The constitutional right to asylum in Latin America: Does it make a difference?

• In Event: The cost of rights. From constitutionalization to enjoyment of human rights

Abstract

This paper will analyze whether the constitutionalized right to asylum matters in the Latin American context. That is, does it provide protections to refugees otherwise unavailable or ineffective under domestic statute or international law?
Over the past two decades, several countries in the region have amended their constitution to include a right to asylum. As an ever-increasing number of persons flee their home countries due to political persecution, armed conflict, and drug and domestic violence, lawyers representing refugees have begun utilizing these constitutional provisions in advocating on behalf of their clients.
In theory, such provisions should make it more likely for refugees to obtain asylum in their adopted country; this paper explores whether that is, in fact, the case. The paper will used a mixed-method empirical approach, combining data on asylum grant rates, written judicial opinions, and interviews of refugee lawyers in two countries whose constitutions contain a right to asylum (Ecuador and Mexico) and one whose constitution does not (Argentina). This methodology will help to determine whether the key variable (the constitutional right to asylum) is an effective protection against various forms of persecution or merely words on a parchment.
This paper will add to the burgeoning literature on the constitutionalization of human rights in Latin America. While much of that literature explores the issue from a theoretical perspective, this paper takes an empirical approach to determine how lawyers and other advocates are actually utilizing constitutionalized human rights law on the ground.

Author

• Stephen E Meili, University of Minnesota