Judicial dialogues and conventionality control

challenges to harmonizing the dialogue between the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Latin American national jurisdictions in the era of neoconstitutionalism

Abstract

This research addresses the challenges involved in harmonizing the judicial dialogue between the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and Latin American national jurisdictions within the context of neoconstitutionalism. To this end, a hermeneutic-phenomenological approach was selected, as understanding arises from the interpreter's engagement with the phenomenon. Consequently, the study focuses on the dialogues between the IACtHR and national jurisdictions, specifically examining the role of the conventionality control mechanism within this interaction. A bibliographic and documentary review serves as the methodological procedure. The research is divided into three phases: the first evaluates contextual aspects, defines judicial dialogues, and explores both harmonizing and dissonant perspectives regarding these dialogues. The second stage outlines doctrinal contributions concerning conventionality control, drawing upon the insights of scholars such as Humberto Nogueira Alcalá, Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor, Valerio Mazzuoli, and Flávia Piovesan, among others. Finally, the third stage presents the alignment between judicial dialogues and conventionality control—viewed as a tool for harmonizing domestic and conventional legal sources—and identifies the remaining challenges to implementing this control within such dialogues during an era of the internationalization of law.