RJP100 - 3 - Francisco Verbic

7/31/2019 RJP100 - 3 - Francisco Verbic

1/28

Centro de Estudos Jurdicos da Presidncia

Subchefia para Assuntos Jurdicos da Casa Civil

Presidncia da Repblica

100

Braslia Volume 13 Nmero 100 Jul/Set 2011


2/28

Presidenta da Repblica

Dilma Vana Rousseff

Ministra-Chefe da Casa Civil da Presidncia da Repblica

Gleisi Helena Hoffmann

Subchefe para Assuntos Jurdicos da Casa Civil e

Presidente do Centro de Estudos Jurdicos da Presidncia

Ivo da Motta Azevedo Corra

Coordenadoras do Centro de Estudos Jurdicos da Presidncia

Mariana Barbosa Cirne

Carolina Costa Ferreira

Monique Isabelle Martins Pacheco

Revista Jurdica da Presidncia / Presidncia da Repblica

Centro de Estudos Jurdicos da Presidncia Vol. 1, n. 1, maio de 1999.

Braslia: Centro de Estudos Jurdicos da Presidncia, 1999-.

Quadrimestral

Ttulo anterior: Revista Jurdica Virtual

Mensal: 1999 a 2005; bimestral: 2005 a 2008.

ISSN (at fevereiro de 2011): 1808-2807

ISSN (a partir de maro de 2011): 2236-3645

1. Direito. Brasil. Presidncia da Repblica, Centro de Estudos Jurdicos da Presidncia.

CDD 341

CDU 342(81)

Centro de Estudos Jurdicos da Presidncia

Praa dos Trs Poderes, Palcio do Planalto

Anexo II superior - Sala 204 A

CEP 70.150-900 - Braslia/DF

Telefone: (61)3411-2937

E-mail: [email protected]

http://www.presidencia.gov.br/revistajuridica

Centro de Estudos Jurdicos da Presidncia 2011


3/28

Risa Juria a Prsinia Braslia . 13 n100 Jul/S 2011 p. 201 a 226

201

3

SUMMARY: 1 Introduction 2 Empirical and theoretical framework 3 Waldrons (conditional) caseagainst judicial review 4 The legitimacy of Courts as an appropriate institutional setting for nal

HRs adjudication: one decisive outcome-related reason that can make a case for judicial review

5 Advocacy groups strategies (falling outside the core case?) 6 How individual cases come into the

legislative process 7 Final remarks 8 References

ABStRAct: th papr nfrns sm f h argumns prsn by Jrmy Walrn

agains h mhanism f juiial riw an ris pri a ms nribu-

in fr suppring h lgiimay f curs as an aqua insiuinal sing

to adjudicate human rights within contemporary democratic systems. The rst part

prsns h wfl framwrk f my psiin, i., h pariular pn sruur

and expansive scope that human rights have acquired in the international eld,

an Rainr Frss hry abu h funains f his kin f righs. th sn

n sribs a limi pi f Jrmy Walrns r as agains juiial riw,

focusing on the reasons he provides to discard the specic moral insight of courts

in his ara f righs ajuiain as an um-rla aanag ha an supprh mhanism f juiial riw. Finally, h papr lps a riiqu f Walrns

psiin rgaring ha aanag. Wihu nsing his fur maning assump-

ins abu hw mrai insiuins wrk in an ial nx, I argu ha h

specic moral insight that Courts have as a consequence of how individual cases are

prsn bfr hm is a srng aanag r lgislaurs an an b ispsii-

ve in the case for judicial review in this eld of law if we think about it from within

the empirical and theoretical framework described in the rst part of the work.

KeYWoRdS: Human Righs Juiial Riw dmray Right to Justication.

Human Rights adjudication in contemporarydemocracies: Courts specific moral insight

as a decisive advantage over legislatures(a modest and partial response to Jeremy

Waldrons core case against judicial review)

Francisco Verbic

Aga. espialisa m diri ciil (Unirsia Nainal La Plaa).

LLM m Inrnainal Lgal Suis (Nw Yrk Unirsiy NYU).

Arig rbi m 22/03/2011 apra m 28/09/2011.


4/28


Human Righs ajuiain in nmprary mrais202

A adjudicao dos Direitos Humanos nas democracias contemporneas: a reflexomoral especfica dos tribunais como uma vantagem decisiva sobre os parlamen-tos uma resposta modesta e parcial ao principal argumento de Jeremy Waldron

contra o controle judicial

ReSUMo: o arig nfrna alguns s argumns aprsnas pr Jrmy Walrn

nra manism nrl juiial na ar uma msa nribui para

rearmar a legitimidade das Cortes como uma ferramenta institucional adequada

para prmr diris Humans, ns sismas mris nmprns. o

arig s iii m rs pars: a primira aprsna as uas bass a minha

psi, is , a pariular sruura abra sp ampl qu ni diri-

s Humans m aquiri n amp inrnainal, a ria Rainr Frs sbra funa s ip iris. A sguna par sr uma par limiaa

argumn nral Jrmy Walrn nra nrl juiial, fan ns argu-

mentos desenvolvidos pelo autor para descartar a moral especca das Cortes nesta

ra ajuia iris m uma anagm rlainaa qu p apiar

manism nrl juiial. Finalmn, arig snl uma ria a

psi Walrn, rmnan al anagm. Sm nsar sus quar prs-

supss sbr m as insiuis mrias rabalham num nx ial,argumento que a moral especca das Cortes como uma consequncia de como ca-

ss iniiuais s aprsnas, pis uma gran anagm m rimn s

Prs Lgislais pm sr ispss n as nrl juiial n amp

do Direito, se houver a reexo por meio dos aspectos emprico e terico descritos

na primira par arig.

PALAvRAS-cHAve:diris Humans cnrl juiial dmraia diri justicao.


5/28


Franis vrbi 203

Ladjudication des Droits de lHomme dans les dmocraties contemporaines : la rfle-xion morale specifique des tribunaux comme un avantage dcisif sur les parlements[une rponse modeste et partielle largument principal de Jeremy Waldron contre

le contrle juridictionnel amricain (judicial review)]

RSUM: c aril nfrn rains s argumns prsns par Jrmy Walrn

nr l manism nrl juriiinnl n msmn furnir un

nribuin la sunan la lgiimi s ribunaux n an qu ars insi-

uinnls apprpris pur saur sur ls ris lHmm au sin s sysms

mraiqus nmprains. c aril s iis n ris paris. La prmir pr-

sn l ubl ar ma psiin, s ir, la sruur ur l hamp

xpansif qu ls ris lHmm n aquis ans l main inrnainal, lahri Rainr Frs sur lablissmn gnr ri. La uxim pari

ri parillmn largumn prinipal Jrmy Walrn nr l nrl juri-

dictionnel, en se concentrant sur les raisons quil fournit pour carter les rexions

mrals s ribunaux ans main u dri mm un aanag li aux rsulas

qui peut appuyer le mcanisme de du contrle juridictionnel. la n, larticle dvelo-

pp un riiqu la psiin Walrn nrnan aanag. Sans nsr

ss quar hyphss sur l fninnmn s insiuins mraiqus ans uncontexte idal, je soutiens que les rexions morales des tribunaux qui ont comme

nsqun un hangmn la fan n ls as sn inruis an s urs

sn un aanag fr sur ls parlmns pun r rminans ans ls as

nrl juriiinnl ans main u ri si ln pns suj au sin u

ar mpiriqu hriqu ri ans la prmir pari raail.

MotS-cLS: dris lHmm cnrl juriiinnl dmrai dri justication.


6/28



1 Introduction

thpurps f his papr is isuss sm f h argumns prsn

by Jrmy Walrn agains h mhanism f juiial riw, an ry pri a ms nribuin fr suppring h lgiimay f curs as an

aqua insiuinal sing ajuia human righs (hrinafr HRs) wihin

nmprary mrai sysms.

Lot of work has been produced in the eld of individual rights adjudication, and

ms f h prsn fr an agains juiial riw ar ry wll knwn. My aim is

risi an fn nly n f hm unr h ligh pri by h njunin

f: (i) h pn sruur an xpansi sp f nmprary HRs; an (ii) a sp-

cic theory of justication about them, that of Rainer Forst and his idea of a moral

right to justication as the foundation of HRs. Given that empirical and theoretical

framwrk, I will argu ha curs ar in a br psiin han lgislaurs assss

HRs issus n assuming ha all mrai insiuins ar wrking in a rasnabl

mannr wihin h siy.

The paper is divided in three parts. In the rst one I briey present the twofold

framwrk f my psiin. on f h prmiss is rprsn by h pariular pn

structure and expansive scope that HRs have acquired in the international eld, andhw ha hararisi has l h us f h prprinaliy s as a mans

rmin hir limis (bh mpirial fas ha I will ak fr gran wihu furhr

isussin). th sn prmis is Rainr Frss hry abu h funains f

HRs, whih pris an inrsing argumn suppr h aanag f ajui-

aing HRs wihin an insiuinal sing whr anyn an b sur b abl

isuss hr as wih ral hans f bh bing har abu h issus a sak an

inuencing the outcome of the adjudication process.

In h sn par I srib a limi pi f Jrmy Walrns r as

agains juiial riw, an hn prsn h rasns h pris isar n

f h um-rla aanags ha is fn sa fn h mhanism

of judicial review: the specic moral insight that Courts have and legislatures lack

whn i ms assss HRs issus.

In h hir an las par f h papr I lp my riiqu f Walrns psi-

in rgaring ha aanag. Wihu nsing his fur maning assumpins

abu hw mrai insiuins wrk in an ial nx, I will ry shw ha hspecic moral insight that Courts have as a consequence of how individual cases are


7/28


Franis vrbi 205

prsn bfr hm is a srng aanag r lgislaurs an an b ispsii

in h as fr juiial riw if w hink abu i nsiring h afrmnin

mpirial an hrial framwrk.

2 Empirical and theoretical framework

2.1 The open structure and expansive scope of HRs and the proportionality analysisas a means to determine their limits (empirical framework)

Iniiual righs i n appar in sn as pliial-lgal laims implying

limiains an bligains upn siy an h grnmn unil mrn ims1;

frmrly, hy wr smhing jus gran by h Srign2

. I is msly sin h18h nury ha righs umns ha rfrr hm in rms f smhing

inhrn human naur, an baus f ha as bing unirsal, inalinabl

an imprsripibl3.

Hwr, his was n h nly shif rgaring HRs alng h Hisry. thy ha

als suffr a mamrphsis rgaring hir frmulain. As Kumm (2010) suggss,

n hugh sm f h righs nain in inrnainal HRs insrumns an in -

msi nsiuins ar sruur as ruls (e.g. N n shall b subj rur r

inhuman r graing ramn r punishmn)4, nmprary HRs prai larly

shws righ prisins whih ar qui iffrn. In, many f hm n sablish

rul-lik samns bu absra rquirmns suh as a righ frm f sph.

Luis Hnkin (1979, p. 3) nsirs ha HRs ay ra hir auhni rigins snnh anighnh-nury nps.

Magna cara (1215), aril 1: W ha als gran all frmn f u kingm, fr us an ur

hirs frr, all h unrwrin libris, b ha an hl by hm an hir hirs, f us an urhirs frr. Aring Hnkin (1979, p. 3) his umn an b nsir as a limiain n

mnarhy an a s f nsiuinalism.

S h virginia dlarain f Righs, 1776 (Ar. 1: tha all mn ar by naur qually fr aninpnn, an ha rain inhrn righs, f whih, whn hy nr in a sa f siy, hyann, by any mpa, pri r is hir psriy); dlarain f h Righs f Man an f h

ciizn, 1789 (Prambl: th Rprsnais f h Frnh ppl [] ha rsl s frh, ina slmn larain, hs naural, inalinabl an sar righs f man; Ar. II: th n f rypliial assiain is h prsrain f h naural an imprsripibly righs f man); Unirsal

dlarain f Human Righs, 1948 (Prambl: Whras rgniin f h inhrn igniy an f

h qual an inalinabl righs f all mmbrs f h human family is h funain f frm, jus-i an pa in h wrl; Ar. 1: All human bings ar brn fr an qual in igniy an righs).

charr f Funamnal Righs f h eurpan Unin, Aril 4.

1

2

3

4


8/28



5

6

7

8

tha ransfrmain has nr many HRs in sanars r prinipls, ra-

hr han ruls5. And this fact, in turn, demands to nd a method to determine which

h limis f hs pn righs ar6. th marain f limis is rlan in w

different ways: it is useful to nd out the scope of valid governmental regulationr righs, whil a h sam im i allws a rasnabl habiain wihin a gi-

n siy n nly amng righs an publi rgulain, bu als amng iniiuals

(rmmbr h maxim: my righs n whr yurs bgin).

No matter how the text of the written instruments helps (or not) to nd the

limis an rmin h sp f HRs, ms f nmprary cnsiuinal an

HRs curs arun h wrl ar mplying h prprinaliy s as a mans

rah ha gal. this s an b nsir as an analyial framwrk assss h

necessary and sufcient conditions under which a right takes precedence over com-ping nsirains (KUMM, 2010), an is hararisi hr-prng sruur is

ry wll knwn7. Alhugh I will n isuss h issu hr, i is wrh mnin

ha hr is n salin s ri frm mplying ha s: righs an n b

nsir as rumps in a wrkinian sns8.

S, bfr ging aha, i shul b lar ha my isussin abu juiial

riw an h lgiimay f curs ajuia HRs issus will ak pla in a n-

x whr HRs ar msly prsn as pn-sruur prinipls r sanars han nssarily always rump r pliy issus, an whr curs ngag in prpr-

tionality analysis as a means to nd the limits and the proper scope of those rights.

Fr an aun f h iffrn faurs bwn ruls, sanars an prinipls s cass R. Sunsin(w/y, p. 4-6, 8-11).

Among the text of HRs instruments, Kumm (2010) identies three different approaches to the issue

of how to determine their limits: (i) not to say anything at all about them; (ii) dene the right in the

rst part of the article, and describes its limits in the second one; and (iii) substitute the specic limi-ains by a gnral faul limiain laus.

Fr a mprhnsi analysis f h s, hw i spra arun h wrl an wha is h impa i has

n law an pliis, s StoNe; MAttHeWS, 2008.

dWoRKIN, 1978. S PILdeS, 1998 (arguing ha iniiual righs ar ls urs us alua

h sial manings an xprssi imnsin f grnmnal ain). S als KUMM, 2010(arguing ha inrs pr as righs an unrailing pliy nsirains mp n hsam ll an ar subj h sam quain wihin h prprinaliy analysis).


9/28


Franis vrbi 207

9

2.2 The moral right to justification as a plausible foundation of HRs (theoreticalframework)

t rmin wha righs an b nsir as HRs an whih funin his sp-cic kind of rights is supposed to accomplish in legal discourse within contemporary

mrai siis, is n an asy ask. Amng h philsphial isussins abu

their justication it is possible to nd dissimilar perspectives that, by according prio-

riy iffrn asps f h phnmnn, ha l h lpmn f hris

grun n hial, pliial an mral nsirains9. Fr h purps f his

papr I ha hsn Rainr Frss psiin as hrial framwrk. Frs pss

a srng riiqu r bh hial an pliial hris abu HRs an suggss a

new line of argument based on a universal moral right to justication. As I will try to

shw, his prmis pris a usful l fn h rl f curs in HRs ajui-

ain. Aring Frs (2010, p. 718-719), h mral basis f HRs is

[] h rsp fr h human prsn as an aunmus agn wh psss-ses a right to justication, that is, a right to be recognized as an agent whoan man apabl rasns fr any ain ha laims b mrallyjustied and for any social or political structure or law that claims to bebining upn him r hr.

In his sns, h suggss ha all HRs nain an ssnial pliial mssag,

unrs as h iniiual laim b ra as a pliial subj wh, n h

n han, is fr frm arbirary minain an, n h hr, has b rgniz

as smn wih igniy. In his sripin igniy is unrs as a rlainal

rm, an is nr impliains an b asrain nly by way f isursi

justication (FORST, 2010, p. 734).

Frm ha pin f iw, h main purps f righs isurs is laim h

righ pariipa in h pliial sruurs ha rmin whih righs an uis

hs subj hm ha (FoRSt, 2010, p. 717). Unr his ligh, HRs mpha-

size standards of treatment that no human being could justiably deny to others

and that should be secured in a legitimate social order (the inuence of Habermas

See FORST, 2010, p. 714. For a sample of ethical justications and its implications regarding the scope

and functions of HRs, see the critics of James Grifns work on the aforementioned Forsts work and also

in HOOKER, 2010; WRIGHT, 2010; GARDNER, 2008. Regarding political justications see RAZ, 2007.


10/28



10

11

rin in his fa f Frss analysis is apparn)10. Furhrmr, Frs sas ha

unrlying all HRs hr is a laim b rsp as aunmus agns wh ha

h righ n b subj rain ains r insiuinal nrms ha ann

be adequately justied to them. This is what the right to justication is all about:i mans ha hr an b n lgiima sial r pliial rr ha ann b

adequately justied to its subjects (FORST, 2010, p. 711, 712, 717).

th qusin ha fllws is hw w ar supps rmin whih inrss

can be qualied as HRs. According to Forst (2010, p. 711, 735, 740), the criteria of

justication are those of reciprocity and generality within political structures of jus-

tication. In this way, HRs turn out to be those rights, which cannot be rejected with

riprally an gnrally ali rasns. thy xprss frms f muual rgniin

an, in hir nr frm, hy ar rsuls f prurs f isursi nsruin.

Las bu n las, i is wrh highligh hr pins rgaring his hry. th

rst one is that it matches quite well even with that strong version of democracy

whih aps ha hr is n n s f righs nilmns r praial ralizain

f hm ha will always b suprir (HUtcHINSoN, 2008). th sn is ha i

allws rahing a muh brar npin abu h sp f HRs han h hi-

cal or political justications, a conception which is open to include therein all kind

f libry inrss an n nly h funamnal ns11

. Finally, aring isauhr, h hry has hr rllaris: (i) all HRs ha a mmn basis in a fun-

damental right to justication, understood as a basic moral right; (ii) the legal and

political function of HRs is to make this right to justication socially effective, both

subsanily an prurally; an (iii) his way f xplaining HRs is n pn

the charge of ethnocentrism usually employed to attack other kind of justications

(FoRSt, 2010, p. 711-712).

Frm h afrmnin rllaris w ha bar in min spially h

sn n, pariularly h xn ha i rfrs prur. Aring Frs

(2010, p. 711-712), h prural asp f his hry mphasizs h ssnial

niin ha n n shul b subj a s f righs an uis a plii-

al-lgal righs rgim h rminain f whih h r sh ann pariipa in

S BARtHoLoMeW (2003), arguing ha [] ulimaly, h hrus f Habrmass isurs-hriapprah lgiimay inias ha h rminain an lgiimain f human righs sanarsmust rest on public justication and deliberation, aimed at producing mutual understanding, under

prural niins f frm, pliial qualiy an publiiy.

Aring Kumm (2010, p. 151), his is n a rllary f h hrial funain f HRs bu f

h prprinaliy rin human an nsiuinal righs prai.


11/28


Franis vrbi 209

as an autonomous agent of justication. I will come back to this assertion because

i is rlan fr unrsaning h insiuinal impliains f Frss apprah.

In assuming Frss hry as h hrial framwrk fr my isussin, I am

implying ha prsns ha h basi righ li in a siy whr hy hmslsar h sial an pliial agns wh rmin whih righs hy an laim an

have to recognize. Hence, HRs protect individuals not only from the iniction of

social harms which can not be justied, but also (and above that) they protect them

agains h harm f n bing par f h pliial rminain f wha uns

as suh harms (FoRSt, 2010, p. 737). In my iw, hs prmiss as an inrsing

nw ligh n h issu f juiial ajuiain f righs an ini risi sm f h

raiinal argumns rla h qusin f whih insiuinal sing is mr

appropriate to provide nal adjudication on HRs issues, especially if we also consider

h pn sruur an xpansi sp f ms nmprary HRs prisins.

3 Waldrons (conditional) case against judicial review

t lp my argumn, I will fus n Jrmy Walrns wll knwn aril

th cr f h cas Agains Juiial Riw (2006)12: in his wrk h sas ha

judicial review of legislation is inappropriate as a mode of nal decisionmaking in

a fr an mrai siy. en hugh h prpss w frns f aak war

h rin, fr h purps f his papr I will isuss nly n f hm: h

allgly pliial illgiimay f juiial riw s far as mrai alus ar

nrn. Aring Walrn, h prblm wih ha mhanism f isin-

making is ha by priilging majriy ing amng a small numbr f unl

an unaunabl jugs, i isnfranhiss rinary iizns an brushs asi

cherished principles of representation and political equality in the nal resolution

f issus abu righs 13. I will ry shw ha his is n mplly aura.Walrns aril ri a srng rspns frm FALLoN JR. (2008). thr,

Falln argus ha h bs as fr juiial riw in pliially an mrally hal-

Fr anhr inrsing apprah war h suppsly illgiimay f juiial riw in mraisiis, s HUtcHINSoN (2008), arguing ha [] whil a mulipliiy f librai insiuinsan play a usful rl in a mrai pliy, hr is n rasn a all why juiial riw, as prsnly

nsiu, shul b n f hm. Aringly, an unrlning mmimn mray ffrs a

mr har r an nining as agains juiial riw.

WALdRoN (2006, p. 1353). H ha alray isuss sm f h argumns prsn in his aril

in a frmr n (s WALdRoN, 1998).

12

13


12/28



hy siis s n rs (as has fn bn assr) n h ia ha urs

are more likely than legislatures to make correct decisions about how to dene

agu righs f h kin mmnly inlu in bills f righs bu n h subly

iffrn grun ha lgislaurs an urs shul bh b nlis in pr-ing funamnal righs, an ha bh shul ha pwrs r lgislain

ha migh rasnably b hugh ila suh righs (FALLoN JR, 2008, p.

1695). H nlus ha i is rasnabl bli ha a nsiuinal -

mray wih a wll-sign sysm f juiial riw wul pru a mrally

br parn f ums han a pliial mray wihu juiial riw,

n if Walrns fur niins hl, unr irumsans ha plausibly xis

(FALLoN JR., 2008, p. 1715).

My apprah war h issu, hwr, is n h sam. In his wrk, Falln

ns (a h us an fr h sak f his argumn) ha hr is n rasn

hink urs mr likly han lgislaurs rmin unrringly wha righs

ppl aually ha (FALLoN JR., 2008, p. 1696, 1702). en hugh h akn-

wlgs ha curs ha insiuinal aanags in rsling ispu righs

qusins, h susains ha s many f h argumns prsn in far f urs

as a br insiuinal sing rmin whhr lgislain ilas iniiual

righs ha a rubingly liis as (FALLoN JR., 2008, 1697). In h sam lin,Huhinsn (2008) rfrs h juiiary arisray as a kin f li pwr ha

shul b isrus wihin a mray. Fallns as fr juiial riw is grun

n h prmis ha i wrks as a mans f minimizing h numbr f ass in whih

unrnfrmn urs (FALLoN JR, 2008, p. 1700, 1704-1715).

In my pinin, as I will ry shw, hr is a las n rasn nsir ha

curs ar in a br psiin han lgislaurs ahi br isins abu

HRs issus if w assum h hrial bakgrun alray mnin in his wrk:

a moral right to justication as the basis of every HR. Quoting Fallon once again in

rr xplain my psiin:

Fr m bli ha rasnabl isagrmn abu righs is pssibl,whil ninuing bli in a nnskpial way ha ppl nrhlsspossess particular rights, I have to believe that I have identied the perti-nn mral ruh in a rlaily, n if n prfly, pismially rliablway. (FALLoN JR., 2008, p. 1703)

In my iw, Frss hry an b nsir as an pismially rliabl way inify h sp an limis f HRs. An whn i ms assss h mral righ


13/28


Franis vrbi 211

to justication in a given situation regarding certain HRs claim, I think that the ins-

iuinal aanags mnin by Falln m in play ip h sal in far

f curs as a mar f prinipl, an n nly whn gnral lgislain ilas

iniiual righs (as Falln argus, s FALLoN JR. , 2008, p. 45).t b hns, whn I sar my rsarh I xp a mr raial aak agains

h rin f juiial riw. Wll, sa my pin br, a mr gnral n. I

say ha baus h aak is raial in, bu, as Walrn aknwlgs frm h

ry bginning f his ssay, i is bas n a sris f assumpins rgaring hw h

mrai insiuins funin in h siy whr h mhanism is supps

b mply, an als rgaring rain aius f h iniiuals an publi

ofcers who work within that institutions. As a consequence, his argument is a con-

iinal n an h ns ha juiial riw migh b m apprpria as

an anmalus prisin al wih spial pahlgis (i.. wih siuains whr

any f h niins is absn) (WALdRoN, 2006)14.

th fur assumpins unrlying Walrns argumns ar h fllwing: (1)

mrai insiuins in rasnably g wrking rr, inluing a rprsnai

lgislaur l n h basis f unirsal aul suffrag15; (2) a s f juiial

insiuins, again in rasnably g rr, s up n a nnrprsnai basis

har iniiual lawsuis, sl ispus, an uphl h rul f law; (3) a m-mitment on the part of most members of the society and most of its ofcials to the

In fa, h himslf ias a subsanial par f his aril isuss hs pahlgial siuains

(whih h alls nn-r ass). Walrn rgnizs ha his fur assumpins ar qui maningan ha fr many ppl h as fr juiial riw rss n h rfusal ap hm: Juiial

riw is in par a rspns pri failurs f mrai insiuins, r i is in par a rspnsto the fact that many people do not take rights sufciently seriously (so they need a court to do it for

hm). In sum, supprrs f h prai will say w n juiial riw f lgislain in h ralworld, not the ideal world dened by my assumptions. (WALDRON, 2006, p. 1401)

Walrn (2006, p. 1346) says ha []his lgislaur is a larg librai by, ausm alingwith difcult issues, including important issues of justice and social policy. The legislators deliberate

an n publi issus, an h prurs fr lawmaking ar labra an rspnsibl, aninrpra arius safguars, suh as biamralism, rbus mmi sruiny, an mulipl lls fnsirain, ba, an ing. I assum ha hs prsss nn bh frmally (hrugh publi

harings an nsulain prurs) an infrmally wih wir bas in h siy. Mmbrs f hlgislaur hink f hmsls as rprsnais, in a ariy f ways, smims making h inrss

an pinins f hir nsiuns ky hir pariipain, smims hinking mr in rms f irualrprsnain f inrss an pinins hrughu h siy as a whl. I assum ha hr arpolitical parties, and that legislators party afliations are key to their taking a view that ranges more

braly han h inrss an pinins f hir immia nsiuns.

14

15


14/28



ia f iniiual an minriy righs16; an (4) prsising, subsanial, an g

faih isagrmn abu righs (i.., abu wha h mmimn righs aually

amuns an wha is impliains ar) amng h mmbrs f h siy wh

ar mmi h ia f righs (WALdRoN, 2006, p. 1360)17.Taking these conditions as background, Waldron rst discusses the argument

grun n h lak f priabiliy, n h par f lgislars, rgaring h is-

sus f righs ha migh aris frm h appliain f rain sau a nr

situation. That aw of the legislature could lead to consider as adequate a mecha-

nism lik juiial riw, h xn ha i allws iizns bring hs issus

ryns anin as hy aris. Hwr, h rjs his argumn baus i

wul nly apply wha h alls wak juiial riw an n a srng frm

of the practice in which the abstract question of right that has been identied is

sl in h way ha a ur ms apprpria (WALdRoN, 2006, p. 1.370)18.

Afrwars, h isusss h argumn whih nsirs h rl f curs in his

eld as a sort of mechanism for correcting legislative mistakes. According to this

psiin, i is gnrally sa ha h lgislaurs isins shul b rsp,

unlss hy ila righs19. Hwr, Walrn argus ha his apprah h issu

is rrnus if w fa i baring in min his furh assumpin (ha h mmbrs

I assum ha hr is a srng mmimn n h par f ms mmbrs f h siy w ar

nmplaing h ia f iniiual an minriy righs. Alhugh hy bli in h pursui fh gnral g unr sm bra uiliarian npin, an alhugh hy bli in majriy rulas a rugh gnral prinipl fr pliis, hy ap ha iniiuals ha rain inrss an ar

nil rain libris ha shul n b ni simply baus i wul b mr nninfr ms ppl ny hm. thy bli ha minriis ar nil a gr f suppr, rg-niin, an insulain ha is n nssarily guaran by hir numbrs r by hir pliial wigh.

(WALdRoN, 2006, p. 1364)

Aring Falln Jr. (2008, p. 1702), h furh assumpin wul b h mr rlan: If pplrasnably isagr abu righs, w migh inrpr Walrn as arguing, hn w mus xplain n

nly hw hy isagr, bu als hw i is rasnabl fr hm isagr; an if isagrmn israsnabl baus n pismially rliabl mh f inifying righs xiss, as h may sm suggest,then it is impossible to say that one decisionmaker is more likely than another to decide

rrly.

Bu s ALLAN, w/y, p. 521-524, arguing ha hr is n iffrn bwn srng an wakjuiial riw.

See LITTLE, w/y, p. 89, citing, as many other authors in this eld, the inuence of James Thayer who

suggs ha fral urs gran h ums rsp hr branhs f grnmn an ina-

lia saus n nsiuinal gruns nly whn cngrss has n mrly ma a misak, buha[s] ma a ry lar n,--s lar ha i is n pn rainal qusin. S als SMItH, w/y,

p. 379-387.

16

17

18

19


15/28


Franis vrbi 213

f siy isagr abu righs). If ppl isagr abu righs, hy will als isa-

gr abu whhr a gin lgislai prpsal ilas righs. thrfr, s gs

h argumn, hr will always b isagrmn in rr rmin whhr

hr is a lgislai misak r n. Wihin h framwrk h prpss, h rlanpoint is to nd a way, a procedure of decisionmaking, for settling that disagreement.

An his pah (always aring Walrn) rquirs a shar hry f lgiimay

abu h isin-prur islf (WALdRoN, 2006, p. 1.371-1.372).

cning ha n sluin will b prf, Walrn (2006, p. 1.375) sas ha

hr ar w kins f gruns b nsir in rr sign r alua

a isin-prur fr sling isagrmns abu righs: um-rla

an prss-rla rasns. th lar ar rasns fr insising ha sm pr-

sn mak, r pariipa in making, a gin isin ha sans inpnnly f

nsirains abu h apprpria um (h ms familiar f hm bing, in

pliis, hs bas n pliial qualiy an h righ ). th um-rla

rasns, in urn, ar rasns fr signing h isin-prur in a way ha will

nsur h apprpria um (i.e, a g, jus r righ isin) (WALdRoN, 2006,

p. 1.375). H argus ha h prss-rla rasns pra isri juiial

riw bu la saf an sun h lgislai isinmaking prss; an ha

h um-rla rasns n establish anything like a clear case for judicialreview. thrfr, in Walrns pinin, h r f h as agains juiial riw

is that the legislative branch wins the discussion on both elds and, as a result, it

shul b nsir h lgiima frum al wih righs issus in a mrai

siy (WALdRoN, 2006, p. 1375-1376).

Laing asi prss rla-rasns (I will n isuss any f hm), wha ar

Walrns gnral bass isar um-rla rasns as a plausibl grun

jusify juiial riw? t bgin wih, h says ha n nly lgislaurs bu jugs

as wll ar subj pliial prssurs ha rsul in ngl f righs. Bsis, h

argus ha i is fals ha h sruurs f mrai pariipain blinly mpwr

h majriy wihu nsirain h inpnn impran f suring appr-

pria ums. Mrr, h um-rla rasns, s gs his isurs, n

b suppr by an unralisi piur f wha juiial isinmaking is lik20.

Wihin his bakgrun, Walrns sruinizs hr um-rla aanags

He specically sustains that this picture pay no attention to the inuence of the political pressures

alray mnin, h jugs pliial agnas an ilgially mia lrks whih inrfrwih wha ul b sn as a maningful llgial librain (WALdRoN, 2006, p. 1.377-1.379).

20


16/28



ha ar fn laim by h fnrs f juiial riw b inhrn urs

an, a h sam im, b absn -r a las iminish in lgislaurs. I will

prsn a riiqu f his psiin rgaring n f hs argumns, h n ha I

nsir h ms rlan b ap in a as fr juiial riw if w assumthe moral right to justication as the foundation of HRs.

du h rsriins imps h lngh f his papr, I will n arss

w hr um-rla rasns isuss by Walrn. on argumn is lab-

l as rinain h x f a Bill f Righs (curs analysis f righs issus

is rin war h x f h bill f righs, whih has bn ap by h

ppl pr iniiual an minriy righs). Alhugh h wrin frmulain

an hlp ispuans fus n h absra righ-issu a sak, Walrn argus

ha his is a prblm rahr han an aanag. Firs f all, baus h wrin

frmulain f righs ns nurag a rain rigi xual frmalism in hir

inrprain. Snly, baus jugs ha a prpnsiy b isra in hir

argumns abu righs by si argumns abu hw a x lik h Bill f Righs is

bs apprah by jugs. thirly, h hinks ha h gnral an absra wring

in whih righs ar frmula in h Bill f Righs sms b prisly baus

f ha- h wrng sur fus lar-ha, rspnsibl, an g faih xpl-

rains f righs-isagrmns.Finally, h x f h Bill f Righs an isr juiial rasning n nly by

wha i inlus bu als by wha i mis baus, always aring Walrn, a

gs unrsan (an al wih) hs ha ar inlu (WALdRoN, 2006, p. 1380-

1382). th hr argumn is labl as Saing Rasns (h n rla h fa

ha rasning an rasn-giing play a prminn rl in juiial librain, whil

his is n wha happns in h lgislai prss). H rjs h argumn n h

grun ha i prsns a fals nras. In his pinin lgislars gi rasns fr

hir s jus as jugs . ths rasns ar gin in h ba an publish in

h ngrssinal rr. th ral iffrn, s gs his argumn, is ha lawyrs

ar mr rain suy h rasns gin in juiial ass rahr han hs gin

in h lgislai prss. Frm anhr pin f iw, h als isars h argumn

h xn ha i an b link h qualiy f h gin rasns.

In rlain ha pin, h prsns a srng riiqu bas n hw jugs

inrprain is rin war h Bill f Righs an hw hy spn

muh im isussing prns an rying shw analgis an isanalgisbwn hm an h aual as a han. this mhlgy, Walrn sas, las


17/28


Franis vrbi 215

jugs push h issu a sak h margins f h isussin, ia i

jus a paragraph r w f h wny pags r mr an pinin, an

slm arss i irly. Lgislars, in nras, n a las g irly h

har f h mar (WALdRoN, 2006, p. 1382-1386).

4 The legitimacy of Courts as an appropriate institutional setting for final HRs adjudi-cation: one decisive outcome-related reason that can make a case for judicial review

The argument in favor of Courts and judicial review that I want to discuss nds

suppr in h fa ha issus f righs ar prsn urs in h nx f

specic cases. This particular way in which the cases are presented before Courts

is supps gi jugs a br psiin han lgislaurs fr mral insigh.Hwr, Walrn rjs h argumn nsiring i msly a myh (mayb ha

is why he dedicates to it only three paragraphs of his essay). He justies that strong

assrin in iffrn gruns.

Firs, h argus ha lgislaurs ar abl al wih iniiual ass baus hy

m in h lgislai isussin hrugh lbbying, in harings, an in ba.

Sn, h sas ha whn ass rah high applla lls wihin h juiial

sruur h isussin urn b arun absra issus f h righs in ispu

without regard to the original esh-and-blood right-holders. Besides, he says that

plainiffs ar sl by aay grups prisly in rr mby h absra

hararisis ha h grups wan mphasiz as par f a gnral publi

policy argument. Hence, according to Waldron legislatures: (i) do have specic mo-

ral insigh abu righs; an (ii) ar in a br psiin han curs assss h

signicance of the individual cases in relation to the whole society when the time of

ajuiain ms (WALdRoN, 2006, p. 1.379-1.380).

Sm iffrn bu rla argumns an b prsn ns Walrnsbjins an fn h lgiimay f curs al wih HRs issus wihin a

mrai sysm n h grun f hir pariular mral insigh abu hs issus.

4.1 The oblivion of litigants flesh and blood

th fa ha ass n urn in an absra isussin abu h maning,

sp an limis f rain HRs whn hy rah h highs insans f h juiial

structure, does not mean that courts necessarily lose their different (because specic)mral insigh f h qusins a han. en assuming ha hy an frg h


18/28



esh and blood of the parties, an assertion that can certainly be discussed, a fact

remains: the general issues will always be framed and inuenced by the facts of the

specic case at hand. The situation created by specic claims regarding particular

nrrsis allws h sysm s righs in h ral lif agains hr righsand public policies. Absent that specic moral insight, it would be really difcult

to dene with reasonable determinacy the scope and limits of HRs. If we take into

aun h pn sruur an xpansi sp f nmprary insrumns in

this arena, that denition appears to be relevant in order to allow individuals to take

infrm an rspnsibl isins abu hir lis in siuains whr hir righs

migh b a sak21.

tha nrizain f HRs wihin curs aks pla in an luinary pr-

ss whih pris, r im, h pssibiliy f impring h quilibrium bwn

iffrn righs in nsin by aking in aun h luin f h siy whr

that tension arises and the specicities that every single case (almost always different

frm h hr) prsns. Lgislaurs slm risi h sam sau ry im a

nw iniiual hallng ariss r a pariular silgial phnmnn lps,

wha mans ha hy migh n b abl pri iniiuals wih a br sing

where to nd justication about how and why their rights are being affected by

governmental action every time they demand that justication. Courts, in turn, mustisuss an ajuia h ass prsn bfr hm, an ha funinal uy

has led to the development of not only specic but also deeper moral insight about

rights (the kind of expertise that Besson considers as one of the ve relevant criteria

fr HRs insiuinal sign)22.

I sai ha HRs jurisprun lps hrugh an luinary prss. Jugs

do not start over again each time a conict about rights appears before them. They

rly n prns, a funamnal nsiuinal rin (whhr h cnsiuin

is wrin r n), hisry, raiin an shlarly wrks23. en mr impran is h

this is a laim whih is prsn in alms ry hry abu h Rul f Law, a laim fr lariy. SRAZ, 1979, p. 214, arguing that an ambiguous, vague, obscure, or imprecise law is likely to mislead or

nfus a las sm f hs wh sir b gui by i.

S BeSSoN, 2006, p. 323-342, arguing ha [] nly an insiuin whih an pla human righs ah r f is inrnal an xrnal grnan an b m a human righs insiuin. S als

SWeet, MAtHeWS, 2008, p. 91, arguing ha I is a r funin f nsiuinal an suprm urs

supris h wrk f h lgislaur an h xui rgaring h prin an nhaning f righs.

A ry brif bu hlpful numrain f surs f nsiuinal law whn i ms inify funa-

mnal righs in h US urs an b sn in ABeRNAtHY, w/y, p. 417-421.

21

22

23


19/28


Franis vrbi 217

fact that they can count on the rst-hand testimony and arguments of the individu-

als inl in h aual ispu (bh frm h n whs righs ha bn ila-

, an frm h agn rspnsibl fr h ilain). this las sur f infrmain

is laking wihin lgislaurs. thrfr, hir mral insigh abu HRs issus willnr b as mpl an aura as h n f a cur24.

I an b argu ha, n if wha I ha argu is ru, curs lak sm-

hing ha Lgislaurs ha. Smhing ha shul ll h quain bwn

bh insiuinal sings whn i ms isuss hir lgiimay ajuia

HRs issus. I an b sai ha curs lak pliial an ppular inpu, whih ul

b nsir as an ssnial mpnn f isins nrning righs in Walrns

wrl f isagrmn abu hm (rmmbr his furh assumpin). In my iw

his is n ru. t assum ha curs lak pliial an ppular inpu an, s, a

gnral insigh abu h issu a han spially uring hs hi ims f

glbal inrn an mass mia mmuniain wul b frg ha jugs ar

human bings an par f h siy in whih hy prfrm hir jb.

I an n b ignr ha curs as insiuins an jugs as iniiuals an

mmbrs f hs insiuins ar n blin (nr immun) pliial signals, iil

manifsains, an parisan prssurs. All f hs pliial fars ar inru

in h aily funin f curs n nly by insiuinaliz sial is (lik pli-tical parties or labor unions), but also by informal and inuential groups of power

wih inrss a sak in h rsuls f ha kin f nrrsis25. Alhugh i is n

ry mmn, frm im im curs xprssly rgniz his pliial lmn

f h juiial funin an plainly isuss i in hir pinins26. Whhr i plays a

In his sam lin f rasning, s FALLoN JR., 2008, p. 1693-1710, arguing ha urs ar likly ha a isini prspi, inling bh a fus n pariular fas an a snsiiiy hisrial

unrsanings f h sp f rain righs, ha wul highn hir snsiiiy sm aual rrasnably arguabl ilains ha lgislaurs wul fail apprhn.

S RoSeN, 2008, xplaining h pliial mbilizain an h lbby f h chambr f cmmr

r h Suprm cur. of urs, w an n frg mnin h pliial ilgy f ry jug.S tAHA, w/y, p. 1007-1035, arguing ha h pliial rinain f fral isri jugs affswhich cases are led in federal courts and that the effect of judges political orientations on case lin-

gs may n b srngr han his Arils analyss suggs. Rgaring cirui Jugs, s SUNSteIN,2004, arguing n h bas f mpirial aa ha h pliial pary f h appining Prsin is afairly good predictor of how individual judgeswill vote.

Walrn himslf prsns a sampl f ha pliial insigh whn h is Salias issning pininin Plann Parnh f S. Pa. . casy, 505 U.S. 833. th Jusi aknwlgs bing rally ups,true; but his (written) irritation can be seen without effort as an example of the inuence that political

mmns ffily gnra r jugs.

24

25

26


20/28



isi rl a h n f h ay, nly jugs knw. Bu i is prsn hr, wh-

hr w lik i r n, whhr w isuss i r n. Mayb h way in whih curs

ri a pliial insigh abu HRs issus is n as ir as h way in whih

lgislaurs . Mayb curs ar n allw jusify hir pinins by xprsslyusing i. Hwr, n again, a fa rmains: hy ri i an, aring

sm shlars, i s play a srng rl whn hy i27.

I is wrh rmmbr hr h mpirial bakgrun I srib in Par II f

his wrk: nwaays ms curs mply h prprinaliy analysis as a framwrk

fr h isussins abu HRs. this is n a riial fa baus, aring Kumm,

ha s has highn h lgiimay f curs in h arna f HRs ajuiain.

Why s ha happn? Baus h pn sruur an xpansi sp f HRs has

ri in a wrl whr praially all lgislain an in prinipl b hallng n

human rights grounds, leading to an assessment of its justication in terms of public

rasns as prsrib by h prprinaliy s (KUMM, 2010, P. 164). t ny ha

jugs ha pliial an ppular inpu wul b alms h sam as ny ha hy

an al wih publi rasning (whih is h har f h mhanism) in a rasnabl

mannr. I insis: jugs ar par f h siy whr hy prfrm hir jb. th fa

ha hy ar, a h sam im, par f an inpnn an imparial insiuinal

sing s n nail ha hy ar alins in rms f pliial an ppular insigh.Anhr unrargumn my psiin whih I wan nsir, iffrn bu

rla wih h n I ha jus isuss, is ha f eisgrubrg (i by Walrn in

support of his position). In his view, the problem with the Courts specic insight is that

the issues come to them in a way that is incomplete. S, whil rgnizing h xisn

f a iffrn mral insigh bwn curs an lgislaurs, h argus ha his sr f

specic insight is a problem rather than a virtue. According to Eisgruberg, the discus-

sin abu righs wihin a cur f jusi is nly parial u h prural nx

in whih i is lp. In his pinin, h xisn f h saning su rin,

h limi harings an h ruls abu h amissibiliy f in la jugs

ak isins wihu h prsn f all h paris ha will b aff by ha

isin, an wihu h nssary infrmain gain a mprhnsi prspi

n h fairnss f an nir sial, pliial, r nmi sysm (WALdRoN, 2006).

I hink his is n mplly ru. Firs f all, rgaring h prsn f all h par-

S JooNdePH, w/y, p. 377-378, arguing ha jugs asinally rspn pliial prssur frmexternal power centers, such as Congress, the President,state governments, and the general public.

An a bm, urs always a wihin a framwrk f juiial auhriy ra by xrnal pwr

hlrs an hus gnrally in furhran f h pliial bjis f hrs.

27


21/28


Franis vrbi 219

is ha will b aff by h isin i shul b n ha his is n a ral piur

f wha happns n wihin lgislaurs. th lgislai prss is mr pn han h

juiial n, I an ami ha. Bu his fa in n way mans ha all h paris ha will b

aff by lgislai isins ar ging b prsn an ak par in h isussintherein, at least in the meaningful manner that the moral right to justication demands28.

Sn, h rlan iniiuals ha will b aff by h isin ar abl

ak par in h isussin whn i ms al wih HRs in a cur f Jusi.

Whn hs iniiuals ar n s wih h righ b a frmal liigan in h

proceedings because they lack sufcient direct interest in the issue (standing to sue

rin)29, hy ha hr hannls pariipa, lik h pssibiliy f prsning

an amius uria brifs30. Mayb w an n assur ha all h paris will b pr-

sn in h cur, bu as I ha alray sai h sam happns wihin lgislaurs.

In ha as, if h prsn will b inmpl in bh insiuinal sings, why

should we prefer Courts? A relevant reason, apart from the specic moral insight, is

ha wihin a cur hs wh ar ging b aff ha mr hans b har

and to inuence the outcome of the procedure31. I will furhr isuss his pin. Blw,

fr nw i is nugh say ha his iffrn rally mars a l if iniiuals wan

to receive a real justication about the interference on their rights.

S far, I ha fa eisgrubrgs argumn rgaring h suppsly inmplparticipation as a dening character (a aw) of the judicial proceedings. Let us now

turn to the issue of the supposed lack of sufcient information. For the purpose of

I fl his islaimr nssary baus h aumai answr my samn will b ha all f usar prsn wihin h lgislaur hrugh ur rprsnais, l by ur qual righ .Rgaring his pin, I shar wih Kumm ha in nmprary mplx mrai siis is urly

implausibl laim ha hrugh rinary lgislai prurs h ppl hmsls i p-liial qusins, whras isin f uly appin jugs ar as as plani guarians impsing

their will externally to the people; and I also share his argument about the little, if any, inuence wean pru as iniiuals by pariipaing in h pliial prss nly hrugh ur qual righ (KUMM, 2010, p. 167). Bu s als HUtcHINSoN, 2008, p. 34, arguing ha In a siy ha aks

mray sriusly, hr is n priilg pla fr juiial prnsuls r hir shlarly hrs iizns an grn bs whn hy grn hmsls.

Fr a gnral riw f h funins ha h rin is supps prfrm wihin nmprarylgal prai s eLLIot, w/y, p. 459.

Wha is mr, h rn pariularly in applla urs, is ap an n ini h pariipainf amii uria wih parisan inrss (4 Am. Jur. 2 Amius curia 6).

S KUMM, 2010, p. 167-168, arguing ha th ms likly way ha an iniiual iizn is rgoing to change the outcomes of a national political process as a citizen (rather than an ofce-holder),

is by ging ur an laiming ha his righs ha bn ila by publi auhriis.

28

29

30

31


22/28



his papr, wha mars is whhr lgislaurs un n wih mr infrmain

han curs ak isins. Bu h qusin wul b inmpl if w frg h

pariular nx whr i shul b answr. I is plausibl say ha, in gnral

rms an baus f h aailabiliy f mr pn prings, lgislaurs haass mr infrmain han urs in rr i. Nnhlss, I hink

ha in h pariular nx f HRs ajuiain curs an g, ms f h ims,

n nly qual bu n br infrmain han lgislaurs.

A short disclaimer before going on: it is somewhat difcult to be certain about

wha xaly s eisgrubrg mans by nssary infrmain gain a mprhn-

si prspi n h fairnss f an nir sial, pliial, r nmi sysm.

Fr h sak f h argumn, l us assum ha h rfrs infrmain rgaring

h sp an limis f h pariular righ in isussin, n h n han; an

infrmain abu h hlisi nsquns f ajuiaing ha righ in rain

mannr, n h hr. In my iw, i is har ny ha bh kins f infrmain

ha a srng prsn wihin h juiial prings.

In rlan HRs ass, h prsnain famici curiae brifs frm iffrn ins-

iuins an n bhalf f bh paris usually pris a l f inpu f his yp.

this infrmain ms frm iffrn prspis, an i is n nly abu h

aual as bu -ry fn als abu h nmi impa, h llaral ffsan n h pliial impliains an nsquns f h jugmn b rn-

r32. Furhrmr, amici curiae brifs an f urs h plaings f h paris

inl in h ispu ar n h nly surs f rlan infrmain aailabl

to Courts. They can count on a very specic tool (which is not present in legislative

proceedings) when it is necessary to handle technical and scientic information

abu h issu in ispu: xpr winsss, whs simnys qualiy is srngly

See Gregory A. Caldeira and John R. Wright Organized Interests and Agenda-Setting in the U.S. Su-

prm cur, th Amrian Pliial Sin Riw, vl. 82, N. 4, (d., 1988), pp. 1109-1127,aailabl a hp://psin.law.nrhwsrn.u/rsarh/supLawcalira.pf (arguing ha ami-cus curiae participation by organized interests providesinformation, or signals --otherwise largely

unavailable-- about thepolitical, social, and economic signicance of cases); James F. Spriggs and

Paul J. Wahlbk Amius curia an h Rl f Infrmain a h Suprm cur, Pliial Rs-arch Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 2. (Jun., 1997), pp. 365-386, available at http://www.uwyo.edu/POLS/

urss/3100/11.1.pf (arguing ha amii uria brifs ar impran baus hy ru infrma-

in prblms a h cur by hlping h jusis aniipa h impa f hir pinins); cmmn,th Amius curia, 55 Nw. U. L. R. 469, 480 (1960) (shwing ha grnmnal amius uria arpariularly usful curs baus hy an pri a l f usful pliial, nmi an sial

infrmain aailabl in publi surs).

32


23/28


Franis vrbi 221

nrll by h inrs paris hrugh h rss xaminain prss33. th

rlan f his l in rr ahi a mprhnsi prspi f any HR

issu is apparn, Brwn . Bar f euain bing n f h bs xampls34.

t sum up h isussin f Walrn an eisgrubrgs argumns: if h pariularmoral insight is absent within legislatures (at least with the degree of specicity that

i prsns in a cur), if h iniiuals an grups wih inrss a sak in h

ispu ar abl pariipa in h juiial prings an i wih a ras-

nable chance of inuencing the outcome, and if Courts have access to huge amounts

f infrmain hrugh xpr winsss an amici curiae brifs (n nly abu h

specic issue at hand, but also about the eventual consequences of its adjudication),

I am far frm sur ha w an sill susain as Walrn s- ha lgislaurs ar in

a br psiin han curs whn i ms ajuia HRs issus.

5 Advocacy groups strategies (falling outside the core case?)

L m nw urn h sn asp I wan isuss abu Walrns psiin

rgaring his pariular pin. I has wih his rfrn aay grups

ha hs an liiga ass wih h aim f impring an lping h law in

rain aras (ry fn, I wul a, aras whr h law affs isaanag

grups f ppl). Rmmbr ha, aring Walrn, h fa ha hs grups

hs xmplary ass in rr isuss n nly nr bu als absra issus

abu rain HRs shws ha curs ar n in a br psiin han lgislaurs

rasn abu righs.

As a rst step, I recall here what I have already said regarding the fact that the

isussin abu gnral asps f rain HR wihin a juiial pring s

not imply the lost of the specic insight which follows from the way in which the

ispus ar prsn bfr h curs. Hn, h way hw hs rganizains hir jb s n imply a ngai nsqun rgaring his aanag f

curs r lgislaurs.

Sn, I wul mphasiz ha his phnmnn is n fruius. I man ha

h xisn f his kin f grups is a rsul f rain pliial an sial irums-

Fral Ruls f ein 701-706.

Remember that the nding of the Supreme Court about the harmful effects of segregation in educa -inal insiuins was bas n h simny f Knnh clark, a sial psyhlgis. th lsingargumn fr h plainiffs nains sral rfrns h xpr simnis (s hp://www.ra-wfordsworld.com/rob/HEG/HEG_Government/HEGSeparate%20But%20Equal/Closingarguments.htm).

33

34


24/28



ans. t us a ry wll knwn xampl: an w nsir h rain f h NAAcP

as a ral hi? I hink n35. th nly hi was whn i, bu a h n f

h ay i was a nssiy imps by h fa ha lgislaurs i n pay anin

wha was happning in h srs, i n har h lbby, i n rgniz hrighs f a hug grup f ppl wh ha bn ispla frm h pliial ialgu

by laws na hrugh h sam lgislaur ha was supps pr hm as

mmbrs f a mrai siy.

Walrn migh say k, bu his is n a r as baus my hir assumpin

is n prsn hr. I wul answr: xaly, ha is my pin. en assuming fr a

mmn ha hs grups play sm rl in h way Walrn suggss (iluing

the specic insight of Courts), their existence and the way in which they develop

hir jb is n an argumn ha an b mply agains h lgiimay f curs

ajuia HRs issus wihin Walrns wrl (baus wihin ha ial wrl f

srng rsp fr iniiual an minriy righs his kin f grups shul n xis).

6 How individual cases come into the legislative process

th hir an las argumn ha I wan prsn has wih Walrns

statement regarding how particular cases about rights do provide specic insight

lgislaurs by nring h isussin hrugh lbby, in harings an alng h

ba. cning ha his is wha rinarily happns in h lgislai prss,

hr ar a upl f issus ha Walrn s n nsir: h gr f ffi

anin pai hs iniiual ass n wihin a halhy lgislaur, an h

fact that HRs can be violated in almost innite manners.

It is really difcult to know whether the arguments presented by lobbyists are

nsir in h lgislai prss in rr ak isins abu HRs, as wll

as isrn h wigh gin a simny in a haring r h argumns pr-sn by sm lgislar alng h ba. this is n nirly ru wihin a cur,

whr jugs ha a funinal uy assss h amissibl an rlan in

(always) an a las sm f h argumns prsn by h paris in rr

ajuia h ispu36.

If we take seriously the moral right to justication as the foundation of HRs, that

S hp://www.naap.rg/pags/naap-lgal-hisry.

In the US, FRCP 52(a)(1) (the court must nd the fact specially and states its conclusions of law sepa-rately). See 344 F.2d 747 (stating that The ndings of fact and conclusions of law must be sufcient

inia h bass f h rial jugs isin).

35

36


25/28


Franis vrbi 223

hararisi f curs isinmaking prur an b nsir as a pwrful

aanag in rr impr h mrai sysm h xn ha i assurs

ha h iniiual insigh f h aff prsn will b nsir rah h -

cision. The right to justication demands an institutional setting where reasons arenot only passively received, but where sufcient attention to them can be assured in

ry singl asin. Lgislaurs sm n prpar pri ha guaran

h sam xn ha curs .

Alhugh i is ru ha rain iniiual ass ha riggr sm lgislain

(as Walrn argus), his is n h rinary siuain. An whn i is h as, i is

frequently because a conict involving some specic right either has acquired public

impa r inls many ppl in h sam siuain. In my iw, w shul n rly

n hs fruius hararisis f h ass as a rasn pri an aqua

forum to discuss whether certain state interference over individuals HRs is justied

or not. Remember that the moral right to justication allows considering as HRs not

only the fundamental human interests that ethical justications have in mind, but

alms any iniiual inrs ha ppl rgar as rlan (baus par f hir

prsnh). th ilain f sm f hs inrss prbably will n ahi pu-

bli impa, bu hy sr h sam anin as hs whih will baus nly in

his way w an nsir ha h iniiual is bing rsp as suh.Finally, w ha ak in aun ha HRs an b ila in many iff-

rn ways an ha hir sp an limis an b aak an fn n many

different grounds. So, once again, if we take seriously the moral right to justication

we would agree in that every single situation deserves specic insight and specic

treatment in order to respect individuals as such. It would be difcult (not to say

impossible) for legislatures to deal with those specicities and to translate them in

h wring f a sau, an baus f ha hir ajuiain f HRs issus wul

nr b as mpl an aura as ha f h curs.

7 Final Remarks

th pliial pariipain f iniiuals in nmprary mrais shul n

b limi h righ 37. Whn Frs mans h iniiuals pariipain in

S KUMM, 2010, p. 144, arguing ha prprinaliy bas juiial riw is n nly mpaiblwith liberal democracy, but that it institutionalizes a right to justication that should be regarded as

basi an insiuinal mmimn f libral-mrai nsiuinalism as lral aunabiliy

bas n an qual righ .

37


26/28



the society as an autonomous agent of justication in order to validate his subjec-

in a s f righs an uis, w shul assum ha his pariipain has

b ffi an n nly frmal. By ffi I man apabl f priing fbak

h iniiual rgaring hr pariular an uniqu siuain, an a h sam imcapable of inuencing the governmental decision (at least to the extent of compelling

h grnmn ranalyz is nu whn h iniiual is nin ha rain

interference is not justied). Therefore, it is apparent that the kind of participation

whih is m b nssary lgiimiz isins abu HRs issus in pariular

ass harly (if a all) will b ahi in h lgislaur hrugh rprsnais hsn

by ur qual righ .

In nras, curs pri an aqua insiuinal sing nfr an

ajuia HRs. As I ri shw, hr is a las n um-rla rasn whih

can be dispositive in the case for judicial review: the specic moral insight over the

issu, smhing whih lgislaurs lak. this mral insigh, in urn, is isplay

in a prural nx harariz by h fllwing faurs: (i) rasnabl l-

l f pariipain by h ppl ha will nually b aff by h isin;

(ii) prmabiliy pliial an ppular insigh; (iii) aailabiliy f infrmain r-

garing bh h nr issu a han an h nual sysmi nsquns f

is ajuiain; an (i) funinal uy assss h in an a las sm fh rasns prsn by h paris bfr iing. All hs hararisis allw

curs rah a pariular answr fr ry singl as, hus rsping h mral

right to justication and enforcing individuals dignity every time they claim for that.

As I ha aniipa, my rspns Walrns r as agains juiial riw

is parial an ms. Nrhlss, I hink I ha prsn sm plausibl argu-

ments to show that the advantage of Courts over legislatures in the eld of HRs

adjudication, represented by the specic moral insight in hands of the former, is not

a myh an an b ispsii suppr juiial riw in a mrai sysm.


27/28


Franis vrbi 225

8 References

ABeRNAtHY, charls. Lw th Utd stt. Minnsa, thmsn-Ws e., w/y,

p. 417-421.

ALLAN, Jams. th Auhr h prs muh, mhinks. nw Zld Uvty

Lw rvw, W/Y, n. 20, p. 519-524.

BARtHoLoMeW, Amy. Human Righs an Ps-Imprialism: arguing fr a librai

lgiimain f Human Righs. buffl Hum rught Lw rvw,2003, n. 9, p. 25-46.

BeSSoN, Samanha. th eurpan Unin an Human Righs: twars a Ps-Nainal

Human Righs Insiuin? Hum rgth Lw rvw, 2006, n. 6, p. 323-342.

dWoRKIN, Rnal, Tkg rght suly. Harar Unirsiy Prss, 1978.

eLLIot, Hahr. th Funins f Saning. stfd Lw rvw, n. 61, p. 459.

FALLoN JR., Rihar. th cr f an Unasy cas fr Juiial Riw. Hvd Lw

rvw, 2008, n. 121, p. 1.672-1.693.

FORST, Rainer. The Justication of Human Rights and the Basic Right to Justication:

A Reexive Approach. eth, 2010, n. 120, p. 711-714.

GARDNER, John. Simply in Virtue of Being Human: The Whos and Whys of Human

Righs,JeTHsP, 2008, n. 2.

HeNKIN, Luis. Th rght f M Tdy. Sns e, 1979.

HOOKER, Brad. Grifn on Human Rights, oxfd Jul Lgl stud, 2010, n. 30,

p. 193-211.

HUtcHINSoN, Allan c. A Har cr as agains juiial riw. Hvd Lw r-

vw, 2008, n. 120, p.57-59.

JooNdePH, Braly W. th many manings f Pliis in juiial isin making.

Uvty f Mu-K cty Lw rvw, w/y, n. 77, 347-378.

KUMM, Maias. Inrnainal Hanlsgsllshaf, Nl an h Nw Human Ri-

ghts Paradigm. In: MADURO, Miguel; AZOUALI, Loic (Eds.). Th Pt d Futu f eU

Lw: th classis f eU Law Risi n h 50h Annirsary f h Rm tray,

Har Publishing L, 2010.


28/28


________. The Idea of Socratic Contestation and the Right to Justication: The Point of

Righ-Bas Prprinaliy Riw, Lw & eth Hum. rt, 2010, n. 4, p. 140-144.

LIttLe, Laura. eny an jalusy: a suy f sparain f pwrs an juiial riw.

Htg Lw Jul, w/y, n. 52, p. 47-89

PILdeS, Rihar H. Why Righs ar N trumps: Sial Manings, exprssi Harms,

an cnsiuinalism.Jul f Lgl stud, 1998, n. 27, p. 725-744.

RAZ, Joseph, Human Rights Without Foundations. oxfd Lgl stud rh P-

p, 2007, n. 14. Aailabl a: hp://ssrn.m/absra=999874

______. The Rule of Law and its virtue. In: RAZ, Joseph. Th authty f Lw: essays

n Law an Mraliy, 1979, p. 214.

RoSeN, Jffry. Suprm cur In. nw Yk Tm, Marh 16h, 2008.

SMItH, d. Brks. Juiial riw in h Uni Sas. Dug. Lw rvw, n. 45, p.

379-387.

STONE, Alec; MATTHEWS, Jud. Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutiona-

lism. clum Jul f Ttl Lw, 2008, n. 47, p. 72 ss.

SUNSteIN, cass. Ilgial ing n Fral curs f Appal: a prliminary ins-

igain.Vg Lw rvw, 2004, n. 90, p. 301

______. Rules and Rulessness.Jh ol Lw & em Wkg Pp n. 27 (2n

Sris), Unirsiy f chiag Law Shl, pp. 4-11.

SWeet, Al Sn; MAtHeWS, Ju. Prprinaliy balaning an glbal nsiui-

nalism. clum Jul Ttl Lw, 2008, n. 47, p. 72-91.

tAHA, Ahm. Jug Shpping: tsing Whhr Jugs Pliial orinains Affcas Filings. Uvty f ct Lw rvw, w/y, n. 78, p.1007-1035.

WALdRoN, Jrmy. th cr f h cas Agains Juiial Riw.Yl Lw Jul,

2006, n. 15, p. 1346.

WALdRoN, Jrmy. Mral truh an Juiial Riw. am Jul f Jupd,

1998, n. 43, p.75-ss.

WRIGHT, R. George Review Essay: The Disintegration of the Idea of Human Rights,id Lw rvw, 2010, n. 43, p. 423.

RJP100 - 3 - Francisco Verbic

Documents

Transcript of RJP100 - 3 - Francisco Verbic