¹ See Bloodgood, Elizabeth, Book Review: Beth Simmons, Mobilizing for Human Rights, 125 Political Science Quarterly (PSQ) 521 (2010); David Cingranelli, Book Review: Beth Simmons, Mobilizing for Human Rights, 32 Human Rights Quarterly (HRQ) 761 (2010); Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, Book Review: Beth Simmons, Mobilizing for Human Rights, 104 American Journal of International Law (AJIL) 538 (2010); Hans Peter Schmitz, Book Review: Beth Simmons, Mobilizing for Human Rights, 8 Perspectives on Politics 994 (2010).Google Scholar

² Simmons, Beth, Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics, 17 (2009). The title of Chapter 1 is “Why International Law? The Development of the International Human Rights Regime in the Twentieth Century.”Google Scholar

³ Simmons mentions that her ideas will also be tested on the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (see Simmons, supra note 2). However, this treaty plays, if any, a very marginal role in her study.Google Scholar

⁴ Simmons, supra note 2, at 76.Google Scholar

⁵ Simmons, supra note 2, at 77.Google Scholar

⁶ Here, I admit a certain bias, by virtue of my national, constitutional perspective. Internationalists seem to be much more puzzled by the cases of false positives. See for instance, Hafner-Burton, supra note 1, at 539.Google Scholar

⁷ For instance, the United States’ refusal to ratify the American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San Jose), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (besides Somalia, the United States is the only country that did not ratify the CRC). For more details on this and also on other meanings of the expression “American exceptionalism,” see Ignatieff, Michael, Introduction: American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, in American Exceptionalism and Human Rights 1 (Michael Ignatieff ed., 2005).Google Scholar

⁸ See for instance, Hafner-Burton, supra note 1, at 539.Google Scholar

⁹ Simmons, supra note 2, at 68.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Id. at 69.Google Scholar

¹¹ Id. at 71.Google Scholar

¹² The only other possible example would be Nigeria, a presidential and federal country. However, the common law system in Nigeria is mixed with religious elements. See Dina, Yemisi, Akintayo, John & Ekundayo, Funke, Guide to Nigerian Legal Information (2010), available at: http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Nigeria1.htm (last accessed: 23 December 2011).Google Scholar

¹³ Simmons, supra note 2, at 18.Google Scholar

¹⁴ As it would be the case for the death penalty in the United States. See Simmons, supra note 2, at 69.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Simmons, supra note 2, at 70.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Id. at 72.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Id. at 15.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Id. at 77.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Id. at 72.Google Scholar

²⁰ Id. at 125.Google Scholar

²¹ Id. at 126.Google Scholar

²² Id. at 127.Google Scholar

²³ Id. at 128.Google Scholar

²⁴ Among other examples, she argues, for instance that “[a] sympathetic government might not have wanted to spend the political capital to raise the issue of the death penalty, but the existence of the second optional protocol of the ICCPR raises the question of whether the government wants to go on record in this regard.” Simmons, supra note 2, at 127.Google Scholar

²⁵ Simmons, supra note 2, at 128.Google Scholar

²⁶ For the case of Latin America, see for instance, Negretto, Gabriel L., Government Capacities and Policy Making by Decree in Latin America: The Cases of Brazil and Argentina, 37 Comparative Political Studies (CPS) 531 (2004); Joseph M. Colomer & Gabriel L. Negretto, Can Presidentialism Work Like Parliamentarism?, 40 Government and Opposition 60 (2005).Google Scholar

²⁷ Simmons, supra note 2, at 130.Google Scholar

²⁸ Id. at 131.Google Scholar

²⁹ See for instance, Virgílio Afonso da Silva & Terrazas, Fernanda Vargas, Claiming the Right to Health in Brazilian Courts: The Exclusion of the Already Excluded?, 36 Law & Social Inquiry (LSI) 825 (2011).Google Scholar

³⁰ For this last distinction, see for instance, Alexy, Robert, Theorie der Grundrechte, 179–180 (2nd ed., 1994) (English translation: Robert Alexy, A Theory of Constitutional Rights, 126–127 (tr. Julian Rivers, 2002). According to Alexy, rights to positive acts can be divided into two groups— those having factual acts as their objects, and those having normative acts as their objects.Google Scholar

³¹ See for instance, Alexy, Robert, Recht, Vernunft, Diskurs (Law, Reason, Discourse) 262 (1995); Horst Dreier, Dimensionen der Grundrechte (Dimensions of the Fundamental Rights, 1993); Hans D. Jarass, Die Grundrechte: Abwehrrechte und objektive Grundsatznormen (The Fundamental Rights: Defense Rights and Objective Norms), in Festschrift 50 Jahre Bundesverfassungsgericht (Years of the Federal Constitutional Court) 35 (Peter Badura & Horst Dreier eds., Vol. 2, 2001).Google Scholar

³² See for instance, Canaris, Claus-Wilhelm, Grundrechte und Privatrecht: eine Zwischenbilanz (Fundamental Rights and Private Law: An Appraisal, 1999); Ingo von Munch, Pablo Salvador Coderch & Josep Ferrer i Riba, Zur Drittwirkung der Grundrechte (On the Effects of Constitutional Rights on Private Relations, 1998); Claus Dieter Classen, Die Drittwirkung der Grundrechte in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts (The Effects of Constitutional Rights on Private Relations in the Case-Law of the German Federal Constitutional Court), 122 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 65 (1997).Google Scholar

³³ See for instance, Isensee, Josef, Das Grundrecht als Abwehrrecht und als staatliche Schutzpflicht (Fundamental Rights as Defense Rights and as State Duties to Protect), in Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 143 (Josef Isensee & Paul Kirchhof eds., vol. V., 111, 1992); Johannes Dietlein, Die Lehre von den grundrechtlichen Schutzpflichten (The Doctrine of the Duties to Protect, 1992).Google Scholar

³⁴ See for instance, Hesse, Konrad, Bestand und Bedeutung der Grundrechte in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Extension and Significance of the Fundamental Rights in Germany), 5 Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift 427 (1978).Google Scholar