International Human Rights Law in the Chilean Constitutional Tribunal: the Least Common Denominator

Abstract

The research presented in this article shows new empirical data about the use of international human rights law in Chile's Constitutional Tribunal. It identifies, through an analysis of majority and minority votes, different ways of referencing international human rights law: systematic rejection, systematic absence of references, systematic references, and a "cherry-picking approach". This shows that only very few justices consider international human rights law a source of law. After the presentation of the empirical data, the article looks for possible reasons for said differences, based on the analysis of some judgments, interviews with justices, and additional empirical evidence.