This Chapter outlines four methodological and four substantive contributions of the book. By addressing the frequent neglect of remedies in human rights law, the book brings human rights closer to the reality of their frequent violation, especially for less advantaged people. It also examines the inter-relations and cross-fertilization of remedies in domestic and international law. It reveals remedies as a fruitful site for comparative law. This includes American remedial exceptionalism and differences between regional supra-national human rights courts. This Chapter highlights the book’s development of an overarching conceptual structure for remedies. Substantively, the book argues that familiar proportionality principles can improve remedial decision-making and make it more transparent. It also outlines similarities between South African engagement orders and the duty to consult Indigenous peoples. In both cases, engagement can result in consensual agreements, but also can limit rights. The two-track approach recognizes that remedies should compensate for past harms and prevent immediate irreparable harms, but also that they should prevent repetitive violations in the future. Individual remedies can recognize remedial failure and start another cycle of two-track individual and systemic remedies.

Part I examines common issues in remedies including their dual compensatory and preventive goals pursued through the two-track approach. Part II discusses the legal process and dialogic methodology used throughout the book. With reference to scholarship by Edwin Borchard and Abram Chayes, Part III justifies the decision to examine remedies in both supra-national and national human rights. Part IV examines the relation between rights and remedies including remedial deterrence where judges do not find violations because of concerns about excessive remedies. Part V examines textual sources for remedies in international and select domestic human rights contexts. It concludes that while some texts such as the European Convention on Human Rights may restrict some remedies, vague admonitions for the need for effective and appropriate remedies do not assist remedial decision-making. Distinctions between strong and rule-based exercises of remedial discretion are examined in Part VI where a principled approach is defended. The ability of proportionality principles to make remedial decision-making more disciplined and transparent is discussed in Part VII. The remedial principles of respecting subsidiarity in international law and the separation of powers are examined in Part VIII with an emphasis on the flexible and dialogic nature of these principles.