La configuración jurídica del conflicto constitucional entre entidades políticas en México y Perú: una perspectiva comparada

Abstract

This article presents a comparative study of the legal technique for resolving disputes between political entities through constitutional adjudication in Mexico and Peru. After offering an explanation of its regulation and the most important criteria of jurisprudence, the study highlights the main differences between these two techniques. It is showed that despite the different intensity of political decentralization of either country, courts which decide these organic disputes (the Mexican Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Peru) have become dynamic players in their respective constitutional systems. The author argues that in both experiences, however, the constitutional jurisprudence does not precise sufficiently the unfinished procedural rules as provided by its legal system. It is concluded that the two courts, each in its particular extent and circumstances, should outline more rigorously such rules, in order to strengthen the legal certainty in the relations between political powers. The main reason why this is observed as necessary is, precisely, that it is a principle in favor of which the procedure of constitutional disputes is institutionalized in democratic States.