FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3124967488> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3124967488 startingPage "263" @default.
• W3124967488 abstract "INTRODUCTIONFor decades, international law and relations scholars have debated why nations comply, when they do, with international law.1 Some posit that reflects rational calculations of national interest, while others argue that is a response to persuasive power of legal obligations.2 International lawyers, regardless of whether they have a rationalist or normative understanding of effects of their work, generally accept assertion by Louis Henkin that all nations observe almost all principles of international law and almost all of their obligations almost all of time.3 The assumed truth of this assertion has led many international lawyers to pursue their work without seriously evaluating its real impact or considering measures to make it more meaningful. As Oona Hathaway has aptly put it, [t]he disinclination of international lawyers to confront efficacy of international law is nowhere more evident or more problematic than in field of human rights law.4There is, however, a marked increase in concern over compliance among international human rights lawyers, who are eager to move beyond a discussion about why nations comply with international human rights law to a discussion about process by which they can be made to do so.5 This concern has been reflected in a surge in scholarship about with decisions of regional human rights bodies,6 fora which present human rights lawyers with rare opportunity to bring states to account for human rights violations perpetrated against individuals and communities. This increased attention to topic has been mirrored by developments in regional human rights systems themselves to address deficits as they struggle with this question that cuts to core of their legitimacy.7In inter American human rights system, a particularly notable development is evolution of a phase of litigation before Inter American of Human Rights (the Inter American Court or the Court), highest human rights court in Americas. History is clear that open refusal by some states to comply with Court's reparations orders led tribunal to take unprecedented step of issuing public orders highlighting particularly troubling cases of non compliance. These first orders sparked development of a phase of litigation in which states, representatives of victims, and Inter American on Human Rights (the Inter American Commission or the Commission), debate adequacy of measures taken by states to implement reparations orders of Court. In decade since it inaugurated this practice, has issued hundreds of orders, addressing implementation processes in over 80 percent of cases in which it has issued reparations decisions, with multiple and complex orders in many of those cases.8The importance of this rapidly growing body of jurisprudence has not been lost on those engaged with inter American system.9 International relations scholars have seized on these orders as potential windows into tendencies of states to comply with human rights obligations10 and human rights practitioners have begun to develop an empirical narrative of Court's success.11 However, despite potential of this jurisprudence to aid inter American litigants in understanding viability of their litigation initiatives and improving their chances of achieving their desired outcomes, it has been underutilized for this purpose. This article aims to fill this gap, and provide guidance for those willing to strategize for compliance.This article provides a comprehensive review of Court's jurisprudence by developing a typology of Court's reparations and systematizing all available information on implementation of those reparations. By culling more than 90 experiences with implementation and providing both quantitative and qualitative analysis of these experiences, this article highlights predictive potential of this body of jurisprudence. …" @default.
• W3124967488 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3124967488 creator A5059270210 @default.
• W3124967488 date "2012-03-15" @default.
• W3124967488 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W3124967488 title "Strategizing For Compliance: The Evolution of a Compliance Phase of Inter-American Court Litigation and the Strategic Imperative For Victims' Representatives." @default.
• W3124967488 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W3124967488 type Work @default.
• W3124967488 sameAs 3124967488 @default.
• W3124967488 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3124967488 countsByYear W31249674882015 @default.
• W3124967488 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3124967488 hasAuthorship W3124967488A5059270210 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C169437150 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C185436325 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C2781460075 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C40422974 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C44725695 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C55447825 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConcept C86615163 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C144024400 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C15744967 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C169437150 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C17744445 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C185436325 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C190253527 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C199360897 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C199539241 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C2778061430 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C2781460075 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C40422974 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C41008148 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C44725695 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C55447825 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C77805123 @default.
• W3124967488 hasConceptScore W3124967488C86615163 @default.
• W3124967488 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W3124967488 hasLocation W31249674881 @default.
• W3124967488 hasOpenAccess W3124967488 @default.
• W3124967488 hasPrimaryLocation W31249674881 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W1031528504 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W122585211 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W1482026638 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W1549024762 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W1568968590 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W1598219901 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W1857884889 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W2339198638 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W2340475976 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W2997379026 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W3033924445 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W303466775 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W3045948778 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W3122025927 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W3122142281 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W3124900102 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W3125700342 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W3125843258 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W342174688 @default.
• W3124967488 hasRelatedWork W3091807953 @default.
• W3124967488 hasVolume "27" @default.
• W3124967488 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3124967488 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3124967488 magId "3124967488" @default.
• W3124967488 workType "article" @default.