Kategorie: Blog

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.

Die ministerialbürokratische Begrifflichkeit

Wenn das Institut mit drei zeitübergreifenden Charakteristika beschrieben werden sollte, so wären dies erstens seine Publikationen – insbesondere die Schwarze Reihe, die trotz des sinistren Namens seit Jahrzehnten einen Leuchtpunkt im Völkerrecht setzt – und die Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht – ein Beispiel für die Unaussprechlichkeit des Deutschen in fremden Zungen; zweitens die Bibliothek, welche dieser Blog zu Recht immer wieder lobend erwähnt; und drittens die Referentenbesprechung, welche es so lange gibt wie das Institut – und die, möchte man sagen, seine conditio sine qua non bildet – eine Bedingung, welche nicht hinweggedacht werden kann, ohne dass auch das Institut entfällt. Bemerkenswert ist schon der – inzwischen muss man sagen – ursprüngliche Name: Referentenbesprechung. Denn dieser stammt nicht aus einer akademischen Nomenklatur, sondern aus dem Vokabular der Ministerialbürokratie. An der Universität gibt es Assistenten, wissenschaftliche Hilfskräfte. Referent hingegen ist ein Vortragender mit der Pflicht, sein besonderes Wissen auf einem besonderen Gebiet in die allgemeine Diskussion einzubringen, welche zu einer Entscheidungsfindung führt. Tatsächlich spricht aus dem gewählten Begriff der Geist, aus welchem das Institut entsprang: Es sollte durchaus nicht nur der „reinen Lehre“, sprich der wissenschaftlichen Forschung dienen, sondern durchaus auch in der Praxis beraten. In diesem Sinne äußerte sich schon der Gründungsdirektor Viktor Bruns. Der dritte Direktor Hermann Mosler hatte nach seiner Referentenzeit am Institut lange auch im Auswärtigen Amt gearbeitet und sah im Referentensystem des Instituts eine Spiegelung des ministerialen Organigramms.

Zum Referenten gehört natürlich ein Referat, und so wurde das Völkerrecht in Gebiete unterteilt und die Welt in Länder oder Ländergruppen, und jedes Gebiet beziehungsweise Land wurde einem Referenten zugeteilt, das dieser – manchmal nolens volens – fortlaufend beobachtete, so dass kein rechtlich relevantes Weltgeschehen sich der Aufmerksamkeit des Instituts entzog. Es gab Experten auch für entlegenere Länder oder solche mit einem schwierigeren sprachlichen Zugang – für Japan und China (in den siebziger und achtziger Jahren Robert Heuser), für die Sowjetunion (in den siebziger und achtziger Jahren Theodor Schweisfurth) oder Indien (Dieter Conrad).

Die Referentenbesprechung als Institutsinstitution

Zu den Beobachtungspflichten der Referenten traten die Berichtspflichten, das heißt es musste regelmäßig über alles Relevante berichtet werden, was sich im Bereich des jeweiligen Referates ereignete, und zwar zeitnah; die Bühne dafür bildete die wöchentliche Referentenbesprechung. Sie fand in den Anfängen des Instituts zweimal wöchentlich, nämlich dienstags und samstags, seit den fünfziger Jahren immer montags zwischen 16 und 18 Uhr statt, ein Hochamt, an dem teilzunehmen für alle wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiter heilige Pflicht war. Ein Dispens wurde nur bei schwerwiegendsten Gründen erteilt, selbst die Direktoren teilten ihre außerinstitutionellen Aktivitäten, etwa Dienstreisen oder Sitzungen bei Organen des Europarates so ein, dass sie die Referentenbesprechung nie versäumten. Sie fiel nie aus, nur an Feiertagen und zwischen Weihnachten und Neujahr wurde einmal ausgesetzt, aber schon am 2. Januar konnte es weitergehen. Die Welt, auch die rechtliche, stand ja auch nicht still.

Kein Stillstand in der Welt. Fritz Münch, Günther Jaenicke und Rudolf Bernhardt (v.l.n.r.) bei der Referentenbesprechung 1972[1]

Der regelmäßige Vortrag aus dem eigenen Referat wurde erwartet, und diese Erwartung war von den Referenten so weit internalisiert, dass nur selten gesonderte Aufforderungen von Seiten der Direktoren erforderlich waren, die mit der Frage begannen: „Warum haben wir eigentlich noch nicht von diesem oder jenem Vorgang gehört?“ Dass ein jeder aus eigenem Antrieb regelmäßig berichtete, wurde als ein gebotenes Selbstverständnis vorausgesetzt. Man brauchte die Anmeldung eines Vortrags nicht Wochen vorher in einen Kalender einzutragen, ein kleiner Zettel mit Thema und Dauer konnte auch noch fünf Minuten vor Sitzungsbeginn bei der Sekretärin des sitzungsleitenden Direktors abgegeben werden.

Natürlich war der Eifer unter den Referenten nicht ganz gleichmäßig verteilt. Manche berichteten aus Liebe zum Fach oder zu sich selbst sehr häufig über das jeweilige Gebiet oder Land, auch wenn ihm in der Weltordnung nur eine geringere Bedeutung zukam. So gab es etwa den exzellenten Kenner der Türkei Christian Rumpf, der in den siebziger und achtziger Jahren so häufig zur Türkei vortrug, dass ein unbefangener Zuhörer hätte meinen können, die Türken stünden immer noch vor Wien. Besonderer Beobachtung erfreuten sich immer der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) und die Europäische Menschenrechtskommission, weil das Institut mit den europäischen Organen verquickt war – durch Rudolf Bernhardt als Richter, später als Präsidenten des EGMR, und durch Jochen Abr. Frowein als Vizepräsidenten der Europäischen Menschenrechtskommission. Was in Straßburg geschah, fand in der Referentenbesprechung ein Echo.

More germanico. Ein deutscher Blick auf die Welt

Referentenbesprechung 1985. Mit: Peter Malanczuk (zweiter von links), Rainer Hofmann, Willy Wirantaprawira, Werner Meng, Torsten Stein, Karl Doehring, Otto Steiner (verdeckt), Juliane Kokott (davor), Lothar Gündling (an der Tür), Fritz Münch (vor Juliane Kokott), Matthias Herdegen (auf dem Stuhl schlafend)[2]

Die Referenten bildeten seinerzeit einen homogenen Stamm: weiß, männlich, deutsch und Volljurist. Frauen gab es wenige, Ausländer auch, die meisten von diesen arbeiteten an der Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Die Homogenität in der Zusammensetzung garantierte, dass die rechtlichen Phänomene in der Welt (nur) more germanico – nach „deutscher Methodik und Dogmatik” – untersucht und dementsprechend „fremdländische Perspektiven“ nicht eingenommen wurden. Gleichzeitig war gesichert, dass alle Referenten denselben juristischen Bildungskanon durchlaufen hatten und also auch über dasselbe solide Grundwissen, insbesondere auch im deutschen Recht verfügten. Dies machte die Verständigung einfacher, nicht alle diskutierten Fragen mussten ab ovo erklärt werden. „Amtssprache“ war Deutsch, über viele Jahre unhinterfragt; von den ausländischen Gästen, welche an der Referentenbesprechung teilnehmen und gelegentlich auch vortragen durften, wurde erwartet, dass sie des Deutschen mächtig waren oder es jedenfalls erlernten, wie dies beispielsweise bei dem späteren Präsidenten des Europäischen Gerichtshof Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias, dem späteren Präsidenten des spanischen Verfassungsgerichts Pedro Cruz Villalón oder dem ehemaligen Präsidenten des russischen Verfassungsgerichts Vladimir Tumanov der Fall war. Erst um die Jahrtausendwende wurde auf Anregung des israelischen Professors Yoram Dinstein in zwei Referentenbesprechungen im Monat auf Englisch kommuniziert.

Von der Wissensvermittlung zur Forschungsdebatte. Entwicklungslinien der Referentenbesprechung

Akribisch dokumentiert. Die Protokolle der Referentenbesprechungen[3]

Anfangs, so heißt es – der Autor dieser Zeilen übersieht aus eigener Anschauung nur 40 Jahre Referentenbesprechung – war der Stil der Veranstaltung vornehmlich „ministerial“, das heißt es ging mehr um die Vermittlung von Wissen als um die Diskussion des Vermittelten. Im Wesentlichen blieb es bei den Berichten. Erst in späteren Jahren, insbesondere unter der Ägide von Professor Frowein in den achtziger Jahren, wurden die Berichte dann auch einer kritischen Diskussion durch die anderen Teilnehmer der Referentenbesprechung unterzogen. Diese Diskussion war immer zeitlich begrenzt – wie auch die Berichte selbst; es war mehr als eine lässliche Sünde, wenn die angemeldeten Zeiten für einen Bericht überschritten wurden. Spätestens wenn Professor Frowein begann, mit dem Siegelring unruhig auf den Tisch zu schlagen, war der Zeitpunkt gekommen, aus dem kunstvoll aufgebauten eigenen Gedankengebäude mit seinem überreichen intellektuellen Zierrat – bisweilen vor seiner Fertigstellung – den Notausgang zu wählen. Hier erlebte man Wittgenstein in seiner praktischen Anwendung: Was (und sei es aus Zeitgründen) nicht gesagt werden konnte, darüber musste man schweigen. Die Zeitnot in den Besprechungen rührte von dem Anspruch des Instituts, dass nichts in der Welt geschah, was der Beobachtung, Analyse und Berichterstattung im Institut entging. Das verlangte nach vielen Berichten, die bisweilen nur über jeweils fünf Minuten gingen, so dass Referentenbesprechungen mit bis zu acht Berichten durchaus keine Seltenheit waren. Das erforderte eine gewisse Flexibilität im Geist des Zuhörers beim Sprung von dem Einmarsch in Grenada über einen Schnelldurchlauf durch das deutsche Asylrecht, mit einem kleinen Zwischenstopp beim Kriegsrecht in Polen und einem Halt bei einer Entscheidung des US Supreme Court, dazu ein Blick auf ein französisches décret-loi, ein Vaterunser lang eine Bemerkungen zum neuen Codex Iuris Canonici, um schließlich, wie regelmäßig, bei der neuesten Entscheidung des EGMR zu enden. Unter der Kürze der Vorträge musste übrigens deren Qualität nicht leiden, die Begrenzung der Zeit zwang zur Präzision von Gedanken und Ausdruck. Die Anstrengung des Zuhörers bei der Vorstellung dieses Universums wurde mit dem Gefühl belohnt, zumindest einen Überblick über das juristische Weltwissen zu haben.

Politik spielte bei den Vorträgen keine Rolle, Aktivismus in juristischem Kleide war unstatthaft, nur das kühle juristische Argument zählte. Das hieß natürlich nicht, dass die meisten keine politische Überzeugungen besaßen, nur durften diese keine Grundlage für die eigenen Darlegungen bieten. Die Gegenstände waren gewissermaßen „gerichtsfest“ aufzuarbeiten, das heißt so dass man in einem streitigen Verfahren vor einem Tribunal hätte bestehen können. Wissenschaftlich wurde in der Referentenbesprechung ein Rechtspositivismus gepflegt, ohne dass die Methodik der wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung selbst Gegenstand von Betrachtungen in der Referentenbesprechung wurde. Rechtsphilosophie gehörte nicht zu den Interessenschwerpunkten, gepflegt wurde eine Dogmatik im Sinne von Kant als „das dogmatische Verfahren der reinen Vernunft, ohne vorangehende Kritik ihres eigenen Vermögens.“[4]

Nicht frei von inneren Ängsten. Diskussionskultur in der Referentenbesprechung

Karl Doehring (rechts) mit Kay Hailbronner (mitte) und Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann (links), 1972 bei einer Referentenbesprechung[5]

Der äußere Eindruck von der Referentenbesprechung in dem engen Besprechungszimmer im alten Institut an der Berliner Straße 48 – wo es keine feste Sitzordnung gab, aber einige Plätze inoffiziell für die Direktoren reserviert waren und frei blieben, auch wenn ein Direktor ausnahmsweise einmal abwesend war –erinnerte an ein Tabakskollegium – Professor Doehring, PD Schweisfurth und PD Stein erfüllten den Raum mit Tabakqualm (noch heute hängt er in den Büchern, die in diesem Raum vor dreißig Jahren standen). Dieser Anschein von Gemütlichkeit kontrastierte mit dem Stil der wissenschaftlichen Auseinandersetzung. Die Diskussion konnte durchaus scharfe Züge annehmen, insbesondere wenn argumentative Schwächen in der Darlegung oder eine unzureichende rechtliche oder tatbestandliche Aufklärung des Sachverhalts gewittert wurden. Mancher Vortragende sah sich unversehens in der Rolle des Angeklagten. Daher ging nicht jeder frei von inneren Ängsten in die Besprechung; sie war der „Mut-Court“ des kleinen Mannes. In der Referentenbesprechung galt wie in der Bibel: „Die Furcht des Herrn ist der Weisheit Anfang.“  Rücksicht auf etwaige Sensibilitäten wurde nicht genommen. Und wenn sich ein Referent in der rechtlichen Analyse um eine Oktave vergriffen hatte oder von Fehlvorstellungen ausging, wie ein fundierter Bericht auszusehen hat, konnte er durchaus zu einem Privatissimum – gewissermaßen einer wissenschaftlichen Nachbereitung – im Anschluss an die Referentenbesprechung in ein Direktorenzimmer gebeten werden, und das zählte zu den weniger angenehmen Erfahrungen im jungen Leben eines Referenten.

Die Anrede zwischen den Teilnehmern lautete förmlich „Herr“ bzw. „Frau” – und bei unverheirateten weiblichen Personen wie etwa bei den Referendarinnen Christine Haverland, Gerlinde Raub und Sabine Thomsen bis Anfang der achtziger Jahre auch noch – horribile dictu – „Fräulein“, durchaus ohne falschen Unterton ausgesprochen, gewissermaßen als Bezeichnung für das dritte Geschlecht, wie man es damals verstand (Dieser Anrede durften sich auch ältere unverheiratete Verwaltungs- und Biblikotheksmitarbeiterinnen, zumeist mit ihrem stillen Einverständnis, erfreuen). Die Schwingungen des neuen Zeitalters nach 1968 waren 15 Jahre später vom Institut noch nicht aufgenommen. Die Referenten duzten sich untereinander, soweit sie in derselben Alterskohorte waren, gegenüber den älteren blieb man in der Regel beim Sie. Nach Wissen des Verfassers hat Professor Mosler niemanden am Institut, auch nicht die Nachfolger im Direktorenamt geduzt, auch Professor Münch sprach alle Personen mit Sie an, und Professor Bernhardt hat sich noch bis zum Schluss, d.h. nach z.T. mehr als vierzig Jahren Zusammenarbeit auch mit seinen Co-Direktoren gesiezt.

Die Referentenbesprechungen wurden protokolliert, zumeist von den jungen Hiwis, die neben dem Referendardienst einen kleinen Arbeitsvertrag am Institut hatten; dies erforderte höchste Aufmerksamkeit – gerade wegen der Diversität der Themen und wegen der Menge des zu protokollierenden Stoffes. Über die Protokolle wurde ein wesentlicher Teil der Tätigkeit des Instituts archiviert.

In der Höhle des „Löwen“: Der Institutststammtisch 1985 mit: Werner Meng, Werner Morvay, unbekannt, Dieter Conrad, Jörg Polakiewicz und Rainer Hofmann[6]

An die Referentenbesprechung schloss sich der Stammtisch an, in den achtziger Jahren im „Löwen“ in Handschuhsheim, an dem Referenten und Direktoren teilnahmen. Die Gespräche flossen freier, es wurden oft weiter juristische Themen umkreist, allerdings mit größerem Abstand, und wie es zu einem guten Stammtisch gehört, waren nun auch politische Wertungen zugelassen. Besonders ausgelassen war die Stimmung dann zu vorgerückterer Stunde, wenn nur noch die späten – und zumeist trinkfesteren – Vögel aus der Familie der Schluckspechte um den Tisch hockten; dann wurde auch das zuvor Unsagbare beim Namen genannt. In den neunziger Jahren fand diese Form der Geselligkeit immer weniger Zuspruch und kam schließlich wegen Mangel an Teilnehmern ganz zum Erliegen. Heute, wo die Öffnungszeiten der Kindertagesstätten die Uhrzeiten der Referentenbesprechung bestimmen, ist ein Stammtisch im unmittelbaren Anschluss an diese Veranstaltung undenkbar geworden. Diese Gesellschaftsform hat sich überlebt.

Internationaler und interdisziplinärer. Von der Referentenbesprechung zur Montagsrunde

Ganz langsam änderten sich mit den Zeiten auch die Gebräuche und Gepflogenheiten in der Referentenbesprechung; mit dem Beginn der neuen Ära seit der Jahrtausendwende und bedingt durch die allgemeinen Änderungen am Institut. Das neue Institutsgebäude bietet auch für die Referentenbesprechung sehr viel mehr Platz, zuerst in Raum 014, mit seinen abstrakten großflächigen Gemälden, dann im vornehmen Raum 038, der von großen Bildschirmen für hybride Veranstaltungen dominiert wird und durch dessen Fenster man dem munteren Treiben der Hasen und Kaninchen auf der Institutswiese zuschauen kann; er lässt aufgrund seiner Deckenhöhe auch für hochfliegende Gedanken genügend Raum und jedem genug Luft zum Atmen.

Die Zusammensetzung der wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiterschaft ist bunter geworden. Der Anteil der Frauen ist erheblich gestiegen in Richtung Parität, es werden mehr Ausländer aus aller Herren Länder eingestellt, Deutsch als Kommunikationsmittel wird in der Referentenbesprechung vom Englischen verdrängt, höchstens noch eine Besprechung im Monat findet auf Deutsch statt. Die Mitarbeiter beherrschen nicht mehr alle Deutsch. Auch haben nicht mehr alle Mitarbeiter eine deutsche Juristenausbildung, manche Mitarbeiter kommen aus der Politologie, andere aus der Philosophie, Soziologie oder Geschichtswissenschaft. Damit ändern sich die Gegenstände und das Verfahren der Untersuchungen. Methoden- und Perspektivenvielfalt, die sich in den Vorträgen in der Referentenbesprechung spiegeln, führen zu neuen Erkenntnissen und Verständnissen der rechtlichen Vorgänge in der Welt, bisweilen unter Opferung der guten alten deutschen Dogmatik und einem Anwachsen dessen, was in einem Vortrag erklärt werden muss.

Die Referatszuteilung ist klammheimlich verschwunden, jeder darf nunmehr frei das Vortragsthema in der Referentenbesprechung wählen. Das garantiert eine Liebe des Vortragenden zum – oder jedenfalls ein originäres Interesse am – Thema. Allerdings entfällt damit auch der Anspruch des Instituts, in seiner Forschung die ganze Welt abzudecken. Manche Weltgegenden, in denen große Veränderungen vonstattengehen – wie in der arabischen Welt oder in China – sind aus dem Fokus des Interesses verschwunden und wurden wissenschaftlich gesehen zu terrae incognitae –, andere hingegen, insbesondere Südamerika haben eine zuvor nicht bestehende Aufmerksamkeit gewonnen und zahlreiche Vorträge, bisweilen sogar in spanischer Sprache, führen zu einer besonderen Expertise in dieser Region. Europa und den europäischen Ländern blieb das Institut immer treu.

Nur 40 Jahre Referentenbesprechung. Der Verfasser in seinem Büro 1985[7]

Nur noch zwei Vorträge werden in einer Sitzung angeboten. Sie dauern jeweils bis zu einer halben Stunde, woran sich eine ebenso lange Diskussion anschließt. Dies erlaubt eine Vertiefung der Thematik und eine erschöpfende Erörterung der behandelten Frage. Auch die Darstellungsform hat sich mit der Technik gewandelt. Während in früherer Zeit allein das gesprochene Wort die Information übermittelte, finden heute Vorträge multimedial statt; in der Regel wird jeder Beitrag von einer Präsentation begleitet. Es scheint, dass mit der technischen Revolution die Kapazitäten bei der optischen Verarbeitung von Information erheblich gestiegen sind, während sie bei der akustischen entsprechend abnahmen. Protokolliert wird seit ca. 2005 nicht mehr, die Arbeit schien zu viel; stattdessen gibt es seit 2020 die Möglichkeit, den Vortrag per Video aufzeichnen zu lassen und auf Wunsch des Vortragenden ins Netz zu stellen. Damit bietet sich die Öffnung des Arcanums der Referentenbesprechung für die Welt. Es geht weniger um die Archivierung als um die Verbreitung.

Es traten äußere Lockerungen im strikten Rahmen der Referentenbesprechung ein. Früher undenkbar, ist es nun zu einer Zeitverschiebung des heiligen Termins gekommen: mit Rücksicht auf Familienpflichten und Kinderbetreuungszeiten in Kindergärten wurde die Referentenbesprechung auf 15.30 Uhr vorgezogen, dann sogar auf 14.30 Uhr. Zudem wird jetzt die Referentenbesprechung im August wegen der Urlaubszeiten ausgesetzt und schließlich wird sie nunmehr durch eine, mehr oder weniger, 15-minütige Pause in zwei Einheiten zerlegt. In den Coronazeiten Anfang der zwanziger Jahre entdeckte man das hybride Format, das die Krankheit überlebte. Jetzt weiß man vorab nicht, welchem Mitarbeiter man in Leibhaftigkeit und wem nur in virtueller Form begegnet. Damit eröffnet sich für Kollegen mit einem höheren Spezialisierungsgrad und geringerem Interesse an dem ganzen Panoptikum völker- und verfassungsrechtlicher Themen die Möglichkeit, anwesend zu wirken, aber bei Fragestellungen außerhalb des eigenen Fachgebietes unbemerkt und ungestört die eigene Spezialisierung weiter voranzutreiben.

Inzwischen rauchfrei. Die Montagsrunde 2024[8]

Insgesamt ist die Stimmung in der Besprechung lockerer und freier geworden; niemand muss mehr die Sorge hegen, in ein Kreuzverhör genommen zu werden, auch der Irrtum hat seinen Raum – jetzt im Sinne von Hegel: „Die Angst vor dem Irrtum ist der Irrtum selbst.“ Die Stimmung ist von Wohlwollen geprägt.

Die Anrede änderte sich überwiegend in die vertraulichere Nennung mit dem bloßen Vornamen, was auch den Usancen im Englischen geschuldet ist; man kann nicht in der eigenen Sprache Distanz pflegen und gleichzeitig in der Fremdsprache die Nähe suchen. Auch der Übergang zum Du über alle Generationen und Hierarchien hinweg ist keine Ausnahme mehr.

Am Ende eines Vortrags gibt es jetzt, gewissermaßen als Ausdruck des Dankes, regelmäßig Beifall. Bis weit in die erste Dekade des 21. Jahrhunderts galt es als unschicklich, auch gelungene Vorträge mit Applaus zu bedenken. Denn der Vortrag in der Referentenbesprechung war eine Dienstpflicht, und für die reine Pflichterfüllung wurde seinerzeit kein Beifall gezollt.

Summa summarum

In der Referentenbesprechung wurde über Jahrzehnte von kenntnisreichen Personen neuestes Wissen über die völker- und verfassungsrechtlichen Ereignisse in der Welt vermittelt. An keiner anderen wissenschaftlichen Einrichtung in Deutschland und wahrscheinlich in Europa erhält der interessierte Zuhörer einen solch komprimierten Überblick über die rechtlichen Vorgänge in der Welt. Sie ist das Aushängeschild für den Gegenstand und die Qualität der Arbeit am Institut, auf das gerade auch die ausländischen Gäste aufmerksam schauen.

Die Referentenbesprechung bietet zudem die Möglichkeit, die eigenen Fähigkeiten in der Vermittlung eigener Kenntnisse auszuprobieren und zu üben und dabei die eigenen Überlegungen zur Diskussion zu stellen und zu verteidigen, was zu weiteren Einsichten führen kann. In diesem Sinne ist – und war sie immer – auch eine Schule für das Leben.

Schließlich – und nicht zum Geringsten – hat die Referentenbesprechung über all die Jahrzehnte durch die regelmäßigen Treffen der Mitarbeiter für die Identitätsstiftung des Instituts eine zentrale Rolle gespielt; in dem intensiven Austausch über völker- und verfassungsrechtliche Themen bildete sich ein Esprit de Corps, der die Mitarbeiter zusammenhält und auch die Gäste mit einbezieht und zu Verbindungen führt, die auch nach der gemeinsamen Zeit am Institut fortbestehen. Dies ist ein Erfolg, der weit über die rein wissenschaftliche Erkenntnis hinausreicht.

***

[1] Foto: MPIL.

[2] Foto: MPIL, andere Personen waren nicht identifizierbar.

[3] Foto: MPIL.

[4] Immanuel Kant, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Zweite hin und wieder verbesserte Auflage, Königsberg 1787.

[5] Foto: MPIL.

[6] Foto: MPIL; andere Personen waren nicht identifizierbar.

[7] Foto: MPIL.

[8] Foto: Maurice Weiss.

Reminescience of Ministerial Bureaucracy

If the Institute were to be described by three characteristics that have been common throughout its history, these would be, firstly, its publications – in particular the Schwarze Reihe, which, despite its sinister name, has been a lighthouse in international law for decades – and the Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (English title: Heidelberg Journal of International Law) – an example of the unpronounceability of German to foreign tongues; secondly, the library, which this blog rightly mentions frequently in laudatory terms; and thirdly, the Referentenbesprechung, which has been around as long as the Institute and which, one might say, forms its conditio sine qua non – a condition that cannot be dispensed with without the Institute also ceasing to exist. Its name, or, as one must put it today, its original name, alone is remarkable, for it does not come from an academic nomenclature, but from the vocabulary of ministerial bureaucracy. At university, there are research assistants and junior researchers. A Referent, on the other hand, is a speaker with the duty to contribute his or her special knowledge in a particular field to the general discussion that leads to a decision. This choice of terminology reflects the spirit from which the institute arose: it was intended to serve not just ‘pure science’, i.e. scientific research, but also to provide practical advisory. The founding director Viktor Bruns already expressed himself in this spirit. After his time as a Referent (or research fellow, as the position is called today) at the Institute, its third director Hermann Mosler had worked at the Federal Foreign Office for a long time and saw the Institute’s organisation as a reflection of the ministerial organisation chart.

Of course, each Referent needs a Referat (department), and so international law was divided up into fields and the world into countries or groups of countries, and each field and country were assigned to a research fellow who – for better or worse – continuously monitored it, so that no world event of jurisprudential relevance could escape the Institute’s attention. There were also experts for more remote countries and those access to was challenging linguistically –  for Japan and China (Robert Heuser in the 1970s and 1980s), for the Soviet Union (Theodor Schweisfurth in the 1970s and 1980s), and for India (Dieter Conrad).

The Referentenbesprechung as an Institute-Institution

In addition to the Referent’s duty to observe, there was also a duty to report regularly on all relevant events in the field of the respective department, and promptly at that. The weekly Referentenbesprechung was the forum for this. In the early days of the institute, it took place twice a week, on Tuesdays and Saturdays, and since the 1950s on Mondays between 4 and 6 p.m., a High Mass that was a sacred duty for all academic staff to attend. Dispensation was only granted for the most serious reasons, and even the directors organised their non-institutional activities, such as travel or meetings with Council of Europe bodies, in such a way that they never missed the Monday Meeting. It was never cancelled, and its weekly rhythm was only disturbed by public holidays and a one-week break between Christmas and New Year but resumed on 2 January. After all, the world, including the legal world, never stood still.

The world never stands still. Fritz Münch, Günther Jaenicke, and Rudolf Bernhardt (from left to right) at a Referentenbesprechung in 1972[1]

Regular reporting from one’s own department was expected, and this expectation was internalised by researcher fellows to such an extent that explicit requests from the directors, usually in the form of the question ‘Why haven’t we heard about this or that event?’, were rarely necessary. Regular reports by each Referent on their own initiative were seen as a matter of course. One did not have to reserve time for a presentation in a calendar weeks in advance; handing a small slip of paper with the topic and duration to the secretary of the director chairing the meeting five minutes before it began sufficed. Naturally, eagerness was not distributed perfectly evenly among the researchers. Out of love for the subject or for themselves, some reported very frequently on their respective area or country, even if it was only of minor importance in the world order. There was, for example, the excellent expert on Turkey, Christian Rumpf, who spoke so frequently on Turkey in the 1970s and 1980s that an unbiased listener might have thought that the Turks were still standing at the walls of Vienna. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Commission of Human Rights always enjoyed special attention because the Institute was intertwined with the European institutions – through Rudolf Bernhardt as a judge, later as President of the ECtHR, and through Jochen Abr. Frowein as Vice-President of the European Commission of Human Rights. What happened in Strasbourg was echoed in the Referentenbesprechung.

More germanico. A German Outlook at the World

Referentenbesprechung 1985, with (from left to right): unidentified, Peter Malanczuk, Rainer Hofmann, Willy Wirantaprawira, Werner Meng, Torsten Stein, Karl Doehring, Otto Steiner (covered), Juliane Kokott (in front of Steiner), Lothar Gündling (next to the door), Fritz Münch (in front of Kokott), Matthias Herdegen (sleeping on his chair)[2]

The researchers formed a homogeneous tribe at the time: white, male, German and fully qualified lawyers. There were few women, and few foreigners, most of whom worked on the Encyclopedia of Public International Law. The homogeneity of the composition guaranteed that the legal phenomena in the world were analysed (only) more germanico – according to ‘German methodology and dogmatics’ – and that, accordingly, ‘foreign perspectives’ were not adopted. At the same time, it was ensured that all speakers had gone through the same legal education and therefore had the same solid basic knowledge, especially in German law. This made communication easier; not all questions had to be discussed ab ovo.

The ‘official language’ was German, unquestioned for many years; the foreign guests, who were allowed to take part in the speakers’ meeting and occasionally give presentations, were expected to speak German or at least to learn it, as was the case, for example, with the later President of the European Court of Justice Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias, or the later President of the Spanish Constitutional Court Pedro Cruz Villalón, or the former President of the Russian Constitutional Court Vladimir Tumanov. It was only at the turn of the millennium, at the suggestion of the Israeli professor Yoram Dinstein, that the Monday Meeting began to be held in English two times a month.

From the Transfer of Knowledge to a Debate of Researchers. The Development of the Referentenbesprechung

Meticulously documented. Protocols of Monday Meetings[3]

Initially, I’ve been told – the author of this contribution overlooks only 40 years of meetings from his own experience – the style of the event was primarily “ministerial”, i.e. it was more about imparting knowledge than discussing what had been imparted. The reports were at the centre. It was only in later years, particularly under the aegis of Professor Frowein in the 1980s, that the contributions were subjected to critical discussion by the other participants of the meeting. This discussion was always confined to a limited in time – as were the reports themselves; it was more than a venial sin if the time allotted for a report was exceeded. When Professor Frowein began to fretfully tap the table with his signet ring, it was high time to take the nearest exit from one’s own skilfully constructed body of thought with its abundant intellectual ornamentation – sometimes before it was completed. Here, one could experience Wittgenstein’s thought in practical application: Whereof one cannot speak (for lack of time), thereof one must be silent. The lack of time in the meetings stemmed from the Institute’s aspiration that nothing happening in the world would escape its observation, analysis and reporting. This demanded numerous reports, some of which only five minutes long, so that Monday Meetings with up to eight reports were not uncommon. Following them required a certain flexibility in the listener’s mind: The subjects went from the invasion of Grenada to a quick overview of German asylum law, with a short layover at martial law in Poland and a stop at a decision of the US Supreme Court, plus a look at a French décret-loi, a comment on the new Codex Iuris Canonici, itself taking no longer than the saying of a prayer, before the meeting concluded, as was regularly the case, with the latest decision of the ECHR. However, the brevity of the speeches did not affect their quality; the time constraints forced precision of thought and expression. The listener’s effort in following this cornucopia was rewarded with the feeling of having at least an overview of the world’s legal knowledge.

Politics played no role in the presentations, activism in legal garb was inadmissible, only the pure legal argument counted. Of course, this did not mean that most of the researchers did not have political convictions, only that presentations were not allowed to be based on them. Arguments had to be “court-proof”, i.e. presented in such a way that they could have stood up in a contentious procedure before a tribunal. Academic legal positivism was cultivated in the meetings, without the methodology of the academic enquiry itself being the subject of consideration in the Referentenbesprechung. Philosophy of Law was not an area of interest, and the dogmatic approach cultivated was in Kant’s sense “dogmatic procedure of pure reason without previous criticism of its own powers”[4].

Not Free Trepidation. Debate Culture at the Referentenbesprechung

Karl Doehring (right) with Kay Hailbronner (in the middle) and Ernst-Ulrich Petersman (left), during a Referentenbesprechung 1972[5]

There was no official seating plan for the Referentenbesprechung in the cramped conference room of the old institute building in Berliner Strasse 48, but some seats were unofficially reserved for the directors and remained empty if one of them, by exception, could not make it that day. The atmosphere  was reminiscent of a gentlemen’s club – Professor Doehring, PD Schweisfurth and PD Stein filled the room with tobacco smoke (it still lingering in the books stored in this room thirty years ago). This appearance of coziness contrasted with the style of the scientific debate. The discussion could take on a sharp edge, especially when argumentative weaknesses in the presentation or insufficient legal or factual clarification of the facts were suspected. Some speakers suddenly found themselves in the role of the accused. Therefore, not everyone went into the meeting free of trepidation; they could be a proper test of courage. The Referentenbesprechung was guided by the Biblical principle: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’. No consideration was given to any personal sensitivities. And if a speaker had gone an octave wrong in their legal analysis or had misconceptions about what constitutes a well-founded report, they could well be asked to attend a privatissimum – a kind of academic follow-up – in one of the directors’ rooms after the meeting, which was typically an unpleasant experience for the young researcher in question.

It was customary to address colleagues formally, with Herr (Mister) or Frau (Misses) – or, up until the early 1980s, in the case of unmarried women, such as legal clerks Gerlinde Raub and Sabine Thomsen, with – horribile dictu –Fräulein (Miss), which was used without questionable intentions and simply referred to a “third gender” as it was understood at the time. (This form of address was also used for older unmarried women working in the administration and the library, who rarely protested it.) The signs of a new time that had begun in 1968 could not be felt at the Institute, even 15 years later. The research fellows were on a first-name basis and used the casual Du with each other if they were in the same age cohort, but they generally kept to the formal Sie with anyone who was older. To the author’s knowledge, Professor Mosler did not address anyone at the Institute with Du, not even his successors in the directorship. Professor Münch also addressed everyone as Sie, and Professor Bernhardt, too, has always stuck to the formal ‘Sie’, even with his co-directors, and in some cases after more than forty years of collaboration.

There were protocols of the meetings, mostly written by research assistants who worked at the Institute for a couple of hours each week during their legal clerkship. Keeping track required the utmost attention, mostly because of the diversity of the topics and the amount of material to be protocoled. A significant part of the Institute’s activities was archived via these protocols.

A smoke-filled room: The Stammtisch, 1985, with: Werner Meng, Werner Morvay, unknown, Dieter Conrad, Jörg Polakiewicz, and Rainer Hofman.[6]

The Referentenbesprechung was followed by an informal get-together of research fellows and directors over drinks, a so-called Stammtisch. In the 1980s, it took place at the ‘Löwe’, not far from the Institute. Conversations flowed more freely, legal topics were often discussed further, albeit with greater distance, and, as befits a good Stammtisch, political judgements were now admissible. The atmosphere was particularly exuberant at an advanced hour, when only the those who did not mind having an extra drink or two were left at the table – then, even the previously unspeakable was called by name. In the 1990s, this form of socialising became less and less popular and eventually came to a complete standstill due to a lack of participants. Now, that the opening hours of kindergartens determine the date of the Monday Meeting, a Stammtisch immediately following this event has become unthinkable. This form of socialising has died out as times have changed.

Increasingly International and Interdisciplinary. From Referentenbesprechung to Monday Meeting

Ever so slowly, the customs and practices of the Referentenbesprechung changed, along with the times, with the beginning of a new era since the turn of the millennium and due to the general changes at the Institute. The new institute building provides much more space, including for the Monday Meetings, first in room 014, with its large abstract paintings, then in the elegant room 038, dominated by large screens for hybrid events and featuring large windows, through which one can observe the hares and rabbits in the Institute’s garden; it also leaves enough room for high-flying thoughts due to its ceiling height, and there’s plenty of air to breath for everyone.

The composition of the scientific staff has become more diverse: The proportion of women has risen considerably towards parity, more foreigners from all over the world are being recruited. German is being replaced by English in the Referentenbesprechung; today, one meeting a month is held in German, at most. Not all employees speak German anymore. Additionally, not all research fellows have a German law degree; some researchers have backgrounds in political science, others in philosophy, sociology, or history. As a result, the subject matters of their research, as well as the way they conduct it, is changing. A diversity of methods and perspectives, which is reflected in the presentations given at the Referentenbesprechung, leads to new insights and understandings of legal processes in the world, sometimes at the expense of good old German dogmatics and an increase in necessary preliminary explanations in a presentation.

The department structure has quietly disappeared; everyone is now free to choose the topic of their presentation in the Monday Meeting. This ensures that the speaker has a love for – or at least a genuine interest in – the topic. However, this also means that the Institute can no longer aspire to cover the whole world in its research. Some parts of the world where major transformations are taking place – such as in the Arab world or China – have disappeared from the focus of interest and have become academic terrae incognitae, while others, in particular South America, have gained a previously non-existent level of attention and numerous presentations, some even in Spanish, have led to particular expertise in this region. Europe and European countries have always had the Institute’s interest.

Only 40 years of Referentenbesprechung. The author in his office in 1985[7]

Now, at each session, there are only two presentations, each lasting up to half an hour, followed by an equally long discussion. This allows the subject matter to be explored in greater depth and the question at hand to be discussed exhaustingly. Furthermore, the form of presentations has changed with technology. Whereas in earlier times, researchers had to rely on the spoken word alone to convey information, a multimedia format is used today; typically, each contribution is accompanied by slides. It seems that with the technological revolution, the capacity for processing information visually has increased considerably, while the capacity for processing information acoustically has decreased accordingly. Protocols have no longer been written since around 2005, as it seemed like too much work; instead, since 2020 it has been possible to have the presentation recorded on video and, at the request of the speaker, post it online. This opens up the arcanum of the Referentenbesprechung to the world. It is less about archiving and more about dissemination.

There has been a loosening of the strict framework of the speakers’ meeting. Previously unthinkable, the sacred date of the meetings has recently changed: in consideration of family commitments and the opening hours of kindergartens, the speakers’ meeting has been preponed to 3.30 pm, later to 2.30 pm.

In addition, there are no longer any meetings during the month of August, due to holiday periods, and finally, the Monday Meeting is now divided up into two units by a, more or less, 15-minute-long break. During the Covid-19 Pandemic at the beginning of the 2020s, the hybrid format was introduced and survived the pandemic. Now, one cannot know in advance which colleagues one will meet in person and which only virtually. This opens up the possibility for colleagues with a higher degree of specialisation and less interest in the whole panopticon of international and constitutional law topics to appear to be present, but, when discussions concern questions outside their own area of expertise, quietly retreat to further advance their own specialisation, unnoticed and undisturbed.

No more smoking in the conference room. The Monday Meeting 2024[8]

Overall, the atmosphere in the meetings has become more relaxed; no one has to worry about being cross-examined, and there is room for error – now, in the sense of Hegel, “fear of erring is really the error itself”. The atmosphere is characterised by benevolence. Now, the more casual use of first names has become predominant, which is also due to the customs of the English language; one cannot maintain distance in one’s own language while establishing familiarity in a foreign language. The transition to the German ‘Du’, across all ages and hierarchies, is also no longer an exception.

Now, at the end of a presentation, there is applause – as an expression of thanks, so to speak. Until well into the first decade of the 21st century, it was considered unseemly to applaud even the most insightful presentations. After all, reporting at the Referentenbesprechung was a duty, and in those days the mere fulfilment of a duty was not considered worthy of applause.

Summa Summarum

For decades, in the Referentenbesprechung, or Monday Meeting, knowledgeable people have been imparting the latest insight into international and constitutional law in the world. No other academic institution in Germany and probably in Europe provides the interested listener with such a concise overview of legal processes worldwide. It serves to showcase the subject matters, and the quality of work conducted at the Institute, especially to foreign guests.

Furthermore, the Referentenbesprechung offers the opportunity to try out and practise one’s skills in communicating one’s knowledge and to put one’s ideas up for discussion and defend them, which can lead to further insights. In this sense, it is – and always has been – a school for life.

Last but not least, the Referentenbesprechung has played a significant role in establishing the Institute’s collective identity over the decades through the regular meetings. The intensive exchange on topics of international and constitutional law has fostered an esprit de corps that connects researchers with each other and also involves the guests, leading to connections that continue to exist even after their time together at the Institute. This is a success that goes far beyond the pursuit of purely academic knowledge.

Translation from the German original: Sarah Gebel

***

[1] Photo: MPIL.

[2] Photo: MPIL; the other persons could not be identified.

[3] Photo: MPIL.

[4] Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, transl. by J. M. D. Meiklejohn, 2^nd ed. 1787.

[5] Photo: MPIL.

[6] Photo: MPIL.

[7] Photo: MPIL.

[8] Photo: Maurice Weiss.