Brings together theories of compliance from international law, human rights, and international relations to explain the increasingly important phenomenon of states' compliance with human rights tribunals' rulings.

International politics has become increasingly legalized over the past fifty years, restructuring the way states interact with each other, international institutions, and their own constituents. The international legalization of human rights now makes it possible for individuals to take human rights claims against their governments at international courts such as the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights. This book brings together theories from international law, human rights and international relations to explain the increasingly important phenomenon of states' compliance with human rights tribunals' rulings. It argues that this is an inherently domestic affair. It posits three overarching questions: why do states comply with human rights tribunals' rulings? How does the compliance process unfold and what are the domestic political considerations around compliance? What effect does compliance have on the protection of human rights? The book answers these through a combination of quantitative analyses and in-depth case studies from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Italy, Portugal, Russia and the United Kingdom.

Explores how and why the rise in international courts impacts on domestic politics on both national and international levels.

Beth Simmons demonstrates through a combination of statistical analysis and case studies that the ratification of treaties generally leads to better human rights practices. She argues that international human rights law should get more practical and rhetorical support from the international community as a supplement to broader efforts to address conflict, development, and democratization.

This book provides a framework for understanding backlash against the international justice regime and how to save it.

Despite substantial growth in past decades, international human rights law faces significant enforcement challenges and threats to legitimacy in many parts of the world. Regional human rights courts, like the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, represent unique institutions that allow individuals to file formal complaints with an international legal body and render judgments against states. In this book, Jillienne Haglund focuses on regional human rights court deterrence, or the extent to which adverse judgments discourage the commission of future human rights abuses. She argues that regional court deterrence is more likely when the chief executive has the capacity and willingness to respond to adverse regional court judgments. Drawing comparisons across Europe and the Americas, this book uses quantitative data analyses, supplemented with qualitative evidence from many adverse judgments, to explain the conditions under which regional courts deter future rights abuses.

CASES - Michael J. Churgin.