Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 49Judicial and Constitutional StudiesComparative constitutional jurisprudence studiesPolitical Dynamics in Latin America

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Judicial Independence and Human Rights in Latin America

Skaar, Elin·2011·Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks
DOI 10.1057/9780230117693
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This comparative analysis, focusing on Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, explores the complex relationship between executive politics and judicial action, showing that judicial independence is a crucial

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/9780230117693

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Skaar, E.
Corresponding author
Skaar, Elin
ORCID
Skaar, Elin
Venue
Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks
Publisher
Palgrave Macmillan US
Published
2011
DOI
10.1057/9780230117693
OpenAlex
W2490946820
Cited by
49
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
8.68
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Dynamics in Latin America
Keywords
judicial independence, human rights, executive-judiciary relations, executive politics, Latin America, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, comparative constitutional law

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.