Quasi-voluntarist proposal of international law as law: international encompassing groups
The Confederate States project the existence of a double regulatory system: federal and local. This causes the emergence of collisions and contradictions between both systems, which one would think should be resolved by international law, considering the principle of subsidiarity, however, this is n...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | México |
| Institución: | UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTÓNOMA DE MÉXICO |
| Repositorio: | Problema. Anuario de Filosofía y Teoría del Derecho |
| Idioma: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/18823 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.juridicas.unam.mx/index.php/filosofia-derecho/article/view/18823 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | international law consent rule of recognition international treaties self-contained groups derecho internacional consentimiento regla de reconocimiento tratados internacionales grupos autocontenidos |
| Sumario: | The Confederate States project the existence of a double regulatory system: federal and local. This causes the emergence of collisions and contradictions between both systems, which one would think should be resolved by international law, considering the principle of subsidiarity, however, this is not always the case, either because international law does not regulate that specific case or well, because the State in question has not given its consent and the response is not binding on it. These reflections invite us to contrast the nature of the norms of local law and international law, since while the former is associative, given that they do not necessarily require consent to be binding, the latter, apparently, do require the consent of the States to be binding. that have binding effects. In this article we intend to postulate a possible solution to the problem of conflict between the different normative orders, starting from a quasi-voluntarist position. Quasi-voluntary obligations are those that do not arise from consent, but neither do they arise completely from the roles that States have in the international system. These obligations are born in the core of dominant groups, which we will call self-contained groups in the international sphere, whose role is the creation and socialization of the norms and obligations of international law, ensuring that other groups simply follow them as if they had a duty to do so. To do this, the analysis of the case of the dissimilar immigration regulations between California and Texas within the United States will serve as a reference. |
|---|