Assessing the European Court of Human Rights' Legitimation Strategies

Several international courts and tribunals (ICs) including human rights courts, international criminal tribunals, and WTO bodies face challenges and backlashes, including accusations that they are undemocratic, unduly invasive into sovereign states, and biased in composition or in judgments. These accusations are especially threatening insofar as many ICs can only rely on their perceived legitimacy for compliance, absent swords and purses. The paper addresses the interplay between normative legitimacy and the legitimation strategies of ICs, including such issues as the relationship between normative legitimacy and social legitimacy - acceptance and support; and how such ICs as the European Court of Human Rights has responded to criticisms with 'legitimation strategies' that elaborate 'subsidiarity' and granting states a 'margin of appreciation' - whilst seeking to promote the objective of human rights protection in Europe