Traditions of Justification for Human Rights and International Institutions

Abstract

Respect for individuals requires that the rules that regulate our common life be justifiable and acceptable to them. This concept of public reason, while much discussed at the domestic level, has been less exploited for its potential to provide frameworks of justification for rules and practices at the international level. The papers in this panel extend norms of public reason to international institutions such as the Security Council, which exercises coercive authority over states, and human rights practices. Institutions and human rights norms have been challenged for they purported bias towards western ideas of human rights. In this panel, Eva Pils argues that challenges resulting from those who defend human rights with Chinese characteristics are not defensible as alternatives to widely shared international human rights norms. Reza Mosayebi explains what kinds of reasons are appropriate to build a human rights culture and institutional practice with global appeal under conditions of ineliminable pluralism. Building an enforcement mechanism at the international level on the basis of human rights norms with widespread support is defensible as long as those institutions are appropriately structured, inclusive, accountable, and act justly. Carmen Pavel’s paper shows that the Security Council suffers from significant flaws along most of these dimensions of legitimacy.