Legitimacy, Global Governance and Human Rights Institutions: Inverting the Puzzle

The legitimacy of international human rights regimes: Legal, political and philosophical perspectives, edited by Andreas Føllesdal, Johan Karlsson Schaffer & Geir Ulfstein, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pages 212–42

PluriCourts Research Paper No. 14-10

University of Oslo Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2014-11

39 Pages Posted: 7 May 2014 Last revised: 3 Jul 2014

See all articles by Johan Karlsson Schaffer

Johan Karlsson Schaffer

University of Gothenburg - School of Global Studies; University of Oslo - Faculty of Law

Multiple version iconThere are 2 versions of this paper

Date Written: 2014

Abstract

In this chapter, I draw on recent scholarship on the alleged legitimacy deficits in global governance institutions, seeking to engage the notions of legitimacy this literature suggests with the intriguing case of international human rights institutions. First, I reconstruct how this literature views the problem of legitimacy in global governance, a view that relies on a particular notion of international institutions which both explains and justifies global governance institutions in terms of the collective goods they help states obtain. The puzzle of legitimacy, on this view, lies in offering citizens valid reasons to obey, support or refrain from interfering with global governance institutions – reasons that include certain procedural, epistemic and substantive elements, which together comprise a complex, hybrid standard of legitimacy.

Second, I explore to what extent this view of legitimacy problems with global governance institutions can be applied for analyzing corresponding legitimacy problems with international human rights institutions, which constitute a different kind of political entity than typical global governance institutions. Uniquely, international human rights institutions normally do not help states obtain joint benefits in their external affairs, but regulate the internal relation between a government and individuals under its jurisdiction, and, to the extent that they are effective, chiefly rely on domestic mechanisms of enforcement. This crucial difference between the two kinds of international institutions, in turn, changes the authority relation and the legitimacy puzzle involved. In the human rights area, the problem of legitimacy is to give reasons to governments why they should accept their obligations under international human rights law, in light of the benefits or opportunities human rights treaties provide for citizens or individuals.

In the third section, I draw out the implications of this analysis for finding such reasons. While the complex, hybrid standards of legitimacy suggested for global governance institutions need to be substantially reworked in order to apply to international human rights institutions, the often discarded notion of state consent provides an essential component of legitimacy for the human rights area.

Finally, I discuss whether the notion of international institutions discussed in the chapter may have implications beyond the human rights area.

Keywords: human rights instittuions, legitimacy, global governance, cosmopolitanism, functionalism

Suggested Citation

Karlsson Schaffer, Johan, Legitimacy, Global Governance and Human Rights Institutions: Inverting the Puzzle (2014). The legitimacy of international human rights regimes: Legal, political and philosophical perspectives, edited by Andreas Føllesdal, Johan Karlsson Schaffer & Geir Ulfstein, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013, pages 212–42, PluriCourts Research Paper No. 14-10, University of Oslo Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2014-11, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2433574

Johan Karlsson Schaffer (Contact Author)

University of Gothenburg - School of Global Studies ( email )

POB 700
Gothenburg, SE 40530
Sweden

University of Oslo - Faculty of Law ( email )

PO Box 6706 St Olavsplass
Oslo, 0130
Norway

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
175
Abstract Views
1,503
rank
128,106
PlumX Metrics