Constitutional Supremacy and International Treaties in Chile

1.5. Thesis of Constitutional Supremacy

The principle of constitutional supremacy is enshrined in Article 6 of the CPR. As a foundational pillar of institutional values and principles, the interpreter must prioritize this principle, always preferring the interpretation that best reconciles it with any other legal norm.

In accordance with the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, the analysis prior to the ratification of a treaty must:

• Favor the substance of the matters governed by both international and internal standards.
• Review whether any contradiction exists.

If such a contradiction exists, it must be resolved through legislative approval in accordance with the legal quorum established by the Constitution, giving preference to the interpretation of the CPR. Consequently, the thesis of direct application of international law is ruled out, including the possibility that the approval of a treaty could amend the Constitution.

Conclusion on Treaty Incorporation

The thesis of constitutional supremacy regarding the incorporation of treaties must be understood in relation to the preventive supervisory powers of the Constitutional Court. This doctrine is developed to ensure coherence within the legal system, preventing the state from incurring international responsibility due to treaty conflicts. Furthermore, the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing rules ensures that future collisions are avoided.

Resolution of Material Conflicts

Substantive conflicts between international and domestic regulations shall be settled by Parliament, provided the treaty is approved by the required quorum, allowing it to prevail over internal standards.

This thesis effectively avoids collisions between existing legislation and new treaties. Finally, in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 2 of the CPR, prominence must be given to human rights standards contained in international treaties ratified by Chile that are currently in force.