No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
1 Lawrence J. Leblanc, The Organization of American States and the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (1977).
2 Cecilia Medina-Quiroga, The Battle of Human Rights (1988).
3 Ironically, the improved relations between the human rights institutions of die region and die American states may pose a danger for effective human rights enforcement. The international protection of human rights is, by its nature, frictional, for it is essentially adversarial. When the states and the institutions charged with monitoring their compliance become too cozy and mutually understanding, and when talk turns to “cooperation and assistance,” it usually means die institutions have been co-opted and vigorous oversight is declining. One would hope that the High Commissioner for Human Rights has taken note of this “iron law.”