Most studies examining the effectiveness of international human rights law treat international human rights institutions as equally (un)influential on state behavior. I argue that institutional design explains variation in state response to international human rights law. Using the institutions in the Inter-American Human Rights System (Court and Commission), I argue that judgments from the highly legalized body (Court) are associated with human rights improvements, while decisions from the less legalized body (Commission) are associated with a greater likelihood of formal complaints. Using the Ill-Treatment and Torture data and original data on Commission decisions, I find support for these expectations.
|Number of pages||18|
|Journal||Conflict Management and Peace Science|
|State||Published - Nov 1 2019|
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
I thank participants of the 2018 International Studies Association Panel on Will H. Moore’s Legacy, participants of the University of Kentucky Brown Bag series, Courtenay Conrad, Ryan Welch, as well as editors and reviewers of CMPS for their constructive feedback. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
© The Author(s) 2019.
- Human rights
- international courts
- international law
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Economics and Econometrics
- Political Science and International Relations