English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
Add to Basket
  Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released
Paper

Parting ways or lashing back? Withdrawals, backlash and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons236881

Soley,  Ximena
Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons236885

Steininger,  Silvia
Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3103666
(Preprint)

http://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0003-E64A-7
(Publisher version)

Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Soley, X., & Steininger, S. (2018). Parting ways or lashing back? Withdrawals, backlash and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. MPIL Research Paper Series, 2018-01. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3103666.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0003-E656-9
Abstract
This paper will analyze instances and threats of withdrawal from the IACtHR in order to assess whether those cases can be qualified as backlash. Backlash often serves as an umbrella term for any form of disagreement, hence, we differentiate backlash from closely connected concepts such as contestation and resistance. In the empirical part of this paper, we examine four cases of withdrawal from the IACtHR or threats thereof, namely Trinidad and Tobago, the Dominican Republic, Peru and Venezuela. The case studies revealed that the criticism against the IACtHR is fueled by a combination of three conditions, i.e. costs of membership, domestic political system, and domestic impact of the judgments. Ultimately, the specific framework of the IACtHR allows for innovative starting points to manage state discontent, in particular the two-tiered structure, the alliance with civil society, and the presence of compliance partners within the state.