Underfunding Challenges for Human Rights Institutions in the Americas: Addressing Financial Support Discrepancies

In the councils of the Organisation of American States (OAS) and at least two of its associate institutions – the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) – much is spoken about the importance of human rights. But the words are not backed by financial support.

The bedrock of every democratic society is the dignity and worth of the human person, which can only be respected and upheld by safeguarding their human rights.

Yet, it is remarkable that the two main institutions responsible for protecting these human rights — institutions to which states assert their commitment — are hopelessly underfunded and under-resourced. Consequently, they struggle to carry out the critical tasks assigned to them by the very governments that created them.

What is worse is that both the IACHR and IACtHR now depend on financial assistance from European nations to fulfil their obligation to the peoples of the Americas. In other words, the countries of the Americas, from Canada and the US in the North to Argentina in the South, with the Caribbean in between, now rely on European states, including former colonial powers, to fund the protection of human rights within their own region. The inappropriateness of that situation is absurd.

But worse yet, this state of dependency raises serious questions about how truly committed the governments of OAS member states are to upholding human rights in all countries, including their own. It is no longer enough to voice support for human rights in resolutions. Financial commitment must match rhetoric.

The case of the IACtHR is instructive. The court was established by the American Convention on Human Rights, which entered into force in 1978, and it began functioning in 1979 from its headquarters in Costa Rica. However, like the IACHR, the court has always struggled financially. As early as 1992, one of its judges, Sonia Picado Sotela of Costa Rica, declared, “The court has very little money, and one of these cases is very expensive.”

She went on to state that “the Inter-American system is in an economic crisis as well as a crisis of credibility. I think the OAS is not in its strongest moment”. Unfortunately, the situation has worsened since that statement was made, as many governments continue to decline to provide adequate funding.

Yet, the IACtHR provides the ultimate legal protection for victims of human rights abuses. Without adequate funding, the court will be unable to deliver that protection, leaving victims — and potential victims — exposed to violations. This is not just a hypothetical risk; it is a real and pressing concern for millions across the Americas.

A survey of other international human rights courts and arbitral bodies demonstrates the sheer disparity in funding. In 2023, the IACtHR operated on a budget of just US$7.04 million. By comparison, the European Court of Justice had an annual budget of US$81 million, and the African Court of Justice operated with approximately US$50 million. Alarmingly, 30 per cent of the IACtHR’s budget is funded by European countries, including the European Union.

It is high time the governments of the Americas, especially the wealthier ones, asked themselves if it is acceptable that, after fighting for political and economic independence from European nations, they are now content for the legal protection of human rights in their “sovereign” states to be propped up by European funds?

Both the IACHR and the IACtHR are vital institutions for the protection and advancement of human rights throughout the Americas. Neither governments, political parties, nor civil society should be satisfied with weak human rights institutions. Politicians, including current leaders, have depended on these bodies to protect them from political persecution. For example, the present President of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, acknowledges that he benefited from a 2014 decision by the IACHR that overturned a 15-year ban on him holding public office.

For the Caribbean, the IACHR and IACtHR also provide important avenues for justice. While Caribbean countries have access to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and, in some cases, the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council, the IACHR offers further scope for human rights protection. Those Caribbean countries that are signatories to the IACtHR can also seek justice directly from the IACtHR. But whether or not a Caribbean country is a formal member of the IACtHR, as a member of the OAS, it still has access to the court’s “advisory jurisdiction,” which allows for interpretation of the American Convention and other human rights instruments at the request of OAS member states.

A compelling example of the importance of the IACtHR’s role is the ongoing proceedings brought by Colombia and Chile, seeking an advisory opinion on the effects of climate change on human rights. Several Caribbean countries, including Antigua and Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and St Vincent and the Grenadines, gave testimony through their joint organisation, the Commission for Small Island States and International Law (COSIS).

A favourable advisory opinion from the IACtHR, building on a strong opinion already delivered by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), would significantly bolster the legal arguments for Caribbean States seeking compensation for the loss and damage caused by the world’s largest contributors to global warming and sea level rise.

Given the rising importance of such issues, it is deeply troubling that these vital institutions, tasked with defending the human rights of the peoples of the Americas, are left in such precarious financial situations. Without secure funding, they cannot plan for the future or handle the increasing number of cases, including those concerning climate justice.

The protection of human rights in the Americas demands more than speeches and resolutions; it requires concrete financial action. Governments must move beyond declarations and allocate the necessary resources to these institutions. Their commitment must be demonstrated not just in words, but in their willingness to invest in the future of human rights for all the peoples of the Americas.

Sir Ronald Sanders is Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador to the US and the OAS. The views expressed are entirely his own.