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.