Inter-States Disputes Under the Inter-American Human Rights System

Abstract Under the inter-American human rights system, inter-State disputes seem largely irrelevant. Such irrelevance contrasts with the European human rights system, where the amount of inter-State disputes is significant (and growing), and is similar to the African human rights regime, where there is a very low number of inter-State disputes. In more than four decades since the entry into force of the American Convention on Human Rights, there are only two inter-State disputes brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights—one of the two bodies that, along with the Inter-American Court, make up the regional human rights system. The virtual inexistence of inter-State complaints, however, does not mean an absence of human rights disputes among members of the Organization of American States ( oas ). In fact, States resort to other mechanisms to process their disputes. Therefore, to explore how inter-States disputes actually operate under inter-American human rights law, it is necessary to broaden the view and look beyond the specific mechanism of inter-State communications established in the American Convention. This article discusses the two inter-State communications that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has so far examined, and analyses other mechanisms—typically, advisory opinions by the Inter-American Court—that serve as a substitute for inter-State communications. The article shows how oas States use advisory opinions as a covert inter-State dispute mechanism and argues that the Inter-American Court should articulate a clear set of admissibility standards to address this practice.