Patterns of judicial dialogue between national courts and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Comparative study of how the Supreme Courts of Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and the Constitutional Court of Colombia have reacted to the “control of conventionality” doctrine of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The analysis uses the following variables: the meaning of constitutional provisions about the reception of international norms by domestic law; the status of international treaties of human rights in domestic law; the direct effect of international provisions; and the use of consistent interpretation by courts. The study discovered the following patterns of judicial dialogue between these courts: constitutional clauses opening to international law leads to a change of judicial posture from resistance to engagement or convergence; the constitutional status of international treaties of human rights reinforce their normativity in domestic law and its direct effect; the use of consistent interpretation favors a posture of engagement of the national courts regarding the IACtHR.