Constitutional reasoning under diverse institutional designs generates different policy outcomes. In this article, I operationalize constitutional reasoning as argumentative and conceptual diversity in 15 jurisdictions of Latin America and the Caribbean. Each jurisdiction comprises information on the reasoning employed by the national courts over time (N=640). To compute landmark cases into argumentative and conceptual diversity, I consider items developed by the CONREASON project, as well as my own variables. Using cluster analysis, I group the 15 jurisdictions into two subsets contingent on the reasoning of judges over landmark cases. While the first cluster associates with democracies and high levels of institutionalization, the second displays radical leadership, hybrid regimes, and political instability. Relating argumentative and conceptual diversity with the overall quality of the constitutional reasoning, I report a substantial difference between the identified groups.
As part of the CORE project, the panelists will address the development of the concept of “Rule of law” in Latin America and the Caribbean in a theoretical and practical way, based on statistic data gathered on the definition of the “Rule of Law” in Constitutional Court judgments in the
region as well as sentences of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. They will present their analysis on whether there can be identified a shared understanding of the notion across the continent and will also share their results on whether the Latin American notion differs to the European concept of “Rule of law”. Ultimately, they examine the importance of dialogue and/or cooperation between the different constitutional courts and international organizations in order to develop the concept of “Rule of law”.
The proliferation of new constitutional theories has sparked optimism about law’s transformative character and the paradigmatic turn it might have caused in interpretive methods and reasoning strategies of constitutional courts in Latin America. This paper seeks to empirically analyze the regional patterns of how Latin American courts actually make their decisions and to define the cross-country tendencies of reason-giving interpreted in a rich contemporary context. This paper therefore will go beyond merely juxtaposing the empirical results from each jurisdiction and will seek to explain cross-regional connections, identify model countries and trend-setters, as well as to explain commonalities and specificities of the Latin American regional data will be compared
to the results of the volume on Comparative Constitutional Reasoning, shedding light on Latin American specificities against the global tendencies of constitutional reason-giving.
Discussant – Foundations of Constitutional Reasoning in Latin America.
Discussant – Conceptualising and Measuring Constitutional Reasoning in Latin America
Discussant – Rule of Law: A Key Concept of Constitutional Reasoning in Latin America