Juan Pablo Carbajal-Camberos

This paper presents the results of a systematic literature review examining the evolution of contemporary Theories of Justice, Egalitarianism, and the Principle of Equality of Opportunity in Latin American countries from 2014 to 2024. It seeks to contribute perspectives from the Global South to the philosophical field, thereby enriching the dialogue on how egalitarian justice operates across diverse contexts. The study used three academic databases: Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. A total of 864 articles were initially identified, and after applying the PRISMA methodology, 64 papers were selected according to the established criteria. The analysis reveals that these works reflect a distinctly Latin American approach characterized by: Intrinsic Pluralist Egalitarianism (relational-distributive), Decolonial and Feminist Theoretical Influence, and Pragmatic Equality of Opportunity.

Studies on the impact of colonialism and imperialism on the identity of indigenous communities have primarily focused on aspects such as education, language, and political organization. However, there has been minimal analysis of the effects of these processes on the institutions of punishment and indigenous justice. This article aims to offer a new perspective on the identity of Zapatista communities in Chiapas, Mexico, based on the prosecution and punishment of Absalón Castellanos Domínguez, a lieutenant in 1994. The methodology centers on a “case study” through statements from the 'Comité Clandestino Revolucionario Indígena Comandancia-General' (CCRI), especially those related to the trial of Absalón. The proposal of Garland (1999) that conceives the punishment as a 'social artifact' serves as the basis for interpreting the statements. The results demonstrate that the punishment is a complex institution that reflects cultural codes in a particular society but can also influence its evolution.

This article critically examines Mexico’s 2024–2025 judicial reform, which introduced the popular election of all federal judges, marking an unprecedented institutional change. Drawing on legal philosophy and democratic theory, the paper argues that the reform undermines constitutional guarantees, weakens the protection of fundamental rights, and distorts democratic representation. Rather than enhancing accountability, the reform politicizes the judiciary, erodes judicial independence, and diminishes citizens’ right to impartial adjudication, as reflected in low electoral participation and international criticism. Situating the reform within a broader process of democratic backsliding, the article contends that judicial elections function less as a democratizing mechanism than as a tool of power concentration, posing serious risks to constitutionalism and the human rights discourse in Mexico