6. Бондарь Н.С. Аксиология судебного конституционализма: конституционные ценности в теории и практике конституционного правосудия. Серия «Библиотечка судебного конституционализма». Вып. 2. - М.: Юрист, 2013.
7. Бушев А.Ю. Постановления Европейского Суда по правам человека и Конституция Российской Федерации: конфликт компетенций // Права человека. Практика Европейского Суда по правам человека. 2014. № 9.
8. Вайпан Г.В. Трудно быть богом: Конституционный Суд России и его первое дело о возможности исполнения постановления Европейского суда по правам человека // Журнал российского права. 2016. № 2.
9. Варламова Н.В. Сравнительное правоведение: современные методологические подходы. URL: http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/2015/11/28/1250991247/79-91(Varlamova).pdf
10. Зорькин В.Д. Конституционная идентичность России: доктрина и практика. URL: http://www.ksrf.ru/ru/News/Speech/Pages/ViewItem.aspx?ParamId=82
11. Зорькин В.Д. Ценностный подход в конституционном регулировании прав и свобод // Журнал российского права. № 12. 2008.
12. Исполинов А.С. Эволюция и пути развития современного международного правосудия // Lex Russica. 2017. № 10.
13. Красиков Д.В. Конвенционно-конституционные коллизии и иллюзии: что лежит в основе «возражения» Конституционного Суда России в адрес Европейского суда по правам человека? // Международное правосудие. 2016. № 3.
14. Ковлер А.И. Эволютивное толкование европейской Конвенции по правам человека: возможности и пределы. Европейский Суд по правам человека как субъект толкования права // Журнал зарубежного законодательства и сравнительного правоведения. 2016. № 3.
15. Кряжкова О., Рудт Ю. Расстановка мест слагаемых в решениях конституционных судов: почему сумма меняется // Сравнительное конституционное обозрение. 2015. № 5(108).
16. Кузнецов Д.А. Факторы, которые необходимо учитывать при проведении сравнительно-правового исследования практики зарубежных органов конституционного контроля // Журнал конституционного правосудия. 2016. № 3.
17. Малько М.П. Предмет конституционной аксиологии // Вестник Челябинского государственного университета. № 19 (200). 2010.
18. Радбрух Г. Законное неправо и надзаконное право // Радбрух Г. Философия права / Пер. с нем. М., 2004.
19. Спрыгина Е.А. Тенденции развития международного сотрудничества и международного контроля в области прав человека // Актуальные проблемы современности: наука и общество. 2015. № 1.
20. Терехов Е.М. Возможность исполнения правовых актов Европейского суда по правам человека как нижний предел правоинтепретационной деятельности // Современное право. 2018. № 4.
21. Толстых В.Л. «Принципиальное сопротивление» решениям Европейского суда по правам человека в свете критической теории // Международное правосудие. 2018. № 1.
22. Троицкая А.А., Храмова Т.М. Использование органами конституционного контроля зарубежного опыта. // Государство и право. № 8. 2016.
23. Троицкая А. А. Сравнение и сравнительный метод в науке конституционного права: особенности использования // Конституционное и муниципальное право. 2017. № 2.
24. Хабриева Т.Я., Чиркин В.Е. Теория современной конституции / Т.Я. Хабриева, Чиркин В.Е. - М.: Норма, 2007.
25. Хабриева Т.А. Современное правотворчество и задачи юридической науки // Журнал российского права. № 8. 2015.
26. Харрис Д., О'Бойл М., Уорбрик К. Право Европейской конвенции по правам человека: научное издание. М., 2016.
27. Хеффе О. Политика, право, справедливость / Пер. с нем. М., 1994.
28. Худолей К.М. Отказ от исполнения решений международных судебных органов по защите прав и свобод граждан // Вестник Пермского университета. Юридические науки. 2017. № 4.
29. Цвайгерт К., Кётц Х. Введение в сравнительное правоведение в сфере частного права. В 2-х тт. - Том I. Основы: Пер. с нем. - М.: Междунар. Отношения, 2000.
30. Червонюк В.И. Пределы имплементации решений ЕСПЧ и феномен диффузии европейского (международного) права // Конституционное и муниципальное право. 2017. № 2.
31. Abramovich, V. Comentarios sobre el `caso Fontevecchia. URL: http://ijdh.unla.edu.ar/advf/documentos/2017/02/58ab010a10d4c.pdf
32. Alexy, R. (2013). Some Reflections on the Ideal Dimension of Law and on the Legal Philosophy of John Finnis. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 58(2).
33. Amhlaigh, C. S. (2017). Who's Afraid of Supra-State Constitutional Theory? Two Reasons to Be Sceptical of the Sceptics. SSRN Electronic Journal.
34. Antkowiak, T.M. (2011). An Emerging Mandate for International Courts: Victim Centered Remedies and Restorative Justice. Stanford Journal of International Law, 47.
35. Baraggia, A. (2017). Challenges in Comparative Constitutional Law Studies: Between Globalization and Constitutional Tradition, Comparative Law, Special Issue.
36. Bailliet, C. (2013). Measuring Compliance with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: the Ongoing Challenge of Judicial Independence in Latin America. Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, 31(4).
37. Basch, F. (2010). The Effectiveness of the Inter-American System of Human Rights Protection: A Quantitative Approach to its Functioning and Compliance with Its Decisions. Sur Journal - International Journal on Human Rights, 7(12).
38. Bernheim, B. (1994). A Theory of Conformity. Journal of Political Economy, 102(5).
39. Bjorge, E. (2014). The evolutionary interpretation of treaties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Bogdandy, A., Mac-Gregor, F., Soley, X., Piovesan, F., Antoniazzi, M. (2016). Ius Constituonale Commune En America Latina: A Regional Approach to Transformative Constitutionalism. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL), Research Paper № 21.
41. Carooza, P. (2015). The Anglo-Latin Divide and the Future of the Inter- American System of Human Rights. Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law, 5(1).
42. Cavallaro. J. & Brewer, S. (2008). Reevaluating Regional Human Rights Litigation in the Twenty-First Century: the Case of the Inter-American Court. American Journal of International Law, 102(4).
43. Chavez, R. (2004). The Evolution of Judicial Autonomy in Argentina: Establishing the Rule of Law in an Ultrapresidental System. Journal of Latin America Studies, 36(3).
44. Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. (1993). On Compliance. International Organization, 47(2).
45. Checkel, J. T. (2005). International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework. International Organization, 59(4).
46. Contesse, J. (2017). The International Authority of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: A Critique of the Conventionality Control Doctrine. International Journal of Human Rights. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3078268_code933053.pdf?abstractid=3078268&mirid=1&type=2
47. Contesse J. (2017). The Final Word? Constitutional dialogue and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 15(2).
48. Contesse J. (2016). Contestation and Difference in the Inter-American Human Rights System. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79.
49. Contesse J. Resisting the Inter-American Human Rights System. P. 24. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3248979
50. Contreras, P. (2012). National Discretion and International Deference in the Restriction of Human Rights: A Comparison Between the Jurisprudence of the European and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 11(1).
51. Cross, J. (2014). Matter of Discretion: The De Facto Abolition of the Mandatory Death Penalty in Barbados -- A Study of the Boyce and Joseph Cases. The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 46, 1. URL: http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2481&context=umialr
52. De Londras, F., & Dzehtsiarou, K. (2017). MISSION IMPOSSIBLE? ADDRESSING NON-EXECUTION THROUGH INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 66(2).
53. Do?rr, O. & Schmalenbach, K. (2018). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. A commentary. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
54. Downs, G. W. & Rocke, D. M. & Barsoom, P. N. (1996). Is the Good News About Compliance Good News About Cooperation? International Organization, 50.
55. Dulitzky, A. (2015) An Inter-American Constitutional Court? The Invention of the Conventionality Control by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Texas International Law Journal, 50(1).
56. Engstrom, P. (2018). Introduction: Rethinking the Impact of the Inter-American Human Rights System. The Inter-American Human Rights System
57. Fabbrini F., Maduro M. (2017). Supranational Constitutional Courts. iCourts Working Paper Series, № 98.
58. Finnemore, M. & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norms Dynamics and Political Change. International Organization, 52(4).
59. Fitzmaurice, G. (1951). The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Treaty Interpretation and Certain Other Treaty Points. British Yearbook of International Law, 28.
60. Gardiner, R.K. (2015). Treaty interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
61. Gerald, L. (2008). Import, Export, and Regional Consent in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. European Journal of International Law, 19(1).
62. Ginsburg, T. & Dixon, R. (2011). Comparative Constitutional Law: Introduction. University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper, 362. URL: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=public_law_and_legal_theory
63. Hafner-Burton, E.M. & Tsutsui, K. (2005). Human Rights in a Globalizing World: The Paradox of Empty Promises. American Journal of Sociology, 110 (5).
64. Hathaway, O.A. (2002). Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference? Faculty Scholarship Series, 839.
65. Hathaway, O. (2003). Path Dependence in the Law: The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System. The Iowa Law Review, 86(2).
66. Hawkins, D. & Jacoby, W. (2010). Partial Compliance: A Comparison of the European and Inter-American American Courts for Human Rights. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 6 (35).
67. Helfer, L. (2002). Overlegalizing Human Rights: International Relations Theory and the Commonwealth Caribbean Backlash Against Human Rights Regimes. Columbia Law Review, 102. URL: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2658&context=faculty_scholarship
68. Helfer, L. (2008). Nonconsensual International Lawmaking. University of Illinois Law Review, 1.
69. Helfer, L.R. (2008). Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime. European Journal of International Law, 19(1).
70. Henkin, L. (1979). How nations behave: Law and foreign policy. New York: Columbia University Press.
71. Herrera, J. C. (2019). Judicial Dialogue and Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America: The Case of Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendants. Revista Derecho Del Estado, (43).
72. Hill, Jr. D.W. (2010). Estimating the Effects of Human Rights Treaties on State Behavior. The Journal of Politics, 72 (4).
73. Hillebrecht, C. (2012). The Domestic Mechanisms of Compliance with International Human Rights Law: Case Studies from the Inter-American Human Rights System. Human Rights Quarterly, 34(4).
74. Hulme, M. (2016). Preambles in treaty interpretation. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 164.
75. Huneeus, A. (2016). Constitutional Lawyers and the Inter-American Court's Varied Authority. Law and Contemporary Problems, 79.
76. Huneeus, A. (2011). Courts Resisting Courts: Lessons from the Inter-American Court's Struggle to Enforce Human Rights. Cornell International Law Journal, 44(3).
77. Huntington, S. P. (2011). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
78. Ignatieff, M. (2000). Human Rights as Politics & Human Rights as Idolatry. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Delivered at Princeton University. P. 320. URL: http://pgil.pk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Human-Rights-politics1.pdf
79. Jackson, R. & Sorensen, G. (2013). Introduction to International Relations. Theories and Approaches. Fifth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
80. Juaristi, R., Francisco J. (2013). U.S. Exceptionalism and the Strengthening Process of the Inter-American Human Rights System. Human Rights Brief. № 2.
81. Kaufman, N., Whiteman, D. (1998). Opposition to Human Rights Treaties in the United States Senate: The Legacy of the Bricker Amendment. Human Rights Quarterly, 10. URL: http://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1119&context=poli_facpub
82. Keck, M.E. & Sikkink, K. (1998). Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
83. Koskenniemi M. (2006). Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission. International Law Commission. 58th session, Geneva.
84. Leach, P. (2017). Taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
85. Letsas, G. (2007). A theory of interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
86. Mac-Gregor, F. The Conventionality Control as a Core Mechanism of the Ius Constitutionale Commune in Bogdandy A. (eds.) Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America: The Emergence of a New Ius Commune. 2017. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
87. Miller, J.M. (2012). Echoes From the South: Legislative Debates on U.S.- Style Judicial Review. Willamette Law Review.
88. Moore, G.M. (1965). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics, 38(8).
89. Motoc, L., & Ziemele, I. (2016). The impact of the ECHR on democratic change in central and eastern Europe. Judicial perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
90. Nolte, G. (2014). Second Report on Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to The Interpretation of Treaties. International Law Commission, 66th session. Geneva.
91. Oellers-Frahm K. (2001). Multiplication of International Courts and Tribunals and Conflicting Jurisdiction - Problems and Possible Solutions. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 5.
92. Parra, V. O. (2017). The Impact of Inter-American Judgements by Institutional Empowerment. in Bogdandy A. (eds.) Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America: The Emergence of a New Ius Commune. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
93. Pinto M., Maisley, N. From Affirmative Avoidance to Soaring Alignment: the Engagement of Argentina's Supreme Court with International Law. Study Group on Principles on the Engagement of Domestic Courts with International Law. URL: https://www.academia.edu/attachments/41080057/download_file?st=MTU1NTQyMjcxOSw4OS4yMjMuODIuMTE0LDM5MTI4NTU0&s=swp-toolbar
94. Poertner, M. (2013). Institutional Capacity for Complaince: Domestic Compliance with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. American Political Science Association, Annual Meeting Paper.
95. Reinhold, S. (2013). Good Faith in International Law. Bonn Research Paper on Public International Law, 2.
96. Revol, I.L. (2018). The Ministry Of Foreign Affairs Case: A Ruling With Unforeseen Consequences In The Enforcement Of Human Rights In Argentina. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 49.
97. Rivier, R. (2010). Responsibility for Violations of Human Rights Obligations: Inter-American Mechanisms. in Crawford, J., Pellet, A., Olleson, S., Parlett, K. (eds.) The Law Of International Responsibility.
98. Romano, C. (1999). The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Pieces of the Puzzle. New York University Journal of International Law, 31(4).
99. Ron, J. (1997). Varying methods of state violence. International Organization, 51(2).
100. Ruggie, J.G. (1998). What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarism and the Social Constructivist Challenge. International Organization, 52 (4).
101. Senden, H. (2012). Interpretation of fundamental rights in a multilevel legal system: An analysis of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Cambridge: Intersentia.
102. Shaver, L. (2009). The Inter-American Human Rights System: An Effective Institution for Regional Rights Protection? Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 9. URL: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=law_globalstudies
103. Sharnak, D. (2015). The Gelman Case and the Legacy of Impunity in Uruguay in Leighton, P. & Lopez, F. (eds.) 40 Years are Nothing: History and Memory of the 1973 coups d'etat in Uruguay and Chile. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
104. Soley X., Steininger S. (2018). Parting Ways or Lashing Back? Withdrawals, Backlash and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law, Research Paper № 1. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3103666
105. Thirlway, H. (1992). The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989: Part Three. British Yearbook of International Law, 62(1).
106. Tomuschat C. (1987). International Courts and Tribunals with Regionally Restricted and/or Specialized Jurisdiction, in Judicial Settlement Of International Disputes: International Court Of Justice, Other Courts And Tribunals, Arbitration And Conciliation: An International Symposium. Max-Planck Institut Fur Auslandisches ЁOffentliches Recht Und VoЁ Lkerrecht. P. 285-416.
107. Torelly, M. (2019) From Compliance to Engagement: Assessing the Impact of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on Constitutional Law in Latin America. In Engstrom, P. (eds.) The Inter-American Human Rights System. Studies of the Americas. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
108. Wessel, J. (2004). Relational Contract Theory and Treaty Interpretation: End Games-Treaties v. Dynamic Obligations. Annual Survey of American Law, 60(1).
Иное
1. Законопроект № 587542-7 «О внесении изменений в статью 9 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации (о запрете использовать в залах судебных заседаний в ходе производства по уголовному делу защитных кабин для помещения в них подозреваемых, обвиняемых, подсудимых)». URL: https://sozd.duma.gov.ru/bill/587542-7
2. Канкунская декларация. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/eurolat/key_documents/cancun_declaration_2010_en.pdf
3. Текст денонсации АКПЧ Тринидадом и Тобаго. URL: https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_b-32_american_convention_on_human_rights_sign.htm#Trinidad%20and%20Tobago
4. Текст денонсации АКПЧ Венесуэлой. URL: http://www.oas.org/DIL/Nota_Rep%C3%BAblica_Bolivariana_Venezuela_to_SG.English.pdf
5. Федеральное агентство новостей. «Тогда судей нужно прятать за барьер: правоохранители и адвокаты выступили против отмены клеток в залах суда. Федеральное агентство новостей». URL: https://riafan.ru/1133559-togda-sudei-nuzhno-pryatat-za-barer-pravookhraniteli-i-advokaty-vystupili-protiv-otmeny-kletok-v-zalakh-suda