The atrocious abuses committed under South America's dictators resulted in a wave of amnesties. Following transitions to democracy, challenges from victims and civil society unpicked several of these amnesties, leading to hundreds of perpetrators facing prosecution. These developments prompted far-reaching claims in academic literature and policy reports regarding the significance of the erosion of South America's amnesties for shaping international legal norms and policy preferences on amnesties within the region and beyond. This article draws on a comparative analysis of case law from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and national courts as well as legislative changes to argue that there is a regional trend to move away from broad, unconditional amnesties enacted during or after dictatorial rule. However, it notes that this is not universal across the region, nor does it represent a rejection of all forms of amnesty. The article then tests the claims being made in the literature regarding the significance of the regional trend on the legality, durability and desirability of amnesties. It finds that there is little evidence to support claims that the regional developments are indicative of a broader normative shift. It concludes by identifying the risks posed by regional overreach.

This article argues that human rights law – which mediates between claims about universal human nature, on the one hand, and hard-fought political battles, on the other – is in particular need of a richer exchange between jurisprudential approaches and social science theory and methods. Using the example of the Inter-American Human Rights System, the article calls for more human rights scholarship with a new realist sensibility. It demonstrates in what ways legal and social science scholarship on human rights law both stand to improve through sustained, thoughtful exchange.

Moiwana Village is the second case to be decided by the Inter-American Court on Human Rights against Suriname in which the victims are members of an ethnic community that descends from ‘Bush Negroes’ or ‘Maroons’, namely escaped former slaves who established new autonomous communities in the eastern part of Suriname. In contrast to its prior judgment, in Moiwana the Court shows a striking evolution in its case law regarding the treatment of ethnic or group rights. This approach, which may be traced back to previous case law on the rights of indigenous communities, affords an enhanced protection to members of an ethnic community in the light of their disadvantaged position as a vulnerable group and taking into account the ancestral traditions followed by the community. After the Moiwana case, the Court decided Yakye Axa and Yatama, two cases regarding indigenous and ethnic communities in which this tribunal consolidated its approach towards the protection of these vulnerable groups.