Book Project
The Promise and Peril of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Members of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Shading illustrates variation in the number of compliance orders received from the Court; darker shades indicate more compliance orders.
My book project is about the Inter-American Court of Human Right's dual roles as enforcer and creator of human rights in Latin America and the increasing tension between them. Through its role as enforcer, the Inter-American Court focuses on improving states' current human rights practices and remedying past abuses. As creator, the Court is more aspirational, setting standards for human rights that may not be achievable yet, but are desirable. However, these roles may conflict when the Court's aspirational goals lead it to advance human rights norms past the point of what is currently enforceable within the societies it serves.
The first half of the book, which is based on my dissertation, focuses on the fixed and circumstantial challenges to compliance. By fixed challenges, I mean the background and institutional conditions of the Court's existence --- the kinds of states that joined and when; institutional rules that dictate what kinds of cases move forward --- that are largely outside of the Court's control. These managerial challenges limit states' capacity to comply in important ways. I then turn to the circumstantial challenges, or those that reflect the current political conditions in which the Court operates. I show that in some of its most consequential rulings, the Court functions as an anti-majoritarian institution, ordering remedies for human rights violations that citizens do not necessarily want. In particular, I show that in cases implicating the military, the domestic leader's probability of compliance varies depending on public attitudes toward the military, as well as the extent to which those opinions need be taken into account.
The second half of the book focuses on the Court's aspirational role as creator of new norms in three areas. First, the Inter-American Court has advanced jurisprudence on restitutio in integrum for human rights violations, or what it truly means to make a victim of a human rights violation whole. Second, the Court has adopted expansive rules on state responsibility that allow for attribution of crimes that began prior to the state's acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction and, in some cases, for crimes that were actually committed by non-state actors. Finally, the Court's opposition to amnesty laws has prompted a variety of domestic responses, including at least one instance in which a state overturned its amnesty law on the basis of the Court's ruling against an entirely different state (which, coincidently, has yet to overturn its own law). This illustrates how even in instances of non-compliance, the Court's rulings may still effect change.
The first half of the book, which is based on my dissertation, focuses on the fixed and circumstantial challenges to compliance. By fixed challenges, I mean the background and institutional conditions of the Court's existence --- the kinds of states that joined and when; institutional rules that dictate what kinds of cases move forward --- that are largely outside of the Court's control. These managerial challenges limit states' capacity to comply in important ways. I then turn to the circumstantial challenges, or those that reflect the current political conditions in which the Court operates. I show that in some of its most consequential rulings, the Court functions as an anti-majoritarian institution, ordering remedies for human rights violations that citizens do not necessarily want. In particular, I show that in cases implicating the military, the domestic leader's probability of compliance varies depending on public attitudes toward the military, as well as the extent to which those opinions need be taken into account.
The second half of the book focuses on the Court's aspirational role as creator of new norms in three areas. First, the Inter-American Court has advanced jurisprudence on restitutio in integrum for human rights violations, or what it truly means to make a victim of a human rights violation whole. Second, the Court has adopted expansive rules on state responsibility that allow for attribution of crimes that began prior to the state's acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction and, in some cases, for crimes that were actually committed by non-state actors. Finally, the Court's opposition to amnesty laws has prompted a variety of domestic responses, including at least one instance in which a state overturned its amnesty law on the basis of the Court's ruling against an entirely different state (which, coincidently, has yet to overturn its own law). This illustrates how even in instances of non-compliance, the Court's rulings may still effect change.
Other projects
"Settle or Litigate? Consequences of Institutional Design in the Inter-American System of Human Rights Protection". Review of International Organizations (2021)
"'Fix for the Future, Not for the Past': Democratic Accountability and Non-Compliance with International Law." Under review. [Working paper]
"From `Is It Identified?' to 'How Much Confounding Would It Take?' The Sensitivity-Based Approach to Observational Studies" (with Chad Hazlett). Under review. [Working paper] [Poster presented at PolMeth 2018]
"Democratic Lock-in and the American Convention on Human Rights" (with Andrew Moravcsik and Cassandra Emmons). Working paper draft available on request.
"In Defense of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights." Working paper draft available on request.
"The Politics of Punishment: Why Non-Democracies Join the International Criminal Court" (with Leslie Johns). Work in progress.
