The liberal and republican arguments about the Law on the Expiration of the Punitive Claims of the State: a look from the position of the actors in the political system
Most of the crimes against human rights committed by the Uruguayan government during the military dictatorship period remain unpunished. This is due in part, by the adoption in 1986 of Law on the Expiration of the Punitive Claims of the State, limiting the judiciary to intervene over such crimes. Ho...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Spanish |
| Published: |
Universidad Nacional, Costa Rica
2016-04-01
|
| Series: | Revista Latinoamericana de Derechos Humanos |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.revistas.una.ac.cr/index.php/derechoshumanos/article/view/8025/9052 |
| Summary: | Most of the crimes against human rights committed by the Uruguayan government during the military dictatorship period remain unpunished. This is due in part, by the adoption in 1986 of Law on the Expiration of the Punitive Claims of the State, limiting the judiciary to intervene over such crimes. However, policy discussions about the violations of human rights are still present and far from an endpoint. The actors of the political system have taken very different positions over this matter with changes according to the political situation of the country. In this article, we present the liberal and republican positions of these actors to argue their attitude towards the old theoretical discussion of human rights and popular sovereignty. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1659-4304 2215-4221 |