This paper introduces the concept of dialogic oversight, a process by which judicial bodies monitor compliance through a combination of mandated state reporting, third-party engagement, and supervision hearings. To assess the effectiveness of this strategy in the international arena, we evaluate the supervision hearings conducted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. We employ propensity-score matching, difference-in-difference estimators, and event-history models to analyze compliance with 1,878 reparation measures ordered by the Court between 1989 and 2019. We find that dialogic oversight has moderate but positive effects, increasing the probability of state compliance by about 3 percent per year (a substantial effect compared to the baseline rate of implementation). However, it requires the engagement of civil society to yield positive outcomes. Our framework connects related findings in distant literatures on constitutional law and international organizations.

本文介绍了对话监督的概念，这是司法机构通过强制国家报告、第三方参与和监督听证会相结合来监督合规性的过程。为了评估这一战略在国际舞台上的有效性，我们评估了美洲人权法院举行的监督听证会。我们采用倾向得分匹配、双重差分估计器和事件历史模型来分析 1989 年至 2019 年间法院下令的 1,878 项赔偿措施的遵守情况。我们发现对话监督具有适度但积极的影响，增加了国家合规性每年提高约 3%（与基线实施率相比，效果显着）。然而，它需要民间社会的参与才能产生积极成果。我们的框架将有关宪法和国际组织的遥远文献中的相关发现联系起来。