English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The purpose of this article is to reflect on the justification of the work of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The idea that moves this text is that, commonly, we study the decisions of the Court trying to determine whether they refer to an activist or self-restrained Court; whether those decisions are liberal, conservative or progressive; but we seldom reflect on the very justification of the Court’s task. In this brief paper, I will begin to examine the question, taking into account a particular conception of democracy—which I will call “democracy as conversation among equals.” From that standpoint I will derive a certain justification of judicial review—a model of judicial review that would be sensitive to the context and institutional peculiarities of the region—that will help me to critically evaluate the role and mission of the Inter-American Court.

La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y la “conversación entre iguales”The Inter-American Human Rights Court and the “conversation among equals”