The doctoral thesis studies the bindingness, enforceability, effectiveness and resistance to the judgments International Court of Justice and its relationship (or collision) with domestic law. In particular, the constitutional territorial clauses in Latin America, with attention to the cases of Colombia, Nicaragua, Salvador and Honduras, and the Nicaragua litigation against Colombia and Peru against Chile. First, the thesis analyzes the rules that proclaim the supremacy of international law in matters of international judgments, as well as the deficiencies of the international system in recognizing the role of domestic law in the enforceability of international law. Likewise, it addresses the recognition or not of international law by constitutional law. It also evaluates the lack of developments in terms of mechanisms to incorporate international judgments into national law in the area of territorial sovereignty, and territorial and maritime delimitation, an urgent matter considering the increase in territorial litigation between Latin American nations. The thesis discusses the myth of the generalized breach of the judgments of the ICJ, to verify its constant compliance even in spite of strong local opposition. Subsequently, through the concepts of enforceability, effectiveness and resistance and backlash to the judgments of the ICJ, the thesis studies the obstacles presented by domestic law in Latin America for the full effectiveness of this type of international judicial decisions; For this goal, the category of constitutionalized forms or mechanisms of opposition to international judgments in the area of territory is proposed.
