Deference and Divergence in Regional Human Rights Courts

Abstract

While charged with similar mandates to enforce international human rights law, the world’s three regional human rights courts have developed divergent approaches to interpreting the extent of their authority over member state governments. This understudied variation has widespread implications for domestic human rights protections. I analyze the origins of regional courts’ interpretations of the boundaries of their jurisdictions and the conditions under which these interpretations shift over time. This research is particularly vital given growing national backlash against international human rights institutions and recent efforts to increase coordination across the regional human rights courts.