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.
We look forward to welcoming you on July 3-5, 2023 for our Annual Conference entitled "Islands and Ocean: Public Law in a Plural World." The conference will take place at the Victoria University of Wellington, in New Zealand.Call For Papers and Panels