this reason, when I was invited by the American Association of International Law (ASIL) to act as the discussant of the Grotius Lecture delivered by Professor Kim Lane Scheppele in March 2023, I highlighted the contribution of the MPIL to the study of the functions that international law can fulfil in the restoration of democracy, based, precisely, on the experience of Latin America. I would like to quote some paragraphs of what I underscored then, before knowing that I would be invited to contribute on the occasion of the centenary of the MPIL; to be precise, the original version that was  published, duly edited, in ASIL’s annual meeting proceedings and in Volume 39 of the American University International Law Review:

“As I know that we, Latin Americans, tend to fall into the naïve belief that the solution to a problem is to adopt a new legal rule, I quote the opinion of Armin von Bogdandy, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, Germany. He has developed several research projects on transformative constitutionalism in Latin America, a phenomenon that started several years before the well-known case of South Africa^[2] but had not been conceptualized as such in the region:^[3]

“On 18 July 1978 the American Convention on Human Rights entered into force. Forty years later, it has become the cornerstone of Latin American transformative constitutionalism. Worldwide, the Convention is perhaps the most important international instrument of this nature, which begs the questions of how such an extraordinary development became possible.”^[4]

It became possible due to a mix of very diverse factors. One of them is that the judicial interventions of the Inter-American Court have distinctive characteristics. First, they take context very seriously. The individual facts of the case are considered an expression of that context^[5]. Second, the context is analysed as a reflection of systemic failures^[6]. Third, the remedies adopted by the Court seek an impact beyond the specific case^[7] and may require legal and constitutional reforms^[8].  Fourth, the Court seeks, in the words of Professor Scheppele, to maintain restored democracy and discourage anyone from succumbing to authoritarian temptations again. This fourth characteristic was eloquently synthesized in the Argentine expression “Nunca Más”, which was the name of the final report of the truth commission chaired by the writer Ernesto Sábato.^[9]”

3. Three Challenges

Manuel José Cepeda at the Iboamerican Colloquium  N° 286 in Heidelberg in April 2023[10]

This anniversary is a propitious occasion to share three brief reflections on the challenges to transformative constitutionalism and ius commune in Latin America. Firstly, the challenge arising from strengthening the role of judges in the region: In effect, as the role of the Inter-American Court acquires greater relevance and intensity, it becomes essential to find points of balance that ensure the sustainability of the fruitful dialogue between the jurisprudence of the regional court and the national constitutional judges of the countries, who have also been strengthened in the last three decades, to the point of acquiring notoriety in comparative law worldwide. It would be detrimental to the deepening of democracy in the region if sovereign-prone perspectives took hold, on the one hand, or if the diversity of the region’s democratic constitutional systems was undervalued, on the other hand. Secondly, the challenges coming from polarization and new authoritarianisms: As the governments of the region tend to represent extreme positions on the ideological spectrum and non-militarist authoritarianism emerges in some countries, the need to vigorously uphold basic democratic principles will be as great as the imperative of defending them in a responsive way that is sensitive to the contexts in each country. Thirdly, the challenge of the persistence of exclusion and marginalisation: Although the countries of the region have made progress in reducing poverty and opening up the political game, Latin America continues to be affected by high levels of exclusion and marginalisation. During the past three decades, legal innovations have been gradually adopted at the national and inter-American levels to promote political, social, and economic inclusion. However, the structural problems remain. The solution likely lies in overcoming serious dysfunctions in political systems, improving the quality of public policies, and being more effective in confronting corruption, but the law also has a voice that must find a way to express itself with greater impact on the lives of millions of Latin Americans. I have no doubt that MPIL has identified these and other challenges and I am certain that it will continue to make significant contributions to overcome them, with an innovative and exemplary approach.

***

[1] Photo: MPIL.

[2] Karl Klare, Legal Culture and Transformative Constitutionalism, South African Journal on Human Rights 14 (1998) .

[3] The Colombian Constitution of 1991 was adopted as a transformative instrument and the constitutional court was created with the mandate to ensure that the constitution did “bite” and “generate change”, in contrast to the previous 1886 Constitution which was keeping Colombia a “society in deadlock”. As it was promoted by two governments with this purpose, the political slogan used to transmit the message of the coming upheaval was “el revolcón”, less glamorous than transformative constitutionalism. For an account of 30 years of transformations, see: Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa, La Constitución de 1991: Viviente y Transformadora, Bogotá: Ediciones Uniandes 2022. The Brazilian Constitution of 1988 had elements of transformative constitutionalism. Before, the Mexican Constitution of 1917, still in force, aimed at radical transformation since it was adopted at a revolutionary moment at Querétaro, see: Rainer Grote, The Mexican Constitution of 1917: An Early Example of Radical Transformative Constitutionalism, in: Armin von Bogdandy et al., Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America: The Emergence of a New Ius Commune, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2017. The recent constitutions of Venezuela (1999) and Bolivia (2009), called “Bolivarian”, aimed more at revolutionary upheaval than at a transformative process.

[4] Armin von Bogdandy, The transformative mandate of the inter-American system: Legality and Legitimacy of an Extraordinary Jurisgenerative Process, MPIL Research Paper Series No. 2019-16, Published as: El mandato transformador del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos. Legalidad y legitimidad de un proceso jurisgenerativo extraordinario, Revista del Centro de Estudios Constitucionales 9 (2019), 113-142.

[5] Jo M. Pasqualucci, The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012.

[6] Victor Abramovich, De Las Violaciones Masivas a Los Patrones Estructurales: Nuevos Enfoques y Clásicas Tensiones En El Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, Revista Sur 6  11 (2009), 7–40.

[7] For example, orders aimed at changing the manner in which prosecutors conduct investigations (IACHR, Radilla-Pacheco v Mexico, 2009, ser. C No. 209), the way in which police officers are trained (IACHR, Gonzalez (“Cotton Field”) v Mexico, 2009, ser. C No. 205), or the way courts hire and fire judges (IACHR, Apitz Barbera v Venezuela, 2008, ser. C No. 182). In Cottonfield v Mexico, the orders included requiring the state to instruct officials regarding the human rights of women, to create a DNA database of the women who have disappeared in Ciudad de Juarez, and to restructure the military jurisdiction.

[8] Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights states: “Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms”.

[9] Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas (CONADEP), Informe “Nunca Más” [Final Report of the Sabato Commission], 1984.

[10] Photo: MPIL.

Wichtige Stimmen der Rechtswissenschaft des ‚globalen Nordens‘ rufen nach einer Neuausrichtung der Rechtsvergleichung, die just jenen Fokus überwindet. Die Forschung am MPIL macht das seit Jahrzehnten, und das auf einem eigenen Weg: außerhalb des dominierenden angloamerikanischen Rahmens, mit und nicht über Lateinamerika, auf portugiesische und spanische, nicht englische Publikationen zielend, Rechtsvergleichung und Völkerrecht verbindend, konstruktiv und nach vorne schauend.

Die Kooperation reicht über ein halbes Jahrhundert zurück. 1961 organisierte das MPIL eine erste rechtsvergleichende Nachkriegsbilanz über die Entwicklung der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit. Leopoldo Uprimny Rosenfeld repräsentierte Lateinamerika. Die kolumbianische Forschung erinnert bis heute die Impulse, die Uprimny aus den Diskussionen mitbrachte: Stärkung des Vorrangs der Verfassung sowie Einführung von Verfassungsgerichten und Ombudspersonen.[1] Das sind heute Bausteine des kolumbianischen Konstitutionalismus, der seit 1991 mit einem der weltweit sichtbarsten Verfassungsgerichte operiert.

Seit den 1980er Jahren arbeiteten viele Doktoranden des Lateinamerikaexperten Dieter Nohlen in der Institutsbibliothek, zumeist zu Fragen demokratischer Transition. Viele davon wirkten später segensreich, etwa Mario Fernández Baeza als chilenischer Innenminister unter Michelle Bachelet. Das von Nohlen 2002 initiierte Heidelberg Center Lateinamerika in Santiago de Chile war das erste deutsche Postgraduiertenzentrum in der Region und wurde maßgeblich vom MPIL bespielt, organisiert von Rüdiger Wolfrum, Rainer Grote und Matthias Hartwig.

Die Gründung des Coloquio Iberoamericano 2004

IACHR, IACtHR und Expertinnen im Interamerikanischen Seminar, 3.–5. Juli 2023 (Foto: MPIL)

Anfang 2004 schlugen die zu Lateinamerika forschenden María Pía Carazo, Álvaro De Elena, Maribel González, Henry Jiménez, Andrés Jouannet, Daniel Klein, Mariela Morales Antoniazzi, Lorena Ossio, José Reynoso, Ana María Suárez, sowie Sara Wolf unter Federführung von Richard Ortiz Ortiz, jetzt Richter am Verfassungsgericht von Ecuador, Armin von Bogdandy vor, ein auf Spanisch arbeitendes Coloquio Iberoamericano ins Leben zu rufen, das sie am 5. Februar 2004 gründeten. Organisiert von Mariela Morales Antoniazzi hat es bis Ende 2024 312-mal getagt und über 1500 Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler ins Gespräch gebracht, manche von der Universität Speyer, dank Karl-Peter Sommermann. Ab 2006 traten Konferenzen hinzu, für die Forschende aus der Region zum Institut reisten. Die meisten Debatten des Coloquio, wie der Konferenzen, wollten demokratische Verfassungsstaatlichkeit in Lateinamerika voranbringen. Dank der Arbeiten des MPIL zu Transitionsprozessen in Mittel- und Osteuropa war die interkontinental vergleichende Perspektive von Anfang an vertreten.

Seminar anlässlich des 20. Jubiläums des Ibero-Amerikanischen Kolloquiums am 26. und 27. Februar 2024 (Foto: MPIL)

Das sich dank Mariela Morales Antoniazzi entwickelnde gemeinsame Nachdenken gewann alsbald an Aufmerksamkeit. So kam 2009 Jorge Carpizo ins Institut. Carpizo, zuvor Rektor der Universidad Nacional de Mexico (UNAM), Präsident der nationalen Menschenrechtskommission, sowie Secretario de Gobernación (Innenminister) unter dem demokratisierenden Präsidenten Salinas, war eine Schlüsselfigur der lateinamerikanischen Rechtsvergleichung, welche die Demokratisierung der Region unterstützte. Seine öffentliche Wertschätzung und Unterstützung der Institutsarbeit eröffnete dem MPIL einen völlig neuen Raum der wissenschaftlichen Kooperation.

Der rote Faden: Das Ius Constitutionale Commune en América Latina 

Begriffliche Konturen gewann dieser Raum am 19. September 2012. Das Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas der UNAM, das größte juristische Forschungsinstitut Lateinamerikas, hatte zu einer Konferenz unter dem Thema „Hacia un nuevo derecho público en el sigo XXI“ geladen. Juristinnen und Juristen aus diversen Ländern präsentierten deren jeweilige nationale Wege demokratischer Verfassungsstaatlichkeit, inmitten der gewaltigen Herausforderungen lateinamerikanischer Gesellschaften. Armin von Bogdandy, der als letzter zu sprechen hatte, artikulierte sodann die Notwendigkeit einer Verbegrifflichung des zuvor Gesagten, unter Zeugenschaft des Freskos, unter dem alle saßen.

Die Idee lautete, den roten Faden zwischen den Beiträgen als ein Ius Constitutionale Commune en América Latina (ICCAL) zu fassen. ICCAL entstand also als ein analytisches Konzept. Es benennt die Übereinstimmungen der Vorredner im juristischen Denken (also die Theorien, dogmatischen Figuren, als kanonisch betrachteten Entscheidungen, Wirklichkeitsverständnisse) sowie in der von ihnen empfohlenen Praxis (Identifizierung und Aufbereitung von passenden Fällen, Strategien der Prozessführung oder politischen Absicherung). Dieses Denken und diese Praxis begegnen verfassungsrechtlich unhaltbaren Zuständen in der Region mit einer ganz eigenen Kombination aus Verfassungsinterpretation, Verfassungsvergleichung und Menschenrechten. Für die genauere Fassung von ICCALs Stoßrichtung lautete der Vorschlag, den Begriff des transformativen Konstitutionalismus zu nutzen. Dem lag ein Süd-Süd-Vergleich zugrunde, denn der Begriff entstand für die Arbeit des südafrikanischen Verfassungsgerichts der 1990er Jahre.

Vom transformativen Konstitutionalismus zu den communities of practice

20-jähriges Jubiläum des Iberoamerikanischen Kolloquiums am MPIL mit Diego Valadés, Präsident IIDC und Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor, IACtH-Richter, 26.–27. Februar 2024 (Foto: MPIL)

Der wesentliche Unterschied des kolumbianischen, südafrikanischen oder interamerikanischen Gerichtshofs zu einem aktiven Verfassungsgericht wie dem Bundesverfassungsgericht besteht darin, dass deren Rechtsprechung systemisch unhaltbare Zustände angeht und systemischen Wandel verlangt. Der  wesentliche Unterschied zwischen dem südafrikanischen und dem lateinamerikanischen transformativen Konstitutionalismus liegt hingegen darin, dass der lateinamerikanische Konstitutionalismus ein regionales Phänomen ist, gestützt von einem regionalen System, das sich der transformativen Agenda verschrieben hat, und einer entsprechenden Rechtsvergleichung. Es ist just die Rechtsvergleichung, welche das, unter anderem von Carpizo gegründete, Iberoamerikanische Institut für Verfassungsrecht seit 1974 verfolgt. Unter der Präsidentschaft von Diego Valadés wurde das MPIL 2014 zu dessen deutscher Sektion.

Diese Begriffsbildung fand eine erfreuliche Aufnahme. Ähnliches gilt für den später gemeinsam mit René Uruena geprägten Begriff communities of pratice, der das Operieren dieser Gruppe näher erläutert. Auch der Begriff des transformative impact, der die soziale Macht dieses Konstitutionalismus trotz schlechter compliance mit einschlägigen Gerichtsurteilen zeigt, fand alsbald Eingang in die Diskussion. Selbiges gilt für den von Mariela Morales Antoniazzi geprägten Begriff der interamericanización, welcher den Einfluss der Interamerikanischen Rechtsprechung auf die nationalen Rechtsordnungen artikuliert. Inzwischen wird das Konzept des ICCAL in eigenen Kursen unterrichtet, was das MPIL mit virtuellem Lehrmaterial unterstützt.

Das Institut als Forum

Besuch der Wampis und Achuar am MPIL, 29. Juni 2022 (Foto: MPIL)

Das MPIL wird von vielen lateinamerikanischen Kolleginnen und Kollegen als ein besonderes Forum des rechtswissenschaftlichen Austauschs geschätzt, das in dieser Form in Lateinamerika selbst nicht existiert. Viele Protagonisten sind deshalb nach Heidelberg gekommen: aktive Richter und Gerichtspräsidenten der nationalen obersten Gerichte und Verfassungsgerichte von Argentinien, Brasilien, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Kolumbien, Mexiko und Peru, ebenso wie Mitglieder des Interamerikanischen Gerichtshofs, darunter mehrere seiner Präsidenten. Zu nennen sind hier insbesondere Roberto Caldas, Eduardo Ferrer Mac Gregor, Sergio García Ramírez, Nancy Hernández, Cecilia Medina, Ricardo Pérez Manrique und Humberto Sierra Porto.

Kolloquium mit Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, ehemaliger IGH-Richter, am 23. Juni 2011 (Foto: MPIL)

Auch Persönlichkeiten wie Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade vom Internationalen Gerichtshof sowie Socorro Flores Liera und Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza vom Internationalen Strafgerichtshof fanden den Weg ans Institut. Unter den Besuchern waren außerdem Minister wie Cesar Landa aus Peru sowie Antonia Urrejola und Alberto van Klaveren aus Chile, sowie der Generalsekretär der Organisation Amerikanischer Staaten (OAS) Luis Almagro. Außerdem kamen Kommissare der Interamerikanischen Kommission, wie deren Präsidentinnen und Präsidenten Esmeralda Arosemena, Francisco Eguiguren, Joel Hernández, Julissa Mantilla und Antonia Urrejola, sowie Vize-Präsidentin Flavia Piovesan und Vertreter indigener Völker, wie etwa der Achuar und der Wampis. Ebenso nahmen prominente Organisationen und Akteure teil, die unhaltbare Zustände durch Rechtsfälle sichtbar machen und so den „Sauerstoff“ für ICCAL liefern, darunter Viviana Krsticevic, geschäftsführende Direktorin des Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL) und Katya Salazar, geschäftsführende Direktorin der Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF).

Masterclass mit Manuel José Cepeda im September 2018 (Foto: MPIL)

Manuel José Cepeda, eine der prägenden Figuren des kolumbianischen Konstitutionalismus und Berater im Friedensprozess, für welchen der kolumbianische Präsidenten Juan Manuel Santos 2016 den Friedensnobelpreis erhielt, hielt 2018 die MPIL Masterclass unter dem Titel Transformative Constitutionalism: The Example of Colombia. Die Ideen aus Lateinamerika haben zudem die Forschung am Institut zu Europa nachhaltig geprägt, etwa im Rahmen des Projekts Transition 2.0.

Die Gründung des ICCAL-LAB

2017 machte das MPIL einen weiteren Schritt. Als erstes Institut der Geistes-, Sozial- und Humanwissenschaftlichen Sektion der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft nutzte es ein neues Instrument internationaler Kooperation: die Tandem-Gruppe. Seine Gruppe verband es mit der Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá; Thema war ICCAL „vor Ort“. Dank der Arbeiten dieser Gruppe konnte Carolina Bejarano zeigen, wie afrodeszendente Bevölkerungsgruppen in Cartagena ihre Rechte als ethnische Minderheit verteidigen, und Joaquin Garzon Ähnliches anhand von sozialen Bewegungen in der Hafenstadt Buenaventura.

Joaquín Garzón und Carolina Bejarano

Carolina Bejarano wird eine Schlüsselrolle im ICCAL-LAB zukommen, mit dem das MPIL ab 2025 einen weiteren Schritt der Kooperation machen will. Das LAB, von der MPG großzügig zusätzlich finanziert, soll den Rechtsvergleich zwischen Europa und Lateinamerika auf eine neue Stufe bringen. Jeweils vier Personen (Europa/Lateinamerika/‘Nachwuchs‘/‘Etabliert‘) sollen gemeinsam einen Beitrag über ein Thema demokratischer Resilienz schreiben und dabei Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede zwischen den Rechtskulturen transatlantisch artikulieren. Die offensichtlichen Hürden, die dieses Projekt nehmen muss, sind enorm. Aber solche Risikoforschung zu betreiben gehört zum Auftrag des MPIL. Und der magische Realismus, eingeschrieben in ICCALs DNA, wird helfen.

***

[1] Carlos Restrepo Piedrahita, Tres Ideas Constitucionales: Supremacía de la Constitución, Corte Constitucional, El Ombudsman, Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia, 1978, Conclusiones del II Coloquio sobre jurisdicción constitucional en Iberoamérica, 133-139.

Important voices in legal scholarship in the ‘Global North’ are calling for a reorientation of comparative law that overcomes precisely this focus on the ‘Global North’. Research at MPIL has been doing this for decades, developing its own path: outside the dominant Anglo-American framework, with and not about Latin America, aiming for publications mainly in Portuguese and Spanish, not English, combining comparative law and international law, and looking to the future.

The cooperation goes back over half a century. In 1961, MPIL organized its first post-war comparative law review on the development of constitutional jurisdiction. Leopoldo Uprimny Rosenfeld represented Latin America. To this day, Colombian research remembers the impulses that Uprimny brought back from the discussions: strengthening the primacy of the constitution as well as introducing constitutional courts and ombudspersons.[1] Today, these are the building blocks of Colombian constitutionalism, one of the world’s most visible since 1991.

Since the 1980s, many doctoral students of Latin America expert Dieter Nohlen have worked in the institute’s library, mostly on issues of democratic transition. Many of them went on to have a beneficial impact, such as Mario Fernández Baeza, who served as Chilean Minister of the Interior under Michelle Bachelet. The Heidelberg Center Latin America in Santiago de Chile, initiated by Nohlen in 2002, was the first German postgraduate center in the region. Much of its teaching has come from MPIL, organized by Rüdiger Wolfrum, Rainer Grote, and Matthias Hartwig.

The Founding of the Coloquio Iberoamericano 2004

IACHR, IACtHR and experts at the Inter-American Seminar, 3-5 July 2023 (Photo: MPIL)

At the beginning of 2004, María Pía Carazo, Álvaro De Elena, Maribel González, Henry Jiménez, Andrés Jouannet, Daniel Klein, Mariela Morales Antoniazzi, Lorena Ossio, José Reynoso, Ana María Suárez, and Sara Wolf, under the leadership of Richard Ortiz Ortiz, now a judge at the Constitutional Court of Ecuador, proposed to Armin von Bogdandy to set up a Coloquio Iberoamericano working in Spanish. It was founded on February 5, 2004. Organized by Mariela Morales Antoniazzi, it had met, by the end of 2024, 312 times and brought together over 1500 academics. From 2006, MPIL added conferences for which researchers from Latin America travelled to Heidelberg. Most of the debates at the Coloquio and the conferences have aimed to promote democratic constitutionalism in Latin America. Thanks to MPIL’s work on transition processes in Central and Eastern Europe, an intercontinental comparative perspective has been included from the very beginning.

Seminary on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Coloquio Iberoamericano, 26 and 27 February 2024 (Photo: MPIL)

The joint reflection that developed thanks to Mariela Morales Antoniazzi soon gained attention. A proof to this was Jorge Carpizo’s first visit in 2009. Carpizo, previously Rector of the Universidad Nacional de Mexico (UNAM), President of the National Human Rights Commission, and Secretario de Gobernación (Minister of the Interior) under the democratizing President Salinas, was a key figure in Latin American comparative law that supported the democratization of the region. His public appreciation and support of the Institute’s work opened up a completely new space of academic cooperation for MPIL.

Common Ground: The Ius Constitutionale Commune en América Latina 

This space gained first conceptual contours in 2012. On September 19 that year, the Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas of the UNAM, the largest legal research institute in Latin America, hosted a conference entitled “Hacia un nuevo derecho público en el sigo XXI”. Lawyers from various countries presented their respective national paths to democratic constitutionalism in the midst of Latin America’s enormous challenges. Armin von Bogdandy, who was the last to speak, then articulated the need to conceptualize what had previously been said, referring to the fresco under the panel was sitting.

The idea was to summarize the common thread as an Ius Constitutionale Commune en América Latina (ICCAL). ICCAL thus emerged as an analytical concept. It identifies the similarities of the previous speakers in legal thinking (i.e. their theories and doctrines, the decisions they considered as canonical, their understandings of reality) as well as the similarities in the practice they recommend (e.g. for the identification and preparation of suitable cases as well as strategies of litigation or the gathering of political support). In terms of diciplines, they combined constitutional law, comparative law, and international law, in particular human rights. As for their thrust, they addressed systemic deficiencies, that is constitutionally untenable conditions in the region, such as violence, exclusion, corruption, and that with the specific means of the legal field. For defining ICCAL’s thrust, the proposal was to use the concept of transformative constitutionalism. This was based on a South-South comparison, as the term was coined for the work of the South African Constitutional Court in the 1990s.

From Transformative Constitutionalism to Communities of Practice

20th anniversary of the Ibero-American Colloquium at MPIL with Diego Valadés, President IIDC and Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor, IACtH Judge, 26-27 February 2024 (Photo: MPIL)

The main difference between the Colombian, South African or Inter-American courts and an active constitutional court, such as the German Federal Constitutional Court, is that their jurisprudence addresses systemically untenable conditions and demands systemic change. The key difference between South African and Latin American transformative constitutionalism is that Latin American constitutionalism is a regional phenomenon that rests on two pillars. The first pillar is of in international legal nature, the Interamerican System of Human Rights, the second is comparative law among the countries of the region. This is precisely the comparative law that the Ibero-American Institute of Constitutional Law, founded by Carpizo and others, has been pursuing since 1974. Under the presidency of Diego Valadés, MPIL became its German section in 2014.

The proposal to conceptualize those Latin American developments as a common constitutional law with a transformative thrust was well received. The same applies to the term communities of practice, coined later together with René Uruena, which explains the operations of ICCAL in sociological terms. The concept of transformative impact, which demonstrates the social power of this constitutionalism despite poor compliance with relevant court rulings, also found its way into the discussion. The same applies to the term interamericanización, coined by Mariela Morales Antoniazzi, which articulates the influence of Inter-American jurisprudence on national legal systems. The ICCAL concept is by now taught in separate courses, which MPIL supports with virtual teaching material.

The Institute as a Forum

Visit of the Wampis and Achuar at MPIL, 29 June 2022 (Photo: MPIL)

MPIL is considered by many Latin American colleagues as a productive forum for joint research. Many protagonists have made the long way to Heidelberg: active judges and presidents of the national supreme courts and constitutional courts of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru, as well as members of the Inter-American Court of Justice, including several of its presidents. In particular, Roberto Caldas, Eduardo Ferrer Mac Gregor, Sergio García Ramírez, Nancy Hernández, Cecilia Medina, Ricardo Pérez Manrique and Humberto Sierra Porto should be mentioned here.

Colloquium with Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, former judge of the ICJ, 23 June 2011 (Photo: MPIL)

Personalities such as Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade from the International Court of Justice and Socorro Flores Liera and Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza from the International Criminal Court also found their way to MPIL. Other visitors included ministers such as Cesar Landa from Peru and Antonia Urrejola and Alberto van Klaveren from Chile, as well as the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro. Commissioners of the Inter-American Commission, such as its Presidents Esmeralda Arosemena, Francisco Eguiguren, Joel Hernández, Julissa Mantilla, Antonia Urrejola and Vice-President Flavia Piovesan, and representatives of indigenous peoples such as the Achuar and the Wampis also attended. Prominent organizations and actors who make untenable conditions visible through legal cases and thus provide the “oxygen” for ICCAL also took part, including Viviana Krsticevic, Executive Director of the Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (CEJIL) and Katya Salazar, Executive Director of the Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF).

Masterclass with Manuel José Cepeda, September 2018 (Photo: MPIL)

Manuel José Cepeda, one of the formative figures of Colombian constitutionalism and advisor in the peace process for which Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2016, held the MPIL Masterclass in 2018 entitled Transformative Constitutionalism: The Example of Colombia. Ideas from Latin America have also had a lasting impact on MPIL’s research on Europe, for example as part of the Transition 2.0 project.

The founding of ICCAL-LAB

In 2017, MPIL took a further step. It was the first Max Planck institute in the Human Sciences Section to use a new instrument of international cooperation: the Tandem Group. It linked its group with the Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá; the topic was ICCAL ‘on site’. Thanks to the work of this group, Carolina Bejarano was able to show how Afro-descendant population groups in Cartagena defend their rights as an ethnic minority, and Joaquin Garzon was able to do the same on the basis of social movements in the port city of Buenaventura.

Joaquín Garzón and Carolina Bejarano

Carolina Bejarano will play a key role in the ICCAL-LAB, with which MPIL intends to take a further step in research with Latin America from 2025. The LAB, generously funded by the MPG, is intended to take the comparison of law between Europe and Latin America to a new level. Four people (Europe/Latin America/’junior’/’established’) will write a joint article on a topic of democratic resilience, articulating similarities and differences between the legal cultures of Europe and Latin America. The obvious hurdles that this project has to overcome are enormous. But conducting such risky research is part of MPIL’s mission. And Latin America’s magical realism, inscribed in ICCAL’s DNA, will help.

***

[1] Carlos Restrepo Piedrahita, Tres Ideas Constitucionales: Supremacía de la Constitución, Corte Constitucional, El Ombudsman, Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia, 1978, Conclusiones del II Coloquio sobre jurisdicción constitucional en Iberoamérica, 133-139.

My academic trajectory can be divided into two phases: before and after the MPIL. During my postdoctoral studies from 2007 to 2008, as a PhD holder and professor at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP), I had the privilege of being awarded an MPIL Fellowship, which presented me with the opportunity to develop an in-depth comparative analysis of the Inter-American and European regional systems for the protection of human rights. My research encompassed a comprehensive study of the respective institutions, key actors, agendas, landmark precedents, effectiveness, and jurisdictional dialogues, as well as their impact on the protection of human dignity and the prevention of human suffering.

From 2009 to 2014, I was awarded a Humboldt Foundation Georg Foster Research Fellowship, which allowed me to further deepen my comparative research on the European and the Inter-American regional systems. The primary focus here lay on their jurisprudence concerning central human rights themes, such as equality and non-discrimination, protection of social rights, and the fight against terrorism. Additionally, I was able to explore the evolving dialogues between these systems through interactions and mutual impacts, which fostered the Inter-Americanization of the European system and the Europeanization of the Inter-American system, as reflected in the updated and expanded versions of my books Direitos Humanos e Justiça Internacional: estudo comparado dos sistemas regionais interamericano, europeu e africano (Human Rights and International Justice: A comparative study of the European, Inter-American, and African systems) in the 10th edition (2023); Temas de Direitos Humanos (Themes in Human Rights) in the 12th edition (2023); and Direitos Humanos e o Direito Constitucional Internacional (Human Rights and International Constitutional Law) in the 21st edition (2023).

In fruitful collaboration with the MPIL, with a multi-level and comparative approach, and special emphasis on constitutional and regional dialogue, considering the emergence of a new public law and aiming to strengthen human rights and democracy in the South American region, three important anthologies were published in Brazil under the coordination of Professor Armin von Bogdandy, Mariela Morales Antoniazzi, and myself: Human Rights, Democracy and Legal Integration in South America (2010); Human Rights, Democracy, and Legal Integration: Advancing in constitutional and regional dialogue (2011); and Human Rights, Democracy, and Integration: The emergence of a new public law (2013).

The author at the ICCAL Winter Seminar  in Heidelberg, 2023[1]

In 2016 and 2017, my collaboration with the MPIL intensified within the framework of the ICCAL (Ius Constitutionale Commune in Latin America) project, fostering a solid academic network. This network’s transformative approach paves the way for transformative regional constitutionalism in the most unequal and violent region of the world and for strengthening the positive impact of the Inter-American System on the values of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in Latin America. With this perspective and under the coordination of Professor Armin von Bogdandy, Mariela Morales Antoniazzi, and myself, three new anthologies on the Ius Constitutionale Commune in Latin America were published in Brazil: Conceptual Framework – vol. I (2016); Pluralism and Inclusion – vol. II (2016); and Jurisdictional Dialogues and Conventionality Control – vol. III (2016). In 2017, the anthology Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America, edited by Armin von Bogdandy, Mariela Morales Antoniazzi, Eduardo MacGregor Ferrer, and myself, was published by Oxford University Press, aiming to expand the public debate on ICCAL and involve a wider audience. Continuing our intense collaboration with the MPIL, in 2019, we published the collective work Transformative Constitutionalism, Inclusion, and Social Rights, coordinated once again by Armin von Bogdandy, Mariela Morales Antoniazzi, and myself.

In 2017, I had the immense honour of being elected by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) for a four-year mandate (2018-2021). The main function of the IACHR is to promote respect for and the defence of human rights in the Americas. From 2020 to 2021 I served as Vice-President of the IACHR. In addition to my solid and fruitful academic cooperation with the MPIL as a PhD professor at PUC-SP, my role as a commissioner furthered institutional collaboration between the MPIL and the IACHR during this period. This partnership resulted in three important institutional advances, with essential support from the MPIL:

1. the creation of the Impact Observatory of the IACHR, aiming to map and systematize the impacts generated by the IACHR in the Americas, foster synergies with similar initiatives, and promote dialogue and coordination with strategic actors and communities interested in the effectiveness of the Inter-American Human Rights System, in 2021;
2. the adoption by the IACHR of the Inter-American Principles on Academic Freedom and University Autonomy, in 2021; and
3. the launch of the Specialized Academic Network for Technical Cooperation by the IACHR, involving over 70 universities across the Americas, in 2020.

Flavia Piovesan at the Ibero-American Seminar at the MPIL on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Inter-American Commission on 16 July 2019 (Photo: MPIL)

In 2022, I had the great honour to, with deep gratitude, receive the Humboldt Georg Foster Research Award. This prestigious award marked the culmination of my academic journey, which began as a Humboldt Foundation Georg Foster Research Fellow at the MPIL from 2009 to 2014. During a remarkable ceremony in Berlin on June 29, 2023, I was presented with the award certificate, and a laudation was delivered, highlighting the significance of my research:

“(…) in her ongoing research, she focuses on the transformative potential of law. Professor Piovesan is also a founding member of the Ius Constitutionale Commune Network in Latin America (ICCAL). During her stay in Germany, she will focus on the functioning of the Inter-American human rights system (…)”.

In this sense, the anthology The Impact of the Inter-American Human Rights System: Transformations on the Ground has recently been published by Oxford University Press, once again coordinated by Armin von Bogdandy, Mariela Morales Antoniazzi, Eduardo MacGregor Ferrer, and myself. The book is structured into three parts: 1) framing the Impact of the Inter-American System; 2) impact and Inter-American Standards; and 3) optimizing the Impact of the Inter-American System.

Having concluded my mandate at the IACHR (in December 2021), as a professor at PUC-SP since 2022, and now also as the Scientific Coordinator of the Monitoring and Enforcement Unit of decisions of the Inter-American Court at the National Council of Justice in Brazil, with the support of the Humboldt Georg Foster Research Award, the goal is to create an Impact Observatory in Brazil as a pilot project to map and systematize the transformative impact of the Inter-American System on the Brazilian experience, particularly regarding the adoption of structural changes in normative frameworks and public policies. Furthermore, another important goal is to promote the adoption of a protocol concerning national mechanisms for the implementation of international human rights decisions as a regional reference (inspired by a victim-centred approach, fostering inter-institutional and federative dialogue, adopting national implementation plans with specific goals and deadlines, and promoting transparency and accountability).

Additionally, the objective is to continue studying and analysing the transformative impact of the Inter-American system, always in solid and fruitful collaboration with the MPIL through inspiring academic projects, publications, books, and seminars. Notably, the edition of the series of volumes of the Jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil: Implementing Rights, focusing on human rights themes, has been a significant achievement. These publications encompass volumes dedicated to LGBTI rights (2022), women’s rights (2023), racial equality (2023), and indigenous peoples’ rights (2023), being the result of the institutional cooperation between the National Council of Justice (CNJ), the Supreme Federal Court (STF), and the MPIL. They aim to identify and systematize the emblematic decisions of the STF regarding human rights, highlighting the dialogue with the Inter-American system, the incorporation of Inter-American standards, and the exercise of conventionality control. In 2022, the President of the STF and the CNJ launched the National Pact of the Judiciary for Human Rights, aiming to strengthen the culture of human rights and conventionality control in Brazil’s judiciary through various initiatives, including publications (such as the jurisprudence series), a national contest for human rights with an emphasis on conventionality control and Inter-American jurisprudence, the inclusion of “Human Rights” as a subject in all public judicial entrance exams at all levels of the national judiciary, with a focus on the Inter-American system, jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, and conventionality control, and the promotion of training programs in human rights and conventionality control for judges across Brazil. All these relevant initiatives of the National Pact of the Judiciary for Human Rights count on the essential institutional support of the MPIL.

Since 2007, over the course of more than 16 years, a solid legacy of scientific cooperation with the MPIL has been cultivated,  through academic projects, with the editing of nearly a dozen anthologies, institutional publications, national and international seminars, human rights and conventionality control training courses, and innovative institutional projects in Brazil and the Americas (such as the Impact Observatory of the IACHR, the future Impact Observatory to be created in Brazil, and the future protocol concerning national mechanisms for the implementation of international human rights decisions). The values inspiring these numerous initiatives resulting from scientific cooperation with the MPIL revolve around the triad of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, with a special focus on the transformative impact of the Inter-American system.

In conclusion, academic sabbaticals in Heidelberg, supported by the MPIL and the Humboldt Foundation Georg Foster Research Fellowship (from 2009 to 2014) and culminating with the Humboldt Georg Foster Research Award (in 2022), have been pivotal in shaping my academic journey.

Finally, I celebrate the extraordinary role of the MPIL in my academic trajectory for three main reasons:

1. The MPIL provides a fertile and enriching laboratory of ideas, characterized by scientific excellence, the highest methodological rigor, profound reflection, free and fearless debate, pluralism, and a comparative perspective.
2. It nurtures the ICCAL project through a robust academic network, with an emphasis on the transformative mandate of the Inter-American system in the region.
3. It contributes to transformative academic and institutional projects aimed at fostering a new legal paradigm centred on the protection of human dignity.

In celebration of the MPIL’s 100th anniversary, I express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to the Institute, especially to its devotion to science, innovative ideas, and the strong belief in the power of ideas to transform realities and drive social change.

[1] Photo: MPIL.

[2] Photo: MPIL.

Minha trajetória acadêmica pode ser dividida em duas fases: antes e depois do MPIL. Durante meu pós-doutorado, de 2007 a 2008, como Professora Doutora titular da Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP), tive o privilégio de ser contemplada com uma bolsa do MPIL, o que me deu a oportunidade de desenvolver uma profunda investigação na análise comparativa dos sistemas regionais interamericano e europeu. A investigação abrangeu o estudo das respectivas instituições, atores-chave, agendas, precedentes históricos, eficácia e diálogos jurisdicionais, bem como seus impactos na proteção da dignidade humana e na prevenção do sofrimento humano.

De 2009 a 2014, ao ser contemplada com a bolsa de estudos Georg Foster da Fundação Humboldt, aprofundei a investigação comparativa entre os sistemas regionais europeu e interamericano, centrada na análise da jurisprudência relativa aos temas centrais dos direitos humanos, como a igualdade e a não discriminação, a proteção dos direitos sociais e a luta contra o terrorismo. Além disso, tive a oportunidade de explorar os diálogos crescentes entre estes sistemas, através de interações e impactos mútuos, que promoveram a interamericanização do Sistema Europeu e a europeização do Sistema Interamericano, como refletido nas versões atualizadas e alargadas dos meus livros, Direitos Humanos e Justiça Internacional: Um estudo comparativo dos sistemas europeu, interamericano e africano, em sua 10ª edição (2023); Temas de Direitos Humanos, em sua 12ª edição (2023); e Direitos Humanos e o Direito Constitucional Internacional, em sua 21ª edição (2023).

Em frutífera colaboração com o MPIL, com uma abordagem multinível e comparativa, e especial ênfase no diálogo constitucional e regional, considerando a emergência de um novo direito público e visando o fortalecimento dos direitos humanos e da democracia na região sul-americana, foram publicados no Brasil três importantes antologias sob a coordenação do Professor Armin von Bogdandy, Mariela Morales Antoniazzi e minha: Direitos Humanos, Democracia e Integração Jurídica na América do Sul (2010); Direitos Humanos, Democracia e Integração Jurídica: Avançando no diálogo constitucional e regional (2011); e Direitos Humanos, Democracia e Integração: A emergência de um novo direito público (2013).

The author at the ICCAL Winter Seminar  in Heidelberg, 2023[1]

Em 2016 e 2017, minha colaboração com o MPIL intensificou-se no âmbito do Projeto ICCAL (Ius Constitutionale Commune na América Latina), tendo por consequência, a edificação de uma sólida rede académica. A abordagem transformadora dessa rede abre caminho para um constitucionalismo regional transformador na região mais desigual e violenta do mundo, fortalecendo o impacto positivo do Sistema Interamericano sobre os valores dos direitos humanos, da democracia e do Estado de Direito na América Latina. Com essa perspectiva e sob a coordenação dos professores Armin von Bogdandy, Mariela Morales Antoniazzi e minha, foram publicados no Brasil três novas antologias sobre o Ius Constitutionale Commune na América Latina: Marco Conceitual – vol. I (2016); Pluralismo e Inclusão – vol. II (2016); e Diálogos Jurisdicionais e Controle de Convencionalidade – vol. III (2016). Em 2017, foi publicado pela Oxford University Press a antologia Constitucionalismo Transformador na América Latina, com o objetivo de não somente ampliar o debate público sobre o ICCAL, bem como envolver um público mais amplo. Em continuidade à intensa colaboração com o MPIL, em 2019, publicamos a obra coletiva Constitucionalismo Transformador, Inclusão e Direitos Sociais, coordenada mais uma vez por Armin von Bogdandy, Mariela Morales Antoniazzi e por mim.

Destaco que em 2017, tive a imensa honra de ser eleita pela Assembleia Geral da Organização dos Estados Americanos (OEA) para a Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos (CIDH) para um mandato de quatro anos (2018-2021). A principal função da CIDH é promover o respeito e a defesa dos direitos humanos nas Américas. Nesse âmbito, em 2020-2021, desempenhei o cargo de vice-presidente da CIDH. Além da minha sólida e profícua cooperação acadêmica com o MPIL, como professora doutora da PUC-SP, minha atuação como comissionada aprofundou a colaboração institucional entre o MPIL e a CIDH durante esse período. Essa parceria resultou em três importantes avanços institucionais, com apoio fundamental do MPIL:

1. a criação do Observatório de Impacto da CIDH, com o objetivo de mapear e sistematizar os impactos gerados pela CIDH nas Américas, fomentar sinergias com iniciativas similares e promover o diálogo e a articulação com atores estratégicos e comunidades interessadas na efetividade do Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos em 2021;
2. a adoção pela CIDH dos Princípios Interamericanos sobre Liberdade Acadêmica e Autonomia Universitária em 2021; e
3. o lançamento da Rede Acadêmica Especializada em Cooperação Técnica pela CIDH, envolvendo mais de 70 universidades nas Américas em 2020.

Flavia Piovesan at the Ibero-American Seminar at the MPIL on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Inter-American Commission on 16 July 2019 (Photo: MPIL)

Como resultado, em 2022, tive a honra e a profunda gratidão de receber o Prémio de Investigação Humboldt Georg Foster. Este prestigiado prémio marcou o culminar do meu percurso académico, que começou como investigadora contemplada pela Bolsa Georg Foster da Fundação Humboldt no MPIL de 2009 a 2014. Durante uma cerimónia notável em Berlim, em 29 de junho de 2023, recebi o certificado do prémio e foi laureada, pela importância da minha investigação: “(…) sua investigação, centra-se no potencial transformador do direito. A Professora Piovesan é também membro fundador da Rede Ius Constitutionale Commune na América Latina (ICCAL). Durante a sua estadia na Alemanha, focalizou-se no funcionamento do Sistema Interamericano de Direitos humanos (…)”.

Neste sentido, a antologia O impacto do Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos: Transformações em curso está atualmente em processo de edição pela Oxford University Press, mais uma vez coordenado por Armin von Bogdandy, Mariela Morales Antoniazzi, Eduardo MacGregor Ferrer e por mim. O livro está estruturado em três partes: 1) enquadramento do impacto do Sistema Interamericano; 2) impacto e normas interamericanas; e 3) otimização do impacto do Sistema Interamericano.

Concluído meu mandato na CIDH (em dezembro de 2021), como professora da PUC-SP desde 2022, e agora como Coordenadora Científico da Unidade de Monitoramento e Cumprimento de decisões da Corte Interamericana, no Conselho Nacional de Justiça no Brasil, com o apoio do Prêmio Humboldt Georg Foster de Pesquisa, tenho por objetivo criar um Observatório de Impacto no Brasil como um projeto piloto para mapear e sistematizar o impacto transformador do Sistema Interamericano na experiência brasileira, particularmente no que diz respeito à adoção de mudanças estruturais nos marcos normativos e nas políticas públicas. Além disso, outra meta importante é promover a adoção de um Protocolo sobre Mecanismos Nacionais de Implementação de Decisões Internacionais de Direitos Humanos como referência regional (inspirado no enfoque centrado na vítima; fomentando o diálogo interinstitucional e federativo; adotando planos nacionais de implementação com metas e prazos específicos; e promovendo a transparência e a prestação de contas).

Ademais, o objetivo é continuar a estudar e analisar o impacto transformador do Sistema Interamericano, sempre em sólida e profícua colaboração com o MPIL, através de projetos académicos inspiradores, publicações, livros e seminários. Destaco aqui a edição da série de volumes “Jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal do Brasil: Implementação de Direitos”, com foco em temas de direitos humanos, que tem sido uma conquista significativa. Essas publicações abrangem volumes dedicados aos direitos LGBTI (2022); direitos das mulheres (2023); igualdade racial (2023); e direitos dos povos indígenas (2023), sendo resultado da cooperação institucional entre o Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ), o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e o MPIL. Eles visam identificar e sistematizar as decisões emblemáticas do STF em matéria de direitos humanos, destacando o diálogo com o Sistema Interamericano, a incorporação de normas interamericanas e o exercício do controle de convencionalidade. Em 2022, o Presidente do STF e o CNJ lançaram o Pacto Nacional do Judiciário pelos Direitos Humanos, com o objetivo de fortalecer a cultura dos direitos humanos e do controle de convencionalidade no Poder Judiciário brasileiro, por meio de diversas iniciativas, incluindo publicações (como a série de jurisprudência); um concurso nacional de direitos humanos, com ênfase no controle de convencionalidade e na jurisprudência interamericana; a inclusão da disciplina “Direitos Humanos” em todos os concursos públicos de ingresso na magistratura, em todos os níveis do Poder Judiciário nacional, com enfoque no Sistema Interamericano, na jurisprudência da Corte Interamericana e no controle de convencionalidade; e a promoção de programas de capacitação em direitos humanos e controle de convencionalidade para juízes de todo o Brasil.  Todas as iniciativas relevantes do Pacto Nacional do Judiciário pelos Direitos Humanos contam com o imprescindível apoio institucional do MPIL.

Desde 2007, ao longo de mais de 16 anos, tem sido cultivado um sólido legado de cooperação científica com o MPIL, seja por meio de projetos acadêmicos, com a edição de quase uma dezena de antologias, publicações institucionais, seminários nacionais e internacionais, cursos de formação em direitos humanos e controle de convencionalidade, e projetos institucionais inovadores no Brasil e nas Américas (como o Observatório de Impacto da CIDH, o futuro Observatório de Impacto a ser criado no Brasil e o futuro Protocolo sobre Mecanismos Nacionais de Implementação de decisões internacionais de direitos humanos). Os valores que inspiram essas inúmeras iniciativas resultantes da cooperação científica com o MPIL giram em torno da tríade direitos humanos, democracia e Estado de Direito, com especial enfoque no impacto transformador do Sistema Interamericano.

Em conclusão, os sabáticos académicos em Heidelberg, apoiados pelo MPIL e pela Bolsa de Investigação Georg Foster da Fundação Humboldt (de 2009 a 2014) e culminando com o Prémio de Investigação Georg Foster da Fundação Humboldt em 2022, foram fundamentais para moldar o meu percurso académico. Finalmente, celebro o papel extraordinário do MPIL na minha trajetória académica por três razões principais:

1. O MPIL proporciona um fértil e enriquecedor laboratório de ideias, caracterizado pela excelência científica, pelo mais alto rigor metodológico, pela reflexão profunda, pelo debate livre e destemido, pelo pluralismo e pela perspectiva comparada.
2. Promove o projeto ICCAL através de uma rede académica robusta, com ênfase no mandato transformador do Sistema Interamericano na região.
3. Contribui para projetos acadêmicos e institucionais transformadores que visam fomentar um novo paradigma jurídico centrado na proteção da dignidade humana.

Na celebração do 100º aniversário do MPIL, expresso o meu mais profundo apreço e gratidão ao Instituto, especialmente à sua devoção à ciência, aos conceitos inovadores e à forte crença no poder das ideias para transformar realidades e impulsionar a mudança social.

[1] Photo: MPIL.

[2] Photo: MPIL.