Introduction to the Symposium on Latin American International Law

In the third volume of the American Journal of International Law , published in 1909, Chilean jurist Alejandro Álvarez fi rst laid out his argument for the existence of a Latin American international law in English. 1 His objec-tive, and the reason he chose to expound his ideas in AJIL , was to carve out a more prominent place for Latin America in the U.S.-led geopolitical order. 2 The article, subsequently turned into a book, became a manifesto not for a Latin American international law, but for a Pan-American international law — a regional legal order encom-passing the Americas in their entirety, with the United States at the helm. Pan-Americanism has since consolidated into an in fl uential and pervasive regional legal and political project, spawning key institutions and instruments, such as the 1933 Montevideo Convention, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the Organization of American States, among others. This symposium takes its inspiration from Álvarez ’ s regional thinking to reopen the inquiry into Latin American international law. In our time, the dynamics of regionalism have been changing quickly, as U.S. hegemony is checked by growing Chinese in fl uence and the rise of populist regimes. Several social movements, including Indigenous and environmental movements, have revealed the ways in which Pan-Americanism was not really “ Pan ” at all, but re fl ected the narrow interests of Latin American elites, mostly of creole ( “ criollo ” ) background. 3 These movements question the hegemony of creole elites and the primacy of their interests in the realm of international law. These and other transformations make it timely to explore the question of both the existence and potential of regional projects and practices in a new geopolitical era. This symposium brings together a diverse group of Latin American scholars to critically re fl ect on these changes. reshaping law and institutions at the international level, using litigation, rights discourse, and other legal-political tactics to advance their claims. The fi nal two essays touch on two challenges that distinguish the current context of international law, namely, the rise of authoritarian populism and the climate crisis. examine how actors in Colombia have engaged international law as they broker and implement the country ’ s 2016 Peace Agreement, which put an end to a fi ve-decade long armed con fl ict. 8 Their analysis emphasizes that international law did not provide a top-down prescription to local actors. Rather, local actors, such as judges, activists, and congressmembers were able to use international law arguments to advance their own agendas as they debated the peace process. The outcome was a transitional justice process highly attuned to international law norms and institutions, even as it was innovative, and even as it stretched those norms in new directions. The authors show how transitional justice norms are unsettled and resettled through domestic contestation using international law. Jorge Contesse of Rutgers Law School, in turn, critically excavates the emergence of a common constitutional law of the Americas, a ius constitutionale commune . 9 This has not been a government-led project, but one that has emerged through dialogue between the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, domestic high courts, and liti-gants. Indeed, if there is one area of law that is uniquely Latin American international (and national) law, Contesse argues, common constitutional law is it. But he cautions against an overly rigid understanding of this dialogue as creating a binding body of law, with the Inter-American Court at its hierarchical head. Contesse advocates for national judicial systems to retain a signi fi cant level of autonomy, and for the Inter-American Court to exercise a degree of deference to national democratic decision-making.