Definition of DNU (Argentina)

In most constitutional texts the possibility is contemplated that the government of a nation can adopt exceptional measures to deal with situations of emergencysuch as catastrophes, terrorist threats, general strikes, etc. In this sense, in Argentina there are DNUs or Decrees of Necessity and Urgency.

They are a type of decrees with the character of law, issued by the executive power and not for him legislative power. This type of law is contemplated in the Constitution Argentina since 1994.

To understand in what context these decrees can be applied, it is necessary to start from the following premise: Argentina is a Democratic Republic representative in nature and with a unipersonal executive power. Thus, these decrees of necessity and urgency are promoted by the president of the nation in an exceptional social context and, therefore, must be applied urgently.

Throughout the history of the DNUs, several presidents have resorted to them because they did not have enough parliamentary support to enact these types of laws with some speed. In this sense, the DNU can be understood as a kind of unlimited power of the president. However, these decrees must be subsequently approved by the Argentine Congress.

What is the origin of DNUs?

The historical origin of this type of decrees can be found in the second half of the 20th century, when consecutive military governments used this strategy legal to apply its laws at will. Subsequently, the DNUs were used in the National Reorganization Process. In the 1990s, the government of Carlos Menem launched this measure, which continues to this day.

A controversial issue

DNUs are associated with controversy. Thus, in these decrees it is not specified what is the term that the congress has to give validity to the decree, so that it may take years for Congress to treat such a decree, a circumstance that has already occurred in several occasions. On the other hand, the detractors of the DNU denounce that these decrees are only rejected with the explicit refusal of both chambers.

Finally, the most controversial point of view falls on a more abstract idea: that the executive power cannot make laws, otherwise the principle of separation of powers is in danger.

Photo: Fotolia - Om Yos