Regional human rights courts like the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), and the African Court of Human and People's Rights (ACtHPR) have become popular sites of mobilization for victims and activists who seek justice when justice fails at home. Besides being platforms for individual remedy, human rights courts increasingly shape social norms and state policy within countries, making them attractive avenues for rights advocates to develop new norms or to push domestic authorities to reform legislation. The judges of these courts can decide, for example, whether same-sex couples have a right to be married, if prisoners have the right to vote or receive HIV/AIDS treatment, or when a state can deport illegal immigrants to a country where they will likely be tortured. As these courts pass their judgments, they often find themselves in conflict with states that are violating human rights of marginalized groups on a large scale and are unwilling to implement international rulings.

Although international human rights courts have become increasingly popular venues among victims and activists who seek justice when justice fails at home, we are only beginning to understand how activists play roles in shaping the development of regional human rights courts' case law—the body of judgments that shapes how judges will make their decisions in the future. We now have plenty of international relations and international legal research on the interactions between states and international courts: how judges in these courts wrestle between deferring to the interests of member state governments whose actions are on trial and sticking closely to the conventions' fundamental yet evolving principles (Alter et al., 2019; Helfer & Voeten, 2014). As some states begin to resist international courts' authority, scholars have begun to examine the dynamics of this backlash (Hillebrecht, 2022; Madsen et al., 2018; Sandholtz et al., 2018). Recent studies have also demonstrated that human rights advocates—whether NGOs or individual lawyers—have a significant impact on shaping the jurisprudence of international courts and the impact judgments have in concrete locations (Kahraman, 2018; Sundstrom, 2014; van der Vet, 2012; Kurban, 2020; Conant, 2018; Harms, 2021; Cichowski, 2016; Hodson, 2011; Haddad, 2018). Meanwhile, these advocates themselves have been subject to repression and stigmatization by governments as part of the backlash phenomenon. Without an adequate understanding of the factors shaping activists' engagement with international courts, we risk undervaluing their strategic impact on the expansion of case law, the human rights protection of marginalized groups who cannot find remedies at home, and the domestic implementation of these judgments in an age of state backlash.

欧洲人权法院 (ECtHR)、美洲人权法院 (IACtHR) 和非洲人权和人民权利法院 (ACtHPR) 等区域人权法院已成为受害人和维权人士的热门动员场所当正义在国内失败时寻求正义。除了作为个人补救的平台外，人权法院还越来越多地塑造国家内部的社会规范和国家政策，使其成为权利倡导者制定新规范或推动国内当局改革立法的有吸引力的途径。例如，这些法院的法官可以决定同性伴侣是否有权结婚，囚犯是否有权投票或接受艾滋病毒/艾滋病治疗，或者一个州何时可以将非法移民驱逐到他们所在的国家。很可能会受到折磨。

尽管国际人权法院越来越受受害人和在国内司法失败时寻求正义的活动人士的欢迎，但我们才刚刚开始了解活动人士如何在塑造区域人权法院判例法——判决书的发展过程中发挥作用这决定了法官将来如何做出决定。我们现在有大量关于国家与国际法院之间互动的国际关系和国际法律研究：这些法院的法官如何在尊重其行为正在受审的成员国政府的利益与密切遵守公约的基本但不断发展的利益之间进行斗争原则（Alter 等人，  2019 年；Helfer 和 Voeten，  2014 年). 随着一些国家开始抵制国际法院的权威，学者们开始研究这种反弹的动力（Hillebrecht，  2022 年；Madsen 等人，  2018 年；Sandholtz 等人，  2018 年）。最近的研究还表明，人权倡导者——无论是非政府组织还是个人律师——对塑造国际法院的判例和判决在具体地点的影响具有重大影响（Kahraman，2018 年；Sundstrom，2014 年；van  der Vet  ， 2012 年； Kurban，  2020 年；Conant，  2018 年；Harms，  2021 年；Cichowski，  2016 年；Hodson，  2011 年；Haddad， 2018 年）。同时，作为反弹现象的一部分，这些倡导者本身也受到政府的打压和污名化。如果不充分了解影响维权人士与国际法院接触的因素，我们就有可能低估它们对判例法扩展、无法在国内找到补救办法的边缘化群体的人权保护以及这些判决在国内的执行等方面的战略影响。一个国家强烈反对的时代。