ICON S Conference 17 – 19 June 2016 Humboldt University Berlin

Óscar Parra-Vera: Otherness in the Remedies
for Indigenous Peoples: a critical overview of the
Inter-American Human Rights Jurisprudence
Going deeper in the analysis of the role of international
adjudication, the speaker will focus on one of the
most interesting aspects of the IACtHR’s jurisprudence,
i.e. remedies issued for indigenous peoples. He will
argue that in this respect it is possible to see some
progressive approach in recognizing their traditional
values and practices and, at the same time, increasing
attention seems to be paid to their territorial demands.
His presentation will offer some ideas on the major
improvements in this area but will also highlight ambivalences
and contradictions existing in the approach
of the Court. In the final part of the talk, he will explain
which the main obstacles in the implementation of the
judgments have been, in light of his experience as a
legal officer of the IACtHR.
121 MAKING CONSTITUTION(S)
Panel formed with individual proposals.
Participants
Name of Chair
Room
Emmanuel De Groof
Friederike Eggert
Caitlin Goss
Tanasije Marinković
Zoran Oklopcic
David S. Law
Emmanuel De Groof
BE2 E42
Emmanuel De Groof: Invisible Boundaries
within Visible Borders: Who’s Excluded from
“Inclusive” Constitutionmaking Processes?
After constitutional ruptures or constitutional revolutions
interim leaders often call for “inclusive” constitutionmaking
processes. The UN Security Council
too increasingly requires constitutional transitions to
be inclusive and threatens with sanctions against socalled
spoilers trying to derail an inclusive transition.
The paper examines the requirement of “inclusivity” in
constitutionmaking processes in light of the principle of
internal self-determination. It argues that this requirement
is a means of implementing this principle but also
inversely that it may further extend and specify this
principle. Thus arguably internal self-determination is
partly losing its indeterminacy at least to the extent that
(i) the requirement of “inclusivity” has become a mantra
in the context of constitutional transitions and that (ii)
a fine-grained understanding of inclusivity – both as a
rhetorical device and as a (domestic and international)
legal requirement – can be acquired. Finally the paper
engages with the question whether on that double basis
the continuing vitality of said principle can be confirmed.
Friederike Eggert: The role of constitutional
courts in constitution-making
The role of constitutional courts in furthering democracy
through rights adjudication in the transition
phase is well known from Eastern European countries
in the 1990s. Today, with constitution-making increasingly
conducted in a regulated and institutionalized
setting the question arises as to what role constitutional
courts play for promoting constitutionalism in
this specific context. From determining the scopes of
constitution-making to monitoring elections to constituent
assemblies, constitutional courts take an increasingly
important role not only on how a new constitution
is written, but also on their content. In their position
as veto players often called for ad hoc, however, their
impact on the project of writing a constitutions seems
ambiguous. In my research I analyse constitutional
court decisions and their effects on both “customary”
and modern “constitutionalized constitution-making”
in order to solve the apparent contradiction.
Concurring panels 170