The DOI matches its Crossref record.
International Human Rights Law and Practice in Latin America
Abstract
Human rights practices have improved significantly throughout Latin America during the 1990s, but different degrees of legalization are not the main explanation for these changes. We examine state compliance with three primary norms of international human rights law: the prohibition against torture, the prohibition against disappearance, and the right to democratic governance. Although these norms vary in their degree of obligation, precision, and delegation, states have improved their practices in all three issue-areas. The least amount of change has occurred in the most highly legalized issue-area—the prohibition against torture. We argue that a broad regional norm shift—a “norms cascade”—has led to increased regional and international consensus with respect to an interconnected bundle of human rights norms, including the three discussed in this article. These norms are reinforced by diverse legal and political enforcement mechanisms that help to implement and ensure compliance with them.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- 1976, August 1977 Addendum
- 1987, Forti v. Suarez Mason
- 1989, Rapaport v. Suarez Mason
- 1977, Latin America, XI
- 1997, New York Times, 4
- 1994, Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, done at Belém, 33
- 1980, Filártiga v. Pena-Irala, 890
- 1989, Godiñez Cruz
- 1988, Forti v. Suarez Mason, 697
- 1988, Velásquez Rodríguez
- de Situación, 1978, Carta Política, 57, 8
- 1988, Martinez Baca v. Suarez Mason
- 1978, Latin American Political Report, XII
- 1985, El Diario del Jucio, 5
- 1995, Xuncax v. Gramajo
- Filártiga, 1996, Asuncion, Paraguay
- 1984, Filártiga v. Peña-Irala
- Rosen, 1997, The New Yorker, 170
- 1980, Letelier v. Republic of Chile
Cited by
The New Transnational Activism
Tarrow, S. (2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511791055 · Cited by 2,383
Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics
GRANT, R. W., & KEOHANE, R. O. (2005) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055405051476 · Cited by 1,620
Trials and Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice
Snyder, J., & Vinjamuri, L. (2004) · International Security · doi:10.1162/016228803773100066 · Cited by 644
Theories of Policy Diffusion Lessons from Latin American Pension Reform
Weyland, K. (2005) · World Politics · doi:10.1353/wp.2005.0019 · Cited by 573
Justice Lost! The Failure of International Human Rights Law To Matter Where Needed Most
Hafner-Burton, E. M., & Tsutsui, K. (2007) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/0022343307078942 · Cited by 422
Metadata
- Authors
- Lutz, E. L., & Sikkink, K.
- Venue
- International Organization
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2000
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 633-659
- ISSN
- 0020-8183 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5088
- OpenAlex
- W2093907493
- Cited by
- 387
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: International Human Rights Law and Practice in Latin America. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1162/002081800551235
- The paper
- Lutz, E. L., & Sikkink, K. (2000). International Human Rights Law and Practice in Latin America. International Organization. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081800551235
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.