What do we mean when we talk about judicial dialogue?: reflections of a judge of the inter-american court of human rights

Abstract

This article discusses a phenomenon difficult to ignore in the relations among national and international courts and tribunals in the twenty-first century: "judicial dialogue," or the practice of using the reasoning of other national or international courts to arrive at a better understanding of human rights. The article explains how (a) the judicialization of international justice and (b) the increasing incorporation of international human rights law into domestic legal systems have created a shared regulatory and functional identity among national and international judges concerning the protection of human rights. Both phenomena have been cause and effect in laying the foundations of a global judiciary that is in constant interaction. The article further argues that judicial dialogue contributes to coordinating this constant interaction among judges of different latitudes. To illustrate this process, the article analyzes the dialogue that the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights has conducted "horizontally" with the European Court of Human Rights, and "vertically" with the constitutional tribunals and supreme courts of the states parties to the American Convention on Human Rights. The article concludes by reflecting on the need for judges to maintain an open and progressive attitude toward the reconfiguration of the judicial function in the twenty-first century.