Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-x9ds4 Total loading time: 0.768 Render date: 2023-02-04T18:41:14.748Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Part III - National Parliaments in the Practice of the International Human Rights Judiciary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 October 2017

Matthew Saul
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Oslo
Andreas Follesdal
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Oslo
Geir Ulfstein
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Oslo
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature

Alter, Karen J. 2014. The New Terrain of International Law. Courts, Politics, Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Alter, Karen J., Helfer, Laurence R., and Madsen, Mikael Rask. 2016. ‘How Context Shapes the Authority of International Courts’, Law and Contemporary Problems 79 (1):136.
Asamblea Nacional. 2009. Acta de las sesiones de la Asamblea Nacional de la República Dominicana. 54. October 19.
Barbosa Delgado, Francisco R. 2011. ‘Los límites a la doctrina del margen nacional de apreciación en el Tribunal Europeo y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos: intervención judicial en torno a ciertos derechos de las minorías étnicas y culturales’, Revista Derecho del Estado 26:107135.
Benvenisti, Eyal. 1999. ‘Margin of Appreciation, Consensus, and Universal Standards’, International Law and Politics 31 (4):843854.
Buergenthal, Thomas. 1985. ‘The Advisory Practice of the Inter-American Human Rights Court’, The American Journal of International Law 79 (1):127.
Candia, Gonzalo. 2014. ‘Comparing Diverse Approaches to the Margin of Appreciation: The Case of the European and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.’ Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2406705 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2406705.
Cantón, Santiago A. 2013. ‘To Strengthen Human Rights, Change the OAS (Not the Commission)’, Human Rights Brief 20 (2):512.
Cardenas, Sonia. 2010. Conflict and Compliance: State Responses to International Human Rights Pressure, Pennsylvania Studies in Human Rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Castillo, Pelegrín. 2011. Haití y los intereses nacionales. Santo Domingo: Editorial Santuario.
CEJIL. 2010. Summary of Initial Petition in the case of Emildo Bueno Oguis v. Dominican Republic. Presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on 1 June 2010: Open Society Justice Initiative and CEJIL.
Cerqueira, Daniel. 2015. ‘El Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos en los tiempos del cólera’, In Latin America Goes Global, edited by Sabatini, Christopher. http://latinamericagoesglobal.org/2015/10/el-sistema-interamericano-de-derechos-humanos-en-los-tiempos-del-colera/.
CIDH. 1984. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. In OC-4/84. San José, Costa Rica: Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
CIDH. 2001. Caso Barrios Altos vs. Perú. In Serie C 75. San José, Costa Rica: Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
CIDH. 2005. Caso de las Niñas Yean y Bosico vs. República Dominicana. In Serie C No. 130. San José Costa Rica: Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
CIDH. 2011. Caso Gelman vs. Uruguay. In Serie C No. 221. San José, Costa Rica: Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
CIDH. 2012a. Caso González Medina y familiares vs. República Dominicana. In Serie C No. 240. San José, Costa Rica: Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
CIDH. 2012b. Caso Nadege Dorzema y otros vs. República Dominicana. In Serie C No. 251. San José, Costa Rica: Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
CIDH. 2014. Caso de personas dominicanas y haitianas expulsadas vs. República Dominicana. In Series C No. 282. San José, Costa Rica: Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
CIDH. 2015. Caso Granier y otros (Radio Caracas Televisión) vs. Venezuela. In Series C. No. 293. San José, Costa Rica: Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
Congreso. 2004. Ley No. 285–04 (Ley de Migración). El Congreso Nacional de la República Dominicana. Santo Domingo.
Congreso. 2014. Ley no. 169/14. El Congreso Nacional de la República Dominicana. Santo Domingo.
Constitución de la República Dominicana 2010. Santo Domingo.
Contesse, Jorge. In press. ‘Subsidiarity in Inter-American Human Rights Law’, Law and Contemporary Problems.
Culliton-González, Katherine. 2012. ‘Born in the Americas: Birthright Citizenship and Human Rights’, Harvard Human Rights Journal 25 (1):127182.
Duhaime, Bernard. 2014. ‘Subsidiarity in the Americas. What Room Is There for Deference in the Inter-American System?’ In Deference in International Courts and Tribunals: Standard of Review and Margin of Appreciation, edited by Gruszcynski, Lukasz and Werner, Wouter, 290316. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dulitzky, Ariel E. 2011. ‘The Inter-American Rights System Fifty Years Later: Time for Changes’, Quebec Journal of International Law (Special issue):127164.
Dulitzky, Ariel E. 2015. ‘An Inter-American Constitutional Court? The Invention of the Conventionality Control by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’, Texas International Law Journal 50 (1):4593.
Dutrénit Bielous, Silvia. 2013. ‘Sentencias de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y reacciones estatales. México y Uruguay ante los delitos del pasado’, América Latina Hoy 61: 7999.
Dzehtsiarou, Kanstantsin, and O’Meara, Noreen. 2014. ‘Advisory Jurisdiction and the European Court of Human Rights: A Magic Bullet for Dialogue and Docket-Control?’, Legal Studies 34 (3):444468.
Farer, Tom J. 1997. ‘The Rise of the Inter-American Human Rights Regime: No Longer a Unicorn, Not Yet an Ox’, Human Rights Quarterly 19 (3):510546.
FH. 2015. Freedom in the World 2015, edited by Freedom House. Washington, DC: Freedom House.
Gargarella, Roberto. 2013. Latin American Constitutionalism, 1810–2010: The Engine Room of the Constitution. Oxford University Press.
Gargarella, Roberto. 2015a. ‘Democracy and Rights in Gelman v. Uruguay’, AJIL Unbound 109:115119.
Gargarella, Roberto. 2015b. ‘La democracia frente a los crimenes masivos: una reflexion a la luz del caso Gelman’, Revista Latinoamericana de Derecho Internacional 1:115.
Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge University Press.
Ginsburg, Tom. 2013. ‘Political Constraints on International Courts’, Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper 453:483502.
Hawkins, Darren, and Jacoby, Wade. 2010. ‘Partial Compliance. A Comparison of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights’, Journal of International Law and International Relations 6 (1):3585.
Helfer, Laurence R. 2002. ‘Overlegalizing Human Rights: International Relations Theory and the Commonwealth Caribbean Backlash against Human Rights Regimes’, Columbia Law Review 102 (7):18321911.
Hillebrecht, Courtney. 2013. Domestic Politics and International Human Rights Tribunals. Cambridge University Press.
HRW. 2013. ‘Ecuador: End Assault on Free Speech’, Human Rights Watch, June 17.
JCE. 2007. Resolución para la puesta en vigencia del libro registro del nacimiento de niño (a) de madre extranjera no residente en República Dominicana, edited by Junta Central Electoral. Santo Domingo: Junta Central Electoral.
Malarino, Ezequiel. 2012. ‘Judicial Activism, Punitivism and Supranationalisation: Illiberal and Antidemocratic Tendencies of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’, International Criminal Law Review 12 (4):665695.
Marsteintredet, Leiv. 2012. ‘Change and Continuity in Dominican Constitutions: The 2010 Reform Compared’, in New Constitutionalism in Latin America: Promises and Practices, edited by Nolte, Detlef and Schilling-Vacaflor, Almut, 223242. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate.
Marsteintredet, Leiv. 2014. ‘Mobilising against International Human Rights: Re-Domesticating the Dominican Citizenship Regime’, Iberoamericana. Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 44 (1–2):7398.
Martínez, Samuel. 2014. ‘The Price of Confrontation: International Redistributive Justice and the Struggle for Haitian-Dominican Rights’, in The Uses and Misuses of Human Rights: A Critical Approach to Advocacy, edited by Andreopolous, George and Arat, Zehra, 89115. New York: Palgrave.
Neuman, Gerald L. 2008. ‘Import, Export, and Regional Consent in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’, European Journal of International Law 19 (1):101123.
Panama. 2014. Request for an advisory opinion by the government of the republic of Panama. Government of the Republic of Panamá. Panamá.
Pasqualucci, Jo M. 2002. ‘Advisory Practice of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Contributing to the Evolution of International Human Rights Law’, Stanford Journal of International Law 38:241288.
Pasqualucci, Jo M. 2014. The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Cambridge University Press.
Picq, Manuela. 2012. ‘Is the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights too progressive?’ Al Jazeera online, 09 June.
Posner, Eric A. 2014. The Twilight of Human Rights Law. Oxford University Press.
Posner, Eric, and Yoo, John. 2005. ‘Judicial Independence in International Tribunals’, California Law Review 93 (1):172.
Sabatini, Christopher. 2015. ‘Ecuador, Argentina and the At-Risk Inter-American system’. In Latin America Goes Global, edited by Sabatini, Christopher. http://latinamericagoesglobal.org/2015/07/ecuador-argentina-and-the-at-risk-inter-american-system/.
Saul, Matthew. 2015. ‘The European Court of Human Rights’ Margin of Appreciation and the Processes of National Parliaments’, Human Rights Law Review 15:745774.
Schmid, Julie Calidonio. 2006. ‘Advisory Opinions on Human Rights: Moving beyond Pyrrhic Victory’, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 16:415455.
Tribunal Constitucional. 2013. Sentencia TC/0168/13. Santo Domingo.
Tribunal Constitucional. 2014. Sentencia TC/0256/14. Santo Domingo.
Tsebelis, George. 1999. ‘Veto Players and Law Production in Parliamentary Democracies: An Empirical Analysis’, American Political Science Review 93 (3):591608.
Vio Grossi, Eduardo. 2015. ‘Voto individual concurrente del juez Eduardo Vio Grossi’, Caso Granier y otros (Radio Caracas Televisión) vs. Venezuela. In Series C 293, CIDH. San José, Costa Rica.
Wooding, Bridget. 2014. ‘Upholding Birthright Citizenship in the Dominican Republic’, Iberoamericana 44 (1–2):99121.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×