In international law, legal knowledge is never produced in the abstract: it is shaped by geographies, histories, and power relations that determine which ideas become legitimate and which voices are heard. Latin America, long seen as a receiver of norms, has increasingly begun to play an active role in producing them.

This article reflects on the region’s place in the construction of global legal knowledge. Through the lens of the “geopolitics of knowledge,” it examines how international norms have historically been molded by epistemologies from the Global North, but also how Latin America has transformed these frameworks, adapting them to its own realities and generating models admired elsewhere. Rather than a confrontation, the aim is to acknowledge the path traveled and open possibilities for a more plural normative architecture.

Normative concentration and epistemic exclusion

For decades, international law was developed primarily within European and North American institutions. This geographic concentration shaped the conceptualization of legal problems, the design of normative solutions, and the selection of landmark cases. It was not deliberate exclusion but a historical dynamic that cemented certain paradigms as universal.

However, this centrality limited the diversity of perspectives. Latin America, with its history of democratic transitions, restorative justice, and defense of human rights, has produced models that offer valuable lessons for the world.

From receiving norms to creative transformation

Although many Latin American states have ratified international treaties such as the Rome Statute or the American Convention on Human Rights, what stands out is their ability to reinterpret and adapt them to their own social, political, and cultural contexts.

Instead of mechanically applying external norms, the region has developed creative interpretations, innovative institutions, and legal practices that both dialogue with and enrich international treaties. This transformation has been driven by historical awareness, civil society engagement, and the ethical commitment of jurists who understand law as a tool for social justice.

Argentina: justice with memory

One of the most emblematic examples is Argentina’s model of trials for crimes against humanity. Instead of creating special courts, Argentina chose to prosecute dictatorship-era perpetrators in ordinary courts, with full procedural guarantees. Since 2003, more than 300 trials have taken place with active participation of victims and a restorative orientation recognized internationally. This model has been cited by the United Nations and studied in European universities as a pioneering approach to transitional justice.

Colombia: restorative justice with a differential focus

In Colombia, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP), created through the peace process with the FARC, combines international criminal law with restorative justice, differential approaches, and community participation. Inspired by UN resolutions, the JEP has developed a model that recognizes cultural diversity and seeks to heal wounds left by armed conflict. Its rulings on child recruitment, sexual violence, and harm to Indigenous communities have drawn international attention.

Inter-American Court: jurisprudence that inspires

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has issued rulings that have shaped the development of international standards. Cases such as Gelman v. Uruguay have reinforced the principle of the non-prescriptibility of crimes against humanity. Its jurisprudence interprets treaties through a Latin American lens—socially aware, gender-sensitive, and attentive to collective rights. These decisions are studied in law schools around the world.

Latin American jurists in global institutions

Latin America has also left its mark through jurists in multilateral bodies. Luis Moreno Ocampo, first Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, brought Argentine experience in the fight against impunity. Costa Rican jurist Elizabeth Odio Benito has been a strong voice for human rights at both the Inter-American Court and the ICC. Their careers reflect the depth of Latin American legal thought and its global influence.

From the periphery to recognition

For many years, Latin American legal knowledge was treated merely as case studies, interpreted through foreign theoretical lenses. Over time, these experiences began to be valued for their intrinsic contributions. Argentina’s trials, Colombia’s JEP, and the Inter-American Court’s jurisprudence are no longer regional curiosities: they are models studied globally. Today, universities in the Global North teach them, international organizations cite them, and jurists around the world regard them as significant contributions to international law.

Landmark cases that reshape global law

Latin America’s influence extends beyond treaty implementation. In recent decades, it has generated legal innovations that have been replicated and valued in other regions. This transformative capacity has developed through institutional strategies, judicial practices, and doctrinal advances.

A notable example is Campo Algodonero v. Mexico (2009), decided by the Inter-American Court. Addressing gender-based violence in Ciudad Juárez, the ruling established standards for state due diligence. Its guidelines have been cited in legislative and judicial debates in Europe and referenced by international organizations as a benchmark in combating femicide.

Brazil has been a pioneer in recognizing Indigenous peoples’ right to prior consultation, enshrined in its 1988 Constitution and strengthened by rulings of the Supreme Federal Court. This principle, linked to ILO Convention 169, has influenced regulatory discussions on collective rights in countries such as Canada and Norway.

In Peru, the implementation of the Prior Consultation Law has been viewed as a model for gradually institutionalizing cultural rights. Although it faces challenges, it has served as a reference for multilateral organizations seeking to strengthen intercultural dialogue in public policymaking.

In Colombia, the Supreme Court recognized access to environmental information as part of the constitutional bloc in its ruling on the Escazú Agreement. This interpretation has been highlighted in European forums as an example of integrating environmental rights into the core of fundamental rights.

Chile has also contributed in the criminal law sphere. Its experience in defining the crime of enforced disappearance has been cited in comparative studies by US universities analyzing how Latin America has helped consolidate international standards on state crimes.

Conclusion: law as shared creation

These experiences did not arise in academic laboratories or isolated technical committees. They are the result of social struggles, courageous judicial processes, intercultural dialogues, and a deep ethical conviction. Latin America has not merely adapted international norms—it has reinterpreted them, enriched them, and, in many cases, transformed them into more inclusive frameworks.

Today, international law is no longer written exclusively in the solemn halls of the Global North or in the quiet corridors of its academies. It is also written in Buenos Aires courtrooms, where memory becomes living justice; in Colombia’s peace territories, where voices long silenced by conflict find resonance in law; and in the rulings of San José, where collective rights are embraced with humanity and social sensitivity. It is written with tears and courage, with dignity and hope, with the steady pulse of peoples who refuse to be forgotten.

Latin America is no longer a spectator but an author. In every ruling, every reinterpreted norm, every tribunal that listens to voices once ignored, the region shows that law is not merely technique: it is memory, ethics, and humanity. And in this process, Latin America does not simply participate—it dreams, transforms, and creates. It creates with its wounds, its struggles, and its conviction that justice is not a privilege but a right that must resonate in every corner of the world.

_{*Machine translation, proofread by Ricardo Aceves.}