Consecuencias de la no comparecencia ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia: debate y desarrollos a propósito del caso Nicaragua vs. Colombia
El presente artículo analiza la no comparecencia ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia, motivado por la turbulenta recepción del gobierno colombiano de las sentencias de 2012 y 2016 de la C.I.J en los casos entre Nicaragua y Colombia, con el objetivo de establecer las consecuencias de tal conducta. Metodológicamente, se estudia la jurisprudencia que ha aplicado el artículo 53 del Estatuto y las distintas consecuencias de la no comparecencia en los casos ante la Corte. Mediante un análisis de jurisprudencia, el documento discute la naturaleza de la no comparecencia, sus efectos en la sentencia, los agentes, el derecho aplicable, la evidencia y el procedimiento, para concluir que, aunque sea no comparecer sea un comportamiento permitido a l... Ver más
Guardado en:
1794-2918
2590-8928
14
2017-07-01
9
28
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Jurídicas - 2017
| id |
43aa8084d7c39665d3f6fc97889fca6f |
|---|---|
| record_format |
ojs |
| spelling |
Consecuencias de la no comparecencia ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia: debate y desarrollos a propósito del caso Nicaragua vs. Colombia obligatoriedad de la sentencia Jurídicas Universidad de Caldas Artículo de revista Núm. 2 , Año 2017 : Julio - Diciembre 14 2 acto unilateral del Estado no comparecencia Sarmiento-Lamus, Andrés Arévalo-Ramírez, Walter El presente artículo analiza la no comparecencia ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia, motivado por la turbulenta recepción del gobierno colombiano de las sentencias de 2012 y 2016 de la C.I.J en los casos entre Nicaragua y Colombia, con el objetivo de establecer las consecuencias de tal conducta. Metodológicamente, se estudia la jurisprudencia que ha aplicado el artículo 53 del Estatuto y las distintas consecuencias de la no comparecencia en los casos ante la Corte. Mediante un análisis de jurisprudencia, el documento discute la naturaleza de la no comparecencia, sus efectos en la sentencia, los agentes, el derecho aplicable, la evidencia y el procedimiento, para concluir que, aunque sea no comparecer sea un comportamiento permitido a los Estados Partes, es en general, perjudicial para sus intereses procesales, su defensa del caso y la administración de la justicia internacional como sistema, especialmente en casos tan técnicos como los relativos a delimitación marítima y responsabilidad en materia de alegadas violaciones a derechos soberanos y espacios marítimos. Artículo 53 del Estatuto de la C.I.J Oraison, A. (1998). Reflexions sur l’Institution du Juge ad hoc siégeant au Tribunal du Palais de la Paixen Séance Plénière ou en Chambre ad hoc. Revue Belgique de Droit International, 31, 271, 284. Quintana, J.J. (2015). Litigation at the International Court of Justice: Practice and Procedure. Leiden, Nederland: Brill. Posner, E. (2004). The Decline of the International Court of Justice. U Chicago Law & Economics Olin Working Paper, 233. Pellet, A. (2013). The Case Law of the ICJ in Investment Arbitration. ICSID review, 28(2), 223-240. Peck, C. (1997). Increasing the Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice: Proceedings of the ICJ/UNITAR Colloquium to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Court. ICJ/UNITAR. Paulson, C. (2004). Compliance with final judgments of the International Court of Justice since 1987. American Journal of International Law, 98(3), 434-461. Kohen, M. (2010). Judicial Settlement of Interstate Disputes. Non-appearance (Class materials). Geneva, Switzerland: Graduate Institute. Lauterpacht, E. (2010). The Role of the International law. In Bruylant (Ed.), Le Procés International: Liber Amicorum Jean-Pierre Cot (pp. 185.192). France: Bruylant. Meyer, H. (2002). The World Court in action: judging among the nations. Lanham, US: Rowman & Littlefield. Lauterpacht, H. (1933). The Function of Law in the International Community. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Lamm, V. (2014). Compulsory jurisdiction in international law. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Rosenne, S. (2006). The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920–2005 (4th ed.). Leiden, Nederland: Martinus Nijhoff. Lamm, V. (1986). Some remarks about non appearance before the International Court of Justice. Questions of International Law: Hungarian Perspectives, 3, 11-100. Lachs, M. (1992). Some Reflections on the Nationality of Judges of the International Court of Justice. Pace Yearbook of International Law, 4, 61. 68. Kolb, R. (2013). The International Court of Justice. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing. Kokott, J. (1998). The burden of proof in comparative and international human rights law: civil and common law approaches with special reference to the American and German legal systems (Vol. 3). Leiden, Nederland: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Reisman, M. (1989). Respecting One’s Own Jurisprudence: A Plea to the International Court of Justice. The American Journal of International Law, 83(2), 312-317. Valticos, N. (1977). L’évolution de la notion de juge ad hoc. Revue Hellénique du Droit International, 50. Sarzo, M. (2017). Res judicata, Jurisdiction rationemateriae and Legal Reasoning in the Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia before the International Court of Justice. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 16(2), 224-244. info:eu-repo/semantics/article Text http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREF http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 Zimmermann, A. (2012). Karin Oellers-Frahm, and Christian J. Tams. The Statute of the International Court of justice: A commentary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Schwebel, S. M. (1999). National Judges and Judges Ad Hoc of the International Court of Justice. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 48(4), 889-900. Vega-Barbosa, G. (May 16, 2016). The Admissibility of a Claim of Continental Shelf Rights Beyond 200nm Before an International Tribunal Absent a Recommendation by the CLCS: A Few Words About the ICJ’s 2016 Judgment in Nicaragua v. Colombia. Retrieved from www.ejiltalk.org/author/gvegabarbosa/. I.C.J. (1978). Plateau continental de la mer Egée, arrêt, C. I. J. Recueil 1978. Thierry, H. (2000). Au Sujet de Juge ad hoc. In J. Barberis (Ed.), Liber Amicorum ‘In Memoriam’ of Judge Jose María Ruda (pp. 285-288). Leiden, Nederland: Martinus Nijhoff. Tanzi, A. (1995). Problems of Enforcement of Decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Law Suh, I.R. (1969). Voting Behavior of National Judges in International Courts. American Journal of International Law, 63(2), 224, 230. Singh, N. (1989). The Role and Record of the International Court of Justice. Leiden, Nederland: Martinus Nijhoff. Scobbie, I. (2005). “Une hérésie en matière judiciaire”? The Role of the Judge ad hoc in the International Court. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 4(3), 421-464. Jesus, J.L. (2012). Judges ad hoc in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. In H. Hestermeyer (Ed.), Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum (p. 1661). Nederland: Brill Academic Publishers. Goldsmith, J. (2005). The limits of international law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. I.C.J. (1986). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986. Arévalo-Ramírez, W. (2013). El Fallo sobre San Andrés: El debate de la supremacía del derecho internacional, la obligatoriedad del fallo y el derecho interno constitucional colombiano. In V. Authors, Contribución de la Universidad del Rosario al Debate sobre el Fallo de La Haya (p. 98). Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad del Rosario. The article analyzes the non-appearance before the International Court of Justice motivated by the turbulent reception by the Colombian Government of the 2012 and 2016 sentences of the I.C.J in the cases between Nicaragua and Colombia, with the objective of establishing the consequences of such conduct. Methodologically, the jurisprudence that has applied Article 53 of the Statute, and the different consequences of nonappearance in cases before the Court are studied. Through an analysis of jurisprudence the document discusses the nature of non-appearance, its effects on the sentence, the agents, the applicable law, the evidence and the procedure, to conclude that, although non-appearance is a behavior allowed to the State Parties, it is in general detrimental to its procedural interests, its defense of the case and the administration of international justice as a system, especially in such technical cases as those related to maritime delimitation and liability in relation to alleged violations of sovereign rights and maritime spaces. unilateral act of the State article 53 of the Statute of the Court nonappearance mandatory sentencing Journal article application/pdf https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/juridicas/article/view/3248 Inglés https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ I.C.J. (1974). Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. New Zealand), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974. Alvarez, J. (2013). What are International Judges for? The Main Functions of International Adjudication. In C. Romano, The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (pp. 158 – 178). Jurídicas - 2017 Bekker, P. (2010). Diffusion of Law: The International Court of Justice as a court of transnational justice. In R. Dolzeret, Making Transnational Law Work in the Global Economy: Essays in Honour of Detlev Vagts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cronin-Furman, K.R. (2006). The International Court of Justice and the United Nations Security Council: Rethinking a Complicated Relationship. Columbia Law Review, 435-463. I.C.J. (1973). United Kingdom v. Iceland, Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1973. I.C.J. (1949). Corfu Channel. (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania) Order of 19 November 1949 Assessment of the amount of compensation due from the People’s Republic of Albania: Appointment of Expert, Reports 1949. I.C.J. (1949). Affaire du Détroit de Corfou (fixation dumontant des réparations, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1949. Hernández, G. (2012). Impartiality and Bias at the International Court of Justice. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1, 183. Consequences of non-appearance before the international court of justice: debate and developments in relation to the case Nicaragua vs. Colombia Fry, J. (2010). Non-Participation in the International Court of Justice Revisited: Change or Plus ÇaChange? Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 49, 35-74. Fenwick, C. (1951). He Order of the International Court of Justice in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case. American Journal of International Law, 45(4), 723-727. Elkind, J.B. (1984). Non-appearance before the International Court of Justice: functional and comparative analysis (Vol. 4). Leiden, Nederland: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Eisemann, P.M. (1973). Les effets de la non-comparution devant la Cour Internationale de Justice. Annuaire Français de Droit International 19(1), 351-375. Dubuisson, M. (1964). La Cour Internationale de Justice. Paris, France: LGDJ. Devaney, J. (2016). Fact-finding before the International Court of Justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Publication 2590-8928 1794-2918 10.17151/jurid.2017.14.2.2 2017-07-01 https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/juridicas/article/download/3248/3017 2017-07-01T00:00:00Z 2017-07-01T00:00:00Z https://doi.org/10.17151/jurid.2017.14.2.2 9 28 |
| institution |
UNIVERSIDAD DE CALDAS |
| thumbnail |
https://nuevo.metarevistas.org/UNIVERSIDADDECALDAS/logo.png |
| country_str |
Colombia |
| collection |
Jurídicas |
| title |
Consecuencias de la no comparecencia ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia: debate y desarrollos a propósito del caso Nicaragua vs. Colombia |
| spellingShingle |
Consecuencias de la no comparecencia ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia: debate y desarrollos a propósito del caso Nicaragua vs. Colombia Sarmiento-Lamus, Andrés Arévalo-Ramírez, Walter obligatoriedad de la sentencia acto unilateral del Estado no comparecencia Artículo 53 del Estatuto de la C.I.J unilateral act of the State article 53 of the Statute of the Court nonappearance mandatory sentencing |
| title_short |
Consecuencias de la no comparecencia ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia: debate y desarrollos a propósito del caso Nicaragua vs. Colombia |
| title_full |
Consecuencias de la no comparecencia ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia: debate y desarrollos a propósito del caso Nicaragua vs. Colombia |
| title_fullStr |
Consecuencias de la no comparecencia ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia: debate y desarrollos a propósito del caso Nicaragua vs. Colombia |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Consecuencias de la no comparecencia ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia: debate y desarrollos a propósito del caso Nicaragua vs. Colombia |
| title_sort |
consecuencias de la no comparecencia ante la corte internacional de justicia: debate y desarrollos a propósito del caso nicaragua vs. colombia |
| title_eng |
Consequences of non-appearance before the international court of justice: debate and developments in relation to the case Nicaragua vs. Colombia |
| description |
El presente artículo analiza la no comparecencia ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia, motivado por la turbulenta recepción del gobierno colombiano de las sentencias de 2012 y 2016 de la C.I.J en los casos entre Nicaragua y Colombia, con el objetivo de establecer las consecuencias de tal conducta. Metodológicamente, se estudia la jurisprudencia que ha aplicado el artículo 53 del Estatuto y las distintas consecuencias de la no comparecencia en los casos ante la Corte. Mediante un análisis de jurisprudencia, el documento discute la naturaleza de la no comparecencia, sus efectos en la sentencia, los agentes, el derecho aplicable, la evidencia y el procedimiento, para concluir que, aunque sea no comparecer sea un comportamiento permitido a los Estados Partes, es en general, perjudicial para sus intereses procesales, su defensa del caso y la administración de la justicia internacional como sistema, especialmente en casos tan técnicos como los relativos a delimitación marítima y responsabilidad en materia de alegadas violaciones a derechos soberanos y espacios marítimos.
|
| description_eng |
The article analyzes the non-appearance before the International Court of Justice motivated by the turbulent reception by the Colombian Government of the 2012 and 2016 sentences of the I.C.J in the cases between Nicaragua and Colombia, with the objective of establishing the consequences of such conduct. Methodologically, the jurisprudence that has applied Article 53 of the Statute, and the different consequences of nonappearance in cases before the Court are studied. Through an analysis of jurisprudence the document discusses the nature of non-appearance, its effects on the sentence, the agents, the applicable law, the evidence and the procedure, to conclude that, although non-appearance is a behavior allowed to the State Parties, it is in general detrimental to its procedural interests, its defense of the case and the administration of international justice as a system, especially in such technical cases as those related to maritime delimitation and liability in relation to alleged violations of sovereign rights and maritime spaces.
|
| author |
Sarmiento-Lamus, Andrés Arévalo-Ramírez, Walter |
| author_facet |
Sarmiento-Lamus, Andrés Arévalo-Ramírez, Walter |
| topicspa_str_mv |
obligatoriedad de la sentencia acto unilateral del Estado no comparecencia Artículo 53 del Estatuto de la C.I.J |
| topic |
obligatoriedad de la sentencia acto unilateral del Estado no comparecencia Artículo 53 del Estatuto de la C.I.J unilateral act of the State article 53 of the Statute of the Court nonappearance mandatory sentencing |
| topic_facet |
obligatoriedad de la sentencia acto unilateral del Estado no comparecencia Artículo 53 del Estatuto de la C.I.J unilateral act of the State article 53 of the Statute of the Court nonappearance mandatory sentencing |
| citationvolume |
14 |
| citationissue |
2 |
| citationedition |
Núm. 2 , Año 2017 : Julio - Diciembre |
| publisher |
Universidad de Caldas |
| ispartofjournal |
Jurídicas |
| source |
https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/juridicas/article/view/3248 |
| language |
Inglés |
| format |
Article |
| rights |
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Jurídicas - 2017 |
| references_eng |
Oraison, A. (1998). Reflexions sur l’Institution du Juge ad hoc siégeant au Tribunal du Palais de la Paixen Séance Plénière ou en Chambre ad hoc. Revue Belgique de Droit International, 31, 271, 284. Quintana, J.J. (2015). Litigation at the International Court of Justice: Practice and Procedure. Leiden, Nederland: Brill. Posner, E. (2004). The Decline of the International Court of Justice. U Chicago Law & Economics Olin Working Paper, 233. Pellet, A. (2013). The Case Law of the ICJ in Investment Arbitration. ICSID review, 28(2), 223-240. Peck, C. (1997). Increasing the Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice: Proceedings of the ICJ/UNITAR Colloquium to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Court. ICJ/UNITAR. Paulson, C. (2004). Compliance with final judgments of the International Court of Justice since 1987. American Journal of International Law, 98(3), 434-461. Kohen, M. (2010). Judicial Settlement of Interstate Disputes. Non-appearance (Class materials). Geneva, Switzerland: Graduate Institute. Lauterpacht, E. (2010). The Role of the International law. In Bruylant (Ed.), Le Procés International: Liber Amicorum Jean-Pierre Cot (pp. 185.192). France: Bruylant. Meyer, H. (2002). The World Court in action: judging among the nations. Lanham, US: Rowman & Littlefield. Lauterpacht, H. (1933). The Function of Law in the International Community. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Lamm, V. (2014). Compulsory jurisdiction in international law. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Rosenne, S. (2006). The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920–2005 (4th ed.). Leiden, Nederland: Martinus Nijhoff. Lamm, V. (1986). Some remarks about non appearance before the International Court of Justice. Questions of International Law: Hungarian Perspectives, 3, 11-100. Lachs, M. (1992). Some Reflections on the Nationality of Judges of the International Court of Justice. Pace Yearbook of International Law, 4, 61. 68. Kolb, R. (2013). The International Court of Justice. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing. Kokott, J. (1998). The burden of proof in comparative and international human rights law: civil and common law approaches with special reference to the American and German legal systems (Vol. 3). Leiden, Nederland: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Reisman, M. (1989). Respecting One’s Own Jurisprudence: A Plea to the International Court of Justice. The American Journal of International Law, 83(2), 312-317. Valticos, N. (1977). L’évolution de la notion de juge ad hoc. Revue Hellénique du Droit International, 50. Sarzo, M. (2017). Res judicata, Jurisdiction rationemateriae and Legal Reasoning in the Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia before the International Court of Justice. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 16(2), 224-244. Zimmermann, A. (2012). Karin Oellers-Frahm, and Christian J. Tams. The Statute of the International Court of justice: A commentary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Schwebel, S. M. (1999). National Judges and Judges Ad Hoc of the International Court of Justice. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 48(4), 889-900. Vega-Barbosa, G. (May 16, 2016). The Admissibility of a Claim of Continental Shelf Rights Beyond 200nm Before an International Tribunal Absent a Recommendation by the CLCS: A Few Words About the ICJ’s 2016 Judgment in Nicaragua v. Colombia. Retrieved from www.ejiltalk.org/author/gvegabarbosa/. I.C.J. (1978). Plateau continental de la mer Egée, arrêt, C. I. J. Recueil 1978. Thierry, H. (2000). Au Sujet de Juge ad hoc. In J. Barberis (Ed.), Liber Amicorum ‘In Memoriam’ of Judge Jose María Ruda (pp. 285-288). Leiden, Nederland: Martinus Nijhoff. Tanzi, A. (1995). Problems of Enforcement of Decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Law Suh, I.R. (1969). Voting Behavior of National Judges in International Courts. American Journal of International Law, 63(2), 224, 230. Singh, N. (1989). The Role and Record of the International Court of Justice. Leiden, Nederland: Martinus Nijhoff. Scobbie, I. (2005). “Une hérésie en matière judiciaire”? The Role of the Judge ad hoc in the International Court. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 4(3), 421-464. Jesus, J.L. (2012). Judges ad hoc in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. In H. Hestermeyer (Ed.), Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity: Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum (p. 1661). Nederland: Brill Academic Publishers. Goldsmith, J. (2005). The limits of international law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. I.C.J. (1986). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgment. I.C.J. Reports 1986. Arévalo-Ramírez, W. (2013). El Fallo sobre San Andrés: El debate de la supremacía del derecho internacional, la obligatoriedad del fallo y el derecho interno constitucional colombiano. In V. Authors, Contribución de la Universidad del Rosario al Debate sobre el Fallo de La Haya (p. 98). Bogotá, Colombia: Universidad del Rosario. I.C.J. (1974). Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. New Zealand), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974. Alvarez, J. (2013). What are International Judges for? The Main Functions of International Adjudication. In C. Romano, The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (pp. 158 – 178). Bekker, P. (2010). Diffusion of Law: The International Court of Justice as a court of transnational justice. In R. Dolzeret, Making Transnational Law Work in the Global Economy: Essays in Honour of Detlev Vagts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cronin-Furman, K.R. (2006). The International Court of Justice and the United Nations Security Council: Rethinking a Complicated Relationship. Columbia Law Review, 435-463. I.C.J. (1973). United Kingdom v. Iceland, Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1973. I.C.J. (1949). Corfu Channel. (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania) Order of 19 November 1949 Assessment of the amount of compensation due from the People’s Republic of Albania: Appointment of Expert, Reports 1949. I.C.J. (1949). Affaire du Détroit de Corfou (fixation dumontant des réparations, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1949. Hernández, G. (2012). Impartiality and Bias at the International Court of Justice. Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 1, 183. Fry, J. (2010). Non-Participation in the International Court of Justice Revisited: Change or Plus ÇaChange? Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 49, 35-74. Fenwick, C. (1951). He Order of the International Court of Justice in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case. American Journal of International Law, 45(4), 723-727. Elkind, J.B. (1984). Non-appearance before the International Court of Justice: functional and comparative analysis (Vol. 4). Leiden, Nederland: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Eisemann, P.M. (1973). Les effets de la non-comparution devant la Cour Internationale de Justice. Annuaire Français de Droit International 19(1), 351-375. Dubuisson, M. (1964). La Cour Internationale de Justice. Paris, France: LGDJ. Devaney, J. (2016). Fact-finding before the International Court of Justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. |
| type_driver |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| type_coar |
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 |
| type_version |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| type_coarversion |
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85 |
| type_content |
Text |
| publishDate |
2017-07-01 |
| date_accessioned |
2017-07-01T00:00:00Z |
| date_available |
2017-07-01T00:00:00Z |
| url |
https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/juridicas/article/view/3248 |
| url_doi |
https://doi.org/10.17151/jurid.2017.14.2.2 |
| issn |
1794-2918 |
| eissn |
2590-8928 |
| doi |
10.17151/jurid.2017.14.2.2 |
| citationstartpage |
9 |
| citationendpage |
28 |
| url2_str_mv |
https://revistasojs.ucaldas.edu.co/index.php/juridicas/article/download/3248/3017 |
| _version_ |
1797157998903164928 |