Democracy and Human Rights Adjudication in the Inter-American Legal Space

Author(s):  
René Urueña

This chapter describes the emergence of the Inter-American transnational law of human rights, its doctrinal characteristics, and some its main challenges. It focuses on the practice of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and proposes the notion of an Inter-American legal space as a different (and more useful) prism than a hierarchical view of constitutionalism to think about the challenges of legitimacy and democracy in Inter-American human rights adjudication. Instead of thinking solely about national democracies, this chapter argues, it is useful to think of democracy in the context of an Inter-American legal space. While the balance between the appropriate Inter-American standard of review and the democratic pedigree of the primary decision is fundamental for the democratic legitimacy of the regional court, the notion of Inter-American legal space allows us to see that, in a context of human rights indeterminacy, such democratic balancing needs to be performed in reference to a regional (and not solely national) process of democratization, in which an Inter-American community of human rights practice will continue to play a central role.

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
SEYLA BENHABIB

Abstract:This article examines the contemporary debate about the spread of transnational law and its sovereigntist critiques. Sovereigntists argue that the rapid development of international and transnational treaties and the emergence of regional human rights courts such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) undermine sovereignty and thus pose a threat to democratic self-determination. I criticise the new sovereigntism and argue that transnational human rights strengthen rather than weaken democratic sovereignty, and name processes through which rights-norms are contextualised in polities ‘democratic iterations’. I develop the ‘authorship model of democratic legitimacy’ in order to show how constitutional rights and international human rights can be understood to be in harmony and dissonance with one another. The challenge is to think beyond the binarisms of the cosmopolitan versus the civic republican; democratic versus the international and transnational; democratic sovereignty versus human rights law. Distinguishing between state sovereignty and popular sovereignty enables us to do so. By constraining certain sovereign powers of the state, international human rights regimes and courts can enhance popular sovereignty in that they strengthen the rights of the marginalised and the excluded. The article also briefly touches upon the significance of the Alien Tort Statute in US courts from the standpoint of the development of international human rights norms and focuses onHirst v the United Kingdom, recently adjudicated by the ECtHR, to substantiate the distinction between state and popular sovereignty.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Herdegen

In the process of globalisation, international law plays a crucial and ambivalent role. It is one of the driving forces behind the integration of markets, expanding standards of human rights and good governance as well as mechanisms for international peace and security. International law also responds to a globalised world which catalyses not only universal ethics, but also the global spread of risks to political and economic stability. "Evolutive interpretation" of international agreements affects traditional concepts of sovereignty and democratic legitimacy. It enhances the power of technocratic elites. At the same time, we witness an intensive interplay between the different sectors of international law; new layers of 'hard' and 'soft' normativity as well as intriguing forms of legal pluralism.


2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 223-232
Author(s):  
Rowan Cruft

In this latest work by one of our leading political and legal philosophers, Allen Buchanan outlines a novel framework for assessing the system of international human rights law—the system that he takes to be the heart of modern human rights practice. Buchanan does not offer a full justification for the current system, but rather aims “to make a strong prima facie case that the existing system as a whole has what it takes to warrant our support of it on moral grounds, even if some aspects of it are defective and should be the object of serious efforts at improvement” (p. 173).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document