Although the Organization of American States’ Inter-American human rights system has played a key role in the advancement of human rights, its work has recently become controversial. Some leftist governments have alleged bias, criticizing the system as a politicized one that prioritizes certain rights over others and embodies a neoliberal ideology that reflects disproportionate US influence. The system has also faced perceptions of cultural bias from Anglophone Caribbean states. This article tests the veracity of these allegations using statistical analysis of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights decisions. It finds that, even when controlling for a range of relevant factors, there have been significant differences in the Commission’s receptiveness to different types of claims of human rights violations. However, the Commission’s decisions have not exhibited any political or cultural biases. Also, to the extent there has been bias involving the United States, it has arguably been bias against the United States.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
American Convention on Human Rights (Nov. 22 1969). OAS Treaty Series No. 36.
ARRIAGADA Milenko B.G. The New Legitimacy Challenges of Adjudication at the Inter-American Human Rights System in the Context of Latin American Democracies. SJD dissertation American University 2015.
BIRON Carey L. Controversial Inter-American Reforms Process to Continue. [online]. Available at: <http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/controversial-inter-american-reforms-process-to-continue/>
BOYLE Elizabeth H. and THOMPSON Melissa. National Politics and Resort to the European Commission on Human Rights. Law & Society Review 2001 vol. 35 no. 2 pp. 321–44.
BURGORGUE-LARSEN Laurence and ÚBEDA de TORRES Amaya. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Case Law and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011.
CAROZZA Paolo. The Anglo-Latin Divide and the Future of the Inter-American System of Human Rights. Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law 2015 vol. 5 no. 1 pp. 153–70.
CAVALLARO James L. and SCHAFFER Emily J. Less as More: Rethinking Supranational Litigation of Economic and Social Rights in the Americas. Hastings Law Journal 2004 vol. 56 no. 2 pp. 217–82.
CAVALLARO James L. and BREWER Stephanie E. Reevaluating Regional Human Rights Litigation in the 21st Century: The Case of the Inter-American Court. American Journal of International Law 2008 vol. 102 no. 4 pp. 768–827.
Chipping at the Foundations. [online]. Available at: <http://www.economist.com/node/21556599>
CONCEPCIÓN Natasha P. The Legal Implications of Trinidad & Tobago’s Withdrawal from the American Convention on Human Rights. American University International Law Review 2001 vol. 16 no. 3 pp. 847–90.
Correa Calls for New Inter-American Human Rights System. [online]. Available at: <https://www.efe.com/efe/english/life/correa-calls-for-new-inter-american-human-rights-system/50000263-3064355>
DULITZKY Ariel E. Too Little Too Late: The Pace of Adjudication of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review 2013 vol. 35 no. 2 pp. 131–208.
EPSTEIN David et al. Democratic Transitions. American Journal of Political Science 2006 vol. 50 no. 3 pp. 551–69.
GROSSMAN Claudio. Freedom of Expression in the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights. Nova Law Review 2001 vol. 25 no. 2 pp. 411–42.
GROSSMAN Claudio. The Inter-American System of Human Rights: Challenges for the Future. Indiana Law Journal 2008 vol. 83 no. 4 pp. 1267–82.
GROSSMAN Claudio. Challenges to Freedom of Expression Within the Inter-American System: A Jurisprudential Analysis. Human Rights Quarterly 2012 vol. 34 no. 2 pp. 361–403.
HELFER Laurence R. Overlegalizing Human Rights: International Relations Theory and the Commonwealth Caribbean Backlash against Human Rights Regimes. Columbia Law Review 2002 vol. 102 no. 7 pp. 1832–1911.
HOLMUND Caroline. Why Latin America Is Refusing to Follow the US on Human Rights. [online]. Available at: <https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/04/10/why-latin-america-is-refusing-to-follow-the-us-on-human-rights/>
INGLEHART Ronald and WELZEL Christian. Modernization Cultural Change and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005.
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS. The Death Penalty in the Inter-American Human Rights System: From Restrictions to Abolition. Washington: Organization of American States 2011.
MORAVCSIK Andrew. The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe. International Organization 2000 vol. 54 no. 2 pp. 217–52.
NEUMAN Gerald L. Import Export and Regional Consent in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. European Journal of International Law 2008 vol. 19 no. 1 pp. 101–23. OAS Concludes Formal Inter-American Human Rights “Strengthening” Process but Dialogue Continues on Contentious Reforms. [online]. Available at: <http://www.ijrcenter.org/2013/03/24/oas-concludes-formal-inter-american-human-rights-strengthening-process-but-dialogue-continues-on-contentious-reforms/>
OPPENHEIMER Andrés. Trump May Weaken OAS — And Efforts to Restore Democracy in Venezuela. [online]. Available at: <http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article138719758.html>
PICQ Manuela. Is the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Too Progressive? [online]. Available at: <http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/06/2012658344220937.html>
PINTO Mónica. The Crisis of the Inter-American System. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law 2013 vol. 107 pp. 127–29.
President Correa: We Need to Create a Human Rights System for Latin America. [online]. Available at: <http://www.andes.info.ec/en/news/president-correa-we-need-create-human-rights-system-latin-america.html>
PRZEWORSKI Adam et al. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World 1950–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2000.
RIVERA JUARISTI Francisco J. US Exceptionalism and the Strengthening Process of the Inter-American Human Rights System. Human Rights Brief 2013 vol. 20 no. 2 pp. 19–25.
ROGIN Josh. House Panel Votes to Defund the OAS. [online]. Available at: <http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/07/20/house-panel-votes-to-defund-the-oas/>
RUIZ-CHIRIBOGA Oswaldo R. Is Ecuador That Wrong? Analyzing the Ecuadorian Proposals Concerning the Special Rapporteurship on Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Human Rights Brief 2013 vol. 20 no. 2 pp. 26–33.
RUIZ-CHIRIBOGA Oswaldo R. The American Convention and the Protocol of San Salvador: Two Intertwined Treaties. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 2013 vol. 31 no. 2 pp. 156–83.
Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Mar. 18 2013). Reprinted in Basic Documents in the Inter-American System 2011.
SHAVER Lea. The Inter-American Human Rights System: An Effective Institution for Regional Rights Protection? Washington University Global Studies Law Review 2010 vol. 9 no. 4 p. 639–76.
SHELTON Dinah. The Rules and Reality of Petition Procedures in the Inter-American Human Rights System. Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law 2015 vol. 5 no. 1 pp. 1–28.
Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Oct. 31 1979). Reprinted in Basic Documents in the Inter-American System 2011.
WHITE Robin C.A. and BOUSSIAKOU Iris. Separate Opinions in the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review 2009 vol. 9 no. 1 pp. 47–51.
WILSON Richard J. The United States’ Position on the Death Penalty in the Inter-American Human Rights System. Santa Clara Law Review 2002 vol. 42 no. 4 pp. 1159–90.
ZSCHIRNT Simon and MENALDO Mark. International Insurance? Democratic Consolidation and Support for International Human Rights Regimes. International Journal of Transitional Justice 2014 vol. 8 no. 3 pp. 452–75.
Andrea Mortlock Case 12.534 Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R. Report No. 63/08 OEA/Ser.L/V/II.134 doc. 5 rev. 1 (2009).