ORISTIPOS DE DISCURSO JUDICIAL EN LA GUERRA CONTRA EL TERRMO

A propósito de la Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos en el caso Boumedienne contra Bush

Abstract

The article tries to explain two different attitudes of judges when they confront the problem of deciding who must have the last word in those questions related to collective security. The alternative between a judicial view based in deference and self-restraint, and another one founded in the allegiance to a system of individual rights’ implications, seems decisive to understand the limits of the (so called) “war on terrorism”, and the following responsibilities of the three branches of government. The article was written as a consequence of a recent and important decision of the American Supreme Court, but it tries to establish a general frame of analysis on the difficulties of judicial reasoning in a context of emergency.