Sistema Regional de Información
en línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina,
el Caribe, España y Portugal

The reform of March 2021 has generated a lot of tension in the journalistic area and seems to herald a lot of reflections in the academic field of law. However, to date, a good part of the discussions have focused on descriptively replicating its content, as well as on the short-term consequences. So, it is considered essential to move towards a discussion that inserts other variables that allow the fabric to become denser, in order to walk towards a much more comprehensive solution. This analysis puts into debate two of the articulating axes of the reform: the system of precedents, and the fight against corruption, placing special emphasis on some gaps, but, above all, pointing out its inability to solve problems of a structural nature. This insolvency results from a lack of reflection on the socio-historical fabric that, under the present reading, will lead to its results being modest, inoperative and/or even causing the intensification of the problems it intends to solve.

Emotional intelligence is vital for the proper development of the personality. In the case of judges, the behavior and process of the administration of justice are fundamental to the rule of law. However, little attention has been paid to the issue of the emotional conditions of judges, which directly or indirectly affect individuals and court administrative personnel. Several health institutions have demonstrated the connection between people’s mental and physical health, which not only implies the absence of disease, but also a healthy and suitable lifestyle to perform their work properly. In this specific case, this article aims to show how judges´ good or bad emotional health can affect the decisions made in their courts and the importance of their effects on the people who need to abide by such rulings. It is imperative to continue requesting that the judicial authorities have the necessary resources to ensure they can do their work properly and the judgments issued are not hampered by health factors. Finally, it should be mentioned that this article also analyzes judges’ behavior and thus raises awareness about the effects of mental and physical health, as it has an impact on the jurisdictional processes to which judges are party.

The objective of this article is to study the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the Brazilian judiciary in order to assess the likelihood that machines could ultimately replace the judge, and to identify the necessary conditions that might allow for such replacement. To this end, we will examine the relevant concepts related to AI and the scholarship addressing the possibility of replacing the judge with machines in the near future. The methodological procedure used was doctrinal research specific to both new technologies and artificial intelligence. Our conclusion is that AI will reduce the cost of the judicial machinery by allowing many relatively simple and frequently occurring judicial tasks to be resolved more quickly, while leaving ultimate responsibility for judicial decision-making with the judge. Replacement of the judge by automated algorithmic tools would require specific, necessary conditions, even if it were to promote efficiency and cost reduction. These conditions are (i) the adequacy and efficiency of AI generated results, and (ii) the ability of computerized routines to adapt and improve the quality of their application of the law by accommodating and incorporating human corrections of the automated decisions. We also diagnose the philosophical issue that replacing judges with machines might signal a possible “end of interpretation,” even though ongoing human inspection and correction of the computerized systems would be necessary.

New Originalism stresses the original public meaning, not the semantic intentions of the framers. This requires a reformulation of the two main activities of every constitutional practice. First, interpretation implies discovering the original public meaning, i.e., what the ordinary users of language intended to mean through constitutional provisions. Second, constitutional construction is a subsequent stage of interpretation, as it involves giving effect or implementing those provisions, mainly if they are vague or ambiguous. In this article, I contribute to that ongoing debate by resorting to one of the most well-known law philosophers from Latin America: Carlos S: Nino. I shall claim that his scholarship may pose an actual and significant contribution to one of the toughest challenges of New Originalism: how to construct our constitutions. Although I will not label Nino as an originalist, he elaborates three requirements that could be very useful for constructing constitutional provisions: (i) to secure democratic processes; (ii) to respect individual rights, and (iii) the preservation of continuous legal practice.

This article aims at describing the status of migration of Mexican legal scholars around the world. It defines who a legal researcher is, who performs and gets paid for this activity in Mexico and explains why the most common teaching method in law classrooms (magister dixit), alongside other factors like centralization, drastically hinders the production of original legal knowledge in Mexican law schools. The article presents data obtained through a survey presented to National Council for Science and Technology (CONACyT) scholarship recipients who studied abroad between 2012 and 2020. With said information, the author asserts that Mexico City students monopolized the scholarships to study abroad during the period in question. Moreover, evidence points out that most students awarded a scholarship came from socioeconomically privileged backgrounds, even though their schools did not produce original legal research. The article concludes with the assessment that the legal education system, the lack of academic professional opportunities and poor wages offered by the academia leave Mexican graduate law students with no other alternative than to join the private sector or effectively remain in the country where they decide to study.

In order to accomplish the aim of this article, we discuss law enforcement in Mexico and the United States from three angles. The international principles approach on the issue, constitutional lines, and several cases from their corresponding Supreme Courts, as well as the existing framework and mechanisms of police procedures for institutional accountability. In the first section, we assume that international standards have a weak influence in shaping domestic approaches to law enforcement. In the second section, we describe how, through case law, constitutional principles expand or restrain police abuse. While in the third one, we deal with internal or external processes and mechanisms of accountability for the police. The analysis of these three aspects is not purely normative, it addresses background elements on how police abuse is defined, instigated, or tolerated, both by institutional and even “legal” practices.

This article argues that digitalization (which includes legal process automation) is a tool for bridging the gap of access to justice and improving operational performance through features that are scalable, standardized, asynchronous and accessible. Firstly, the article provides an introduction to digital justice and technology use in legal services, including subsections about the countries that are leading the way in digital justice. This article also develops an implementation proposal, using Mexico and the first-contact interview of the Federal Institute of Public Defenders (FIPD) as a possible example of legal process automation. Thus, the third section offers background information on access to justice in Mexico and the FIPD, as well as some ideas on the complexities of a first contact interview, and what elements should be taken into account when automating this process (software, databases, plain language and design). The final section presents the interview prototype through which the principles and ideas discussed in the previous sections are put into practice, ultimately demonstrating the feasibility of the proposal.

Transformative constitutionalism is a current of legal thought based on the belief that constitutional judges can play a key role in promoting social change and expanding constitutional rights. Another current, feminist constitutionalism, seeks to remedy deficiencies resulting from the failure of the law and constitutions to sufficiently protect the rights of women. These two constitutionalist currents could be regarded as constituting an unnecessary conceptual separation, since they share a fundamental convergence in their view of the important role constitutional judges can play in the advancement of women’s rights. This note argues that the underlying principles of the various currents of constitutionalism rest on the same legal foundation, that is, a legal system comprised of a constitution with normative force and an institutionalized system of constitutional justice. As a result, the practice of transformative constitutional adjudication is a more realistic and constructive means by which to foster transformative social change than either of the aforementioned constitutionalisms since it does not require the institutionalization of a specific constitutional framework. All that is required is the transformative conviction of the constitutional judges themselves. This note is organized in the following way: first, I analyze the concept of constitutionalism in general; second, I explain transformative constitutionalism; third, I describe feminist constitutionalism; fourth, I propose the concept of transformative constitutional adjudication that combines principles from both of the previously reviewed constitutionalisms; fifth, I examine eight specific cases from various countries where transformative constitutional adjudication was employed in the resolution of the constitutional issue raised.

According to reports released by México Evalúa in October of 2021, the current rate of impunity for violent crimes in Mexico is estimated to be 94.8% and this is occurring as the number of homicides and disappearances continues to rise nationwide. To understand how the country remains caught in a perpetual state of extreme violence requires a deeply complex and multi-faceted analysis to determine which specific institutional deficiencies in Mexico might be contributing to the rise and ongoing dominance of organized crime. This article seeks to provide a concise yet broad perspective from which to begin to answer such questions by addressing the problematic development of Mexico’s justice system from the adoption of the 1917 Constitution to the present day, the endemic corruption at all levels of government and security institutions, the tactical imbalances between law enforcement and organized crime due to misuse of funding and illegal arms trafficking, and the failed attempts at bilateral cooperation with the US despite the two nations’ shared interest in disempowering the drug cartels. This comprehensive overview will provide a foundation from which possible solutions will be examined. These solutions include policy changes related to the relationship between the US and Mexico which could improve bilateral cooperation in combatting crime and corruption despite the recent diplomatic breakdown involving the US Drug Enforcement Agency’s arrest and subsequent release of Mexican General Salvador Cienfuegos. Reforms of the justice and law enforcement systems will then be explored which will include proposals that encourage the involvement of international institutions such as the United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances and the International Criminal Court.