Abstract
This paper explores constitutional and administrative trials as accountability mechanisms provided by the Mexican legal system. Following Kitrosser (2015) , we understand accountability as the substantive dimension of the rule of law and part of the overall control of power by Congress and the judicial branch. We define accountability as the legal norms that establish control mechanisms whereby a state agency is obliged to inform and justify its action to an authority which judges and sanctions its performance in order to guarantee its compliance with state goals, including the protection of human rights , and to demand certain results (Fierro 2017) , We suggest that amparo and administrative trials are powerful procedures in the hands of citizens for demanding government accountability . We show how, in the Mexican legal system, nullity trials , state liability trials and amparo not only protect the rule of law but also serve as tools for bringing the authorities to account and ordering measures for their improvement. We attempt to show the challenges these procedures still encounter and suggest ways of overcoming them.
Doctorate in Law from the Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la UNAM . LLM from the Georgia University and Master in Philosophy from the Universidad Anáhuac, campus Mayab. Bachelor in Law from ITAM . Nowadays, Ana E. Fierro is Coordinator of the Master in Management and Public Policy and research professor at the CIDE. Her interests are transparency, accountability and responsibility of civil servants. Email: ana.fierro@cide.edu.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
With the Anti-corruption constitutional reform of 2015, the federal and all the state-level administrative courts became independent. See Diagnóstico de Justicia Administrativa; at: http://repositorio-digital.cide.edu/handle/11651/1496.
- 2.
Semanario Judicial de la Federación and Gaceta, Vol. XXIX. 167386. 1a. LIV/2009. Primera Sala. Novena Época (April 2009): 590.
- 3.
SCJN[TA] ; 10a. Época; T.C.C.; S.J.F. and Gaceta; Book XVIII, Vol. 3 (March 2013): 2077.
- 4.
SCJN[TA] ; 9a. Época; 1a. Sala; S.J.F. and Gaceta; Vol. XXIX (April 2009): 592.
- 5.
[TA]; 9a. Época; 1a. Sala; S.J.F. and Gaceta; Vol. XXIX, (April 2009): 592.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
In the SCJN decision A.R. 293/2011 conventional control was limited. This decision determines that when the Mexican Constitution establishes a restriction to a human right it should be upheld regardless of what human rights treatises mandate.
- 9.
Gaceta del Semanario Judicial de la Federación. Medidas de reparación integral por regla general, 2014342. 1a. LIII/2017 (10a.). Primera Sala. Décima Época Libro 42 (May 2017): 469.
References
Ackerman, J. (2008). Más allá del acceso a la información: transparencia, rendición de cuentas y estado de derecho (Mexico City: Siglo XXI).
Argyris, C.; Shon, D. (1997). “Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective”, in: Revista Española de investigaciones sociológicas, 77/78: 345–348.
Asimow, M. (2015). “Five Models of Administrative Adjudication”, in: Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2632711; at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2632711 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2632711.
Behn, R. (2001). Rethinking Democratic Accountability (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press).
Bovens, M. (2010). “Two Concepts of Accountability: Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism”, in: West European Politics, 33,5: 52.
Black’s Law Dictionary (Free Online Legal Dictionary), 2nd Edn.; at: https://blognisaba.wordpress.com/2011/04/24/apa-cmo-citar-el-diccionario-de-la-real-academia-en-lnea/.
Burgoa, I. (2010). Derecho constitucional mexicano (Mexico City: Porrúa).
Cossío, J. (2004). Bosquejos constitucionales (Mexico City: Porrúa).
Ferrajoli, L. (2000). Derecho y razón (Madrid: Trotta).
Fierro, A. (2017). El sistema normativo de rendición de cuentas y el ciclo del uso de los recursos públicos en el orden jurídico mexicano, doctoral dissertation (Mexico City: IIJ UNAM).
García Enterría, E. (2007). La transformación de la justicia administrativa de excepción singular a la plenitud de jurisdiccional (Madrid: Thomson Civitas).
Gil Botero, E. (2013). Responsabilidad Extracontractual del Estado (Bogotá: Temis).
Ginsburg, T.; Tamir, M. (2008). Administrative Law and the Judicial Control of Agents in Authoritarian Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Kitrosser, H. (2015). Reclaiming Accountability (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Lapsley, I. (1995). “Audit and accountability in the public sector: problems and perspectives”, in: Financial Accountability & Management, 11,2 (May): 107–110.
López, S.; Fierro, A.; García, A.; Zavala, D. (2010). Diagnóstico del funcionamiento del sistema de impartición de justicia en materia administrativa a nivel nacional (Mexico City: CIDE).
López, S.; García, A. (2017). Perspectivas comparadas de la justicia administrativa (Mexico City: CIDE).
Magaloni, A. (2017). Diálogos por la Justicia Cotidiana: Diagnósticos conjuntos y soluciones; at: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/79028/Di_logos_Justicia_Cotidiana.pdf.
Mccubbins, D.; Schwartz, T. (2008). “Overlooked: congressional oversight police patrols versus fire alarms”, in: American Journal of Political Science, 28 (25 August): 165–179.
Mulgan, R. (2002). “Accountability: an ever-expanding concept?”, in: Public Administration, 78: 555–573.
Morsi, Z. (2007). “Fundamento de una teoría sobre responsabilidad del estado y su remediación” (Ph.D. dissertation, Mexico: UNAM).
Medellín, X. (2018). “Caso Iguala: Los claroscuros de una polémica sentencia de amparo”, in: Derecho en Acción (Mexico City: CIDE); at: http://derechoenaccion.cide.edu/author/ximena-medellin-urquiaga.
Nohlen, D. (2007). “Jurisdicción constitucional y consolidación de la democracia”, in: Tribunales constitucionales y consolidación de la democracia (Mexico City: Suprema Corte de Justicia), 3: 53.
O’Donnell, G. (2008). Democracia y estado de Derecho. In Más allá del acceso a la información: transparencia, rendición de cuentas y estado de derecho (Mexico City: Siglo XXI): 89–99.
Quintana, K. (2016). “La obligación de reparar violaciones de derechos humanos: el papel del amparo mexicano”, in: ¿Cómo ha entendido la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación los derechos en la historia y hoy en día? Estudios del desarrollo interpretativo de los derechos (SCJN); at: https://www.academia.edu/30840208/La_obligaci%C3%B3n_de_reparar_violaciones_de_derechos_humanos_el_papel_del_amparo_mexicano.
Schedler, A. (2010). ¿Qué es la rendición de cuentas?, Vol. 3 (Mexico City: IFAI).
Soberanes, J. (2018). “El amparo está diseñado para que los ciudadanos pierdan”, in: El Universal; at: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/articulo/jose-maria-soberanes-diez/nacion/el-amparo-esta-disenado-para-que-los-ciudadanos-pierdan (26 June 2018).
Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (June 2011); at: https://www.scjn.gob.mx (2 July 2018).
Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (September 2013); at: https://www.scjn.gob.mx (2 July 2018).
Tena, F. (1984). Derecho constitucional mexicano (Mexico City: Porrúa).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fierro, A.E. (2020). Amparo and Administrative Trials as Accountability Mechanisms in Mexico. In: Le Clercq, J., Abreu Sacramento, J. (eds) Rebuilding the State Institutions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31314-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31314-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31313-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31314-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)