Is the Inter-American Human Rights System Biased? A Quantitative Analysis of Regional Human Rights Litigation in the Americas

Abstract

SummaryAlthough the Organization of American States’ Inter-American human rights system has played a key role in the advancement of human rights, its work has recently become controversial. Some leftist governments have alleged bias, criticizing the system as a politicized one that prioritizes certain rights over others and embodies a neoliberal ideology that reflects disproportionate US influence. The system has also faced perceptions of cultural bias from Anglophone Caribbean states. This article tests the veracity of these allegations using statistical analysis of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights decisions. It finds that, even when controlling for a range of relevant factors, there have been significant differences in the Commission’s receptiveness to different types of claims of human rights violations. However, the Commission’s decisions have not exhibited any political or cultural biases. Also, to the extent there has been bias involving the United States, it has arguably been bias against the United States.

Justice for All in the Americas? A Quantitative Analysis of Admissibility Decisions in the Inter-American Human Rights System

“…For each case, the per capita gross domestic product of the state in question in the year in which the alleged violations occurred (in 2020 US dollars) was used as the measure of the state's level of economic development. Previous analysis of merits decisions found that states with higher per capita GDPs were significantly less likely to be found responsible for human rights violations (Zschirnt 2017). This is consistent with a large body of research linking economic development to democratization and the maintenance of effective systems of human rights protection (see, e.g., Przeworski et al 2000;Inglehart and Welzel 2005;Epstein et al 2006).…”

“…Previous analysis of merits decisions found that states scoring higher on the Polity and CIRI indices were significantly less likely to be found responsible for human rights violations (Zschirnt 2017). This is consistent with analyses of petitions filed in the European human rights system and with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which have found that states with higher levels of democratization and human rights protection have had fewer petitions filed against them and have been less likely to be found responsible for human rights violations when they have been the subjects of petitions (Boyle and Thompson 2001;Cole 2006Cole , 2011.…”

“…Analysis of the IACHR's merits jurisprudence was based upon a dataset including every published IACHR merits decision through 2020. This is an updated version of a dataset that was the basis of a previously published analysis of merits decisions through 2015 (Zschirnt 2017). The dataset includes cases that were subsequently referred to and adjudicated by the IACtHR but excludes cases that ended in friendly settlements.…”

“…This phase, not the merits phase or adjudication by the IACtHR, has been the major obstacle to petitioners seeking justice. Much as more than 99% of the cases reaching the IACtHR have resulted in the state in question being found responsible for human rights violations, more than 96% of the petitions reaching the merits phase have resulted in the state in question being found responsible for human rights violations (Zschirnt 2017). However, the petitions reaching the merits phase represent only a small fraction of the total number of petitions received by the IACHR.…”

“…This article tests the assumptions behind this backlash by examining through quantitative analysis of the system's admissibility jurisprudence whether there is any validity to the accusations of political bias and "hierarchization" of rights that led to those changes and may produce further changes still. Expanding upon previously published research that was confined to analysis of merits decisions (Zschirnt 2017), it extends the analysis to the admissibility phase, which is the phase in the processing of petitions at which most unsuccessful petitions are dismissed. The article proceeds as follows: Section 2 provides a brief overview of the Inter-American system and its procedures, with particular emphasis on the admissibility phase, Section 3 examines the backlash and accusations of bias against the Inter-American system, Section 4 outlines the research methodology used to evaluate these accusations, Section 5 discusses the results, and Section 6 discusses their implications for the system's future.…”