TY - JOUR
T1 - The international authority of the inter-american court of human rights
T2 - A critique of the conventionality control doctrine
AU - Contesse, Jorge
N1 - Funding Information:
For their valuable comments at different stages of this project, I am grateful to Vera Bergelson, Jean-Marc Coicaud, Melissa Durkee, Maggie Gardner, Rebecca Hamilton, Adil Haque, Neha Jain, Rachel Lopez, Chrystin Ondersma, Ryan Scoville and Marcelo Torelly. Special thanks are due to Par Engstrom, Courtney Hillebrecht and Sabrina Safrin. Participants at the 2015 University College London workshop ‘The Politics of Institutional Change’; the 2016 International Society of Public Law (ICON-S) Annual Conference, and the 2017 Junior International Law Scholars Association Annual Workshop, provided helpful comments. All remaining errors are my own.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2018/10/21
Y1 - 2018/10/21
N2 - This article discusses the constitutional turn in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ recent jurisprudence, exemplified in the adoption of the conventionality control doctrine. Building on previous work and inquiring for the first time into the legal theory of Judge Sergio García Ramírez, who created the doctrine, I show that conventionality control lacks solid legal footing and reveals a problematic understanding of the Inter-American Court as a regional constitutional tribunal. I propose, therefore, an alternative account of the doctrine that rests more on state practice. Reviewing how two states, Peru and Argentina, have internalised the Inter-American Court’s case law on amnesty laws – a prominent feature of the court’s jurisprudence – I argue that the court should embrace such domestic developments to, first, provide a robust justification for its assertion of international authority; and second, to strengthen the court in the face of increasing challenges and criticisms raised by states and other actors.
AB - This article discusses the constitutional turn in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ recent jurisprudence, exemplified in the adoption of the conventionality control doctrine. Building on previous work and inquiring for the first time into the legal theory of Judge Sergio García Ramírez, who created the doctrine, I show that conventionality control lacks solid legal footing and reveals a problematic understanding of the Inter-American Court as a regional constitutional tribunal. I propose, therefore, an alternative account of the doctrine that rests more on state practice. Reviewing how two states, Peru and Argentina, have internalised the Inter-American Court’s case law on amnesty laws – a prominent feature of the court’s jurisprudence – I argue that the court should embrace such domestic developments to, first, provide a robust justification for its assertion of international authority; and second, to strengthen the court in the face of increasing challenges and criticisms raised by states and other actors.
KW - Amnesty laws
KW - Conventionality control
KW - Inter-American court of human rights
KW - Legitimacy
KW - Supraconstitutional authority
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85038090567&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85038090567&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13642987.2017.1411640
DO - 10.1080/13642987.2017.1411640
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85038090567
SN - 1364-2987
VL - 22
SP - 1168
EP - 1191
JO - International Journal of Human Rights
JF - International Journal of Human Rights
IS - 9
ER -