There has been intense debate in recent times over the legitimacy or otherwise of international law. This book contains fresh perspectives on these questions, offered at an international and interdisciplinary conference hosted by the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Law and International Law. At issue are questions including, for example, whether international law lacks legitimacy in general and whether international law or a part of it has yielded to the facts of power.
The past sixty years have seen an expansion of international human rights conventions and supervisory organs, not least in Europe. While these international legal instruments have enlarged their mandate, they have also faced opposition and criticism from political actors at the state level, even in well-functioning democracies. Against the backdrop of such contestations, this book brings together prominent scholars in law, political philosophy and international relations in order to address the legitimacy of international human rights regimes as a theoretically challenging and politically salient case of international authority. It provides a unique and thorough overview of the legitimacy problems involved in the global governance of human rights.
Jamie Mayerfeld defends international human rights law as an extension of domestic checks and balances and therefore necessary to constitutional government. The book combines theoretical reflections on democracy and constitutionalism with a case study of the contrasting human rights policies of Europe and the United States.
Judicial review by constitutional courts is often presented as a necessary supplement to democracy. This book questions its effectiveness and legitimacy. Drawing on the republican tradition, Richard Bellamy argues that the democratic mechanisms of open elections between competing parties and decision-making by majority rule offer superior and sufficient methods for upholding rights and the rule of law. The absence of popular accountability renders judicial review a form of arbitrary rule which lacks the incentive structure democracy provides to ensure rulers treat the ruled with equal concern and respect. Rights based judicial review undermines the constitutionality of democracy. Its counter-majoritarian bias promotes privileged against unprivileged minorities, while its legalism and focus on individual cases distort public debate. Rather than constraining democracy with written constitutions and greater judicial oversight, attention should be paid to improving democratic processes through such measures as reformed electoral systems and enhanced parliamentary scrutiny.
At the end of the Cold War, international law scholars engaged in furious debate over whether principles of democratic legitimacy had entered international law. Many argued that a 'democratic entitlement' was emerging. Others were skeptical that international practice in democracy promotion was either consistent or sufficiently widespread and many found the idea of democratic entitlement dangerous. Those debates, while ongoing, have not been comprehensively revisited in almost twenty years. Together with an original introduction, this volume collects the leading scholarship of the past two decades on these and other questions. It focuses particular attention on the normative consequences of the recent 'democratic recession' in many regions of the world.
This book offers a systematic treatment of democratic legitimacy, interpreted as a distinct normative concept. It defends the view that democratic legitimacy requires that decisions are made in a process that is politically and epistemically fair.
The discussion about a constitution for the European Union and its rejection by referendum in two of the EU founding member states has once again spurred public and scholarly interest in the democratic quality and potential of the European Union. Debating the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union brings together distinguished thinkers from law, political science, sociology, and political philosophy to explore the potential for democratically legitimate governance in the European Union. Drawing on different theoretical perspectives and strands from democratic theory, this volume is the first of its kind to overcome the present state of fragmentation in the debate about the conditions and possible remedies for what is often called the "democratic deficit" of the European Union. Among the pressing questions addressed by the contributors are: What future is there for parliamentary democracy in the European Union? Can we observe the evolution of a European public sphere and civil society? Can participatory democracy or deliberative democracy pave the road for a democratically legitimate European Union? Conversations about democracy have engaged the public in a new way since the beginning of the Iraq war, and this volume is the best resource for students and readers who are interested in democracy in the European Union. Contributions by: Rudy B. Andeweg, Katrin Auel, Arthur Benz, Lars-Erik Cederman, Damian Chalmers, Deirdre Curtin, Donatella Della Porta, Klaus Eder, Erik O. Eriksen, Ulrich Haltern, Hubert Heinelt, Doug Imig, Christian Joerges, Beate Kohler-Koch, Christopher Lord, Paul Magnette, Andreas Maurer, Jeremy Richardson, Berthold Rittberger, Rainer Schmalz-Bruns, Michael Th. Greven, Hans-Jörg Trenz, and Armin von Bogdandy