Las novedades dialógicas de la Corte Constitucional a la luz de los postulados del constitucionalismo dialógico

Abstract

Dialogical constitutionalism has positioned itself as one of the most attractive topics for scholars of contemporary constitutional law and democracies in the world. Dialogical constitutionalism is a theory of institutional design that promotes interorganic dialogue, particularly between constitutional courts and parliaments, in order to prevent decisions made by these public institutions from becoming less and less democratic and deliberative. Legal institutions such as the Canadian "notwithstanding" clause, the so-called "legislative responses" and the "political reviews of constitutionality", among other legal figures, have paved the way for the Constitutional Court in countries such as Colombia to implement mechanisms that, at least in their intentionality, promote democratic dialogue. The objective of this research is to analyze dialogic constitutionalism from a theoretical and institutional design point of view, and to establish whether it can be a starting point to attenuate the lack of dialogue between the Court and the Legislature, and thus achieve a regulatory ideal of deliberative democracy, taking into account critical and problematic positions that oppose its viability and desirability. The proposed analysis is based on the study of three specific cases: the declaration of an unconstitutional state of affairs, the exhortation, and the public hearings of the Colombian Constitutional Court as possible incentives to democratic dialogue.