International Judicial Human Rights Review – Effective, Legitimate or Both?

UNIVERSALISM IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, J. Sihvola, P. Korkman, V. Mäkinen, eds., Collegium, 2008

20 Pages Posted: 23 Aug 2010

Date Written: 2008

Abstract

Critics charge that international judicial human rights review is objectionably undemocratic and hence illegitimate. Jeremy Waldron has presented several forceful and thought provoking arguments against judicial review in general, and hence to international review as well. This contribution argues against these objections Section 2 sketches parts of a liberal contractualist account of legitimacy among ‘contingent compliers’. Section 3 lays out Waldron’s arguments against judicial review, while Section 4 responds to them. Of particular concern is his claim that judicial review conflicts with the grounds for political obligation to majoritarian representative legislature in circumstances of deep conflict. I suggest ways of responding to these criticisms that may lead to the conclusion that en if undemocratic, international judicial review of human rights is legitimate. Some might even argue that the practice can be seen as democratic and legitimate.

Keywords: international human rights, law, political philosophy, judicial review, legitimacy

Suggested Citation

Follesdal, Andreas, International Judicial Human Rights Review – Effective, Legitimate or Both? (2008). UNIVERSALISM IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, J. Sihvola, P. Korkman, V. Mäkinen, eds., Collegium, 2008. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1664048

Andreas Follesdal (Contact Author)

Pluricourts ( email )

P.O. Box 6706
St. Olavs plass 5
0130 Oslo
Norway

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
35
Abstract Views
315
PlumX Metrics