International Human Rights Law and Practice in Latin America

International Human Rights Law and Practice in Latin America (DOI: 10.1162/002081800551235) was written by Ellen Lutz and Kathryn Sikkink, and published in International Organization volume 54 (2000).

The authors discuss the causal link between international law and domestic law.

Torture

There is a substantial legal regime surrounding torture.

• Several international treaties offer precise legal definitions of torture; several international courts will prosecute alleged torture.

• In 1980, a U.S. federal court recognized customary international law on torture in Filártiga v. Peña-Irala.

• In 1998, the British House of Lords recognized international jurisdiction of torture law by allowing the extradition of Pinochet.

There's also a substantial amount of torture ongoing.

• In 1975 Amnesty International claimed credible evidence of torture in 15 Latin American countries:

  1. Argentina

  2. Bolivia

  3. Brazil

  4. Chile

  5. Colombia

  6. El Salvador

  7. Guatemala

  8. Guyana

  9. Haiti

  10. Honduras

  11. Mexico

  12. Paraguay

  13. Peru

  14. Suriname

  15. Uruguay

• In 1999 they claimed 4 had widespread or frequent torture:
  1. Brazil
  2. Colombia
  3. Mexico
  4. Venezuela

Forced Disappearance

There is less legalization surrounding forced disappearance.

• Practically emerged as a response to the 1970s governments in Chile, Guatemala, and Argentina.

• In 1992, the UN produced the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

• Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons

The use of forced disappearance was a recent phenomena.

• UN Working Group on Disappearance claimed evidence of 11,000 to 13,000 disappearances in 15 countries, and 10 in Latin America:
  1. Argentina

  2. Bolivia

  3. Brazil

  4. Chile

  5. El Salvador

  6. Guatemala

  7. Mexico

  8. Nicaragua

  9. Peru

  10. Uruguay

• By 1996, the working group claimed that forced disappearances had practically ended. In 1998, they and Amnesty International claimed to have evidence only from:

  1. Colombia

  2. Mexico

Democratic Government

There is little legalization for the right to democratic government.

• OAS adopted the Santiago Declaration in 1991.

• Protocol of Washington

"[E]very Latin American country except Cuba either retained or returned to electoral democracy between 1978 and 1991. ... Latin America today faces a new set of issues-not the problem of military coups, but the problems involved in expanding existing electoral regimes into fuller democracies."

Case Studies

The authors examine the comparative politics of Paraguay and Uruguay.

• Stroessner was one of the longest-reigning dictators.

• Uruguay had a long tradition of democratic rule until the military was handed power in 1973.

  • Had ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the first optional protocol (allowing citizens to bring allegations before the UN Human Rights Committee)

• Both regimes made extensive use of torture.

• Uruguayans began to press cases before UNHRC and IACHR in 1976, gathered significant attention, and pressed other nations (esp. OAS members) to sanction the Uruguayan government.

  • The Koch amendment

• IACHR publicized evidence of torture in Paraguay. Regional pressure from Argentina and international pressure from the Carter administration contributed.

• Uruguay returned to democratic rule in 1985 but alleged torturers have not been significantly prosecuted.

• Following the 1989 coup, Rodríguez converted the government into a democracy that recognized and ratified many of the human rights treaties of the prior decades.

• In neither case did enforcement of international laws lead to change. Instead, international laws were used by domestic forces to their own advantage.

The authors examine the comparative politics of Argentina and Honduras.

• Argentina saw forced disappearances under a brutal dictatorship.
• Honduras saw forced disappearances under a government transitioning to democracy.

  • Had ratified the American Convention on Human Rights.

• International governments and organizations rapidly sanctioned the Argentinian junta.

  • The Carter administration followed the example of the Koch amendment and barred aid.

• Political factionalism latched onto the sanctions as an opportunity. Videla and Viola pushed for democratization and recognition of human rights, with the expectation of lifted sanctions, as a successful platform.

• The IACHR heard three cases against the Honduran government concerning allegations of forced disappearances between 1981 and 1984. They ruled against the government in 1988 and 1989. By that time, the documented allegations had dwindled to practically none.

  • Notable that U.S. pressure was opposite here; the Reagan administration was primarily interested in arming the contras based in Honduras.

• International legal rulings were influential in both cases, despite the many obstacles to enforcing them.

The authors examine the comparative politics of Uruguay and Guatemala.

• As noted above, Uruguay saw an auto-coup in 1973.

• Guatemala saw an auto-coup in 1993.

• In both cases, the president usurped power with military support to combat separatists.
• Uruguay remained under dictatorship for over a decade.
• The Santiago Declaration was used to justify OAS coordination of a sweeping series of sanctions against Guatemala.

• Domestic forces (including journalists and the Constitutional Court) rallied against the Serrano government. The military rapidly overthrew him; congress was re-convened and elected de León.

• Despite the lack of legalization surrounding right to democratic government, the international norm of democratic government was mobilized effectively.

CategoryRicottone