PART IV: The Importance of Moral Legitimacy in International Human Rights Court Rulings

Abstract

In this part, we consider the importance of the ‘moral legitimacy’ of the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, and international human rights courts generally. ‘Moral legitimacy’, in this context, is held to derive from the court protecting or advancing fundamental international human rights guarantees and fostering accountability at the State level for violations of those guarantees; while indirectly, where feasible, (i.e. where the identity of the perpetrators is known or discoverable), also contributing to ending impunity for the individual perpetrators of atrocity and other human rights abuses. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ case of Moiwana Village v. Suriname is discussed as an example of an international human rights court demonstrating moral integrity where it could just as easily have denied access to a judicial remedy through the Inter-American human rights court system to the victims of crimes against humanity on an unjustly under-inclusive interpretation of its jurisdiction. The impact of such cases on the internationalization of the rule of law is discussed. Also addressed is the need for all levels of the international community to demand moral legitimacy in the rulings of the international human rights courts rather than to presume that characteristic as ubiquitous and essentially inherent in such rulings.