The final word? Constitutional dialogue and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: A reply to Jorge Contesse
Document Type
Response or Comment
Publication Date
2017
Publication Information
15 ICON-Int'l J. Const. L. 436 (2017).
Abstract
The first part of this reply takes issue with two parts of Contesse's article’s critique of conventionality control, while the second more briefly discusses the idea of judicial dialogue, emphasizing the need to understand this dialogue as a two-way exchange rather than a monologue whose only relevant actor is the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Recommended Citation
Paolo G. Carozza & Pablo G. Dominguez,
The final word? Constitutional dialogue and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: A reply to Jorge Contesse,
15 ICON-Int'l J. Const. L. 436 (2017)..
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/1571