Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jillienne Haglund (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: