Publications

@inbook{RN52229,

title = {Add international courts to The Idea of Human Rights and stir … on Beitz’ The Idea of Human Rights after 10 years},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {David Álvarez and João Cardoso Rosas},

url = {Reprint from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698230.2020.1859223},

year  = {2023},

date = {2023-01-01},

booktitle = {The Idea of Human Rights Revisited: Charles Beitz and the Political Turn in the Philosophy of Human Rights},

publisher = {Routledge},

abstract = {These reflections elaborates the theory of The Idea of Human Rights by addressing a topic that theory attempts to bracket: international and regional judicialization in the form of international courts and tribunals. Using the method of reflective equilibrium, the article argues that this exclusion is inconsistent. Including these international courts and tribunals (‘ICs’) prompts several changes to the original theory, and opens new research questions. The original theory is on the one hand too narrow regarding both the objectives and tools of international mechanisms of corrective concern. The account should consider further subsidiary modes of support. On the other hand the theory is too broad, in that it gives insufficient guidance to the judges of ICs and others able to effect changes. This leaves the theory incomplete, and open to similar criticism as the book raised against others. Accounts of the theory presented in The Idea of Human Rights,and of ICs and their roles regarding human rights allow us to explore some implications of ICs for The Idea of Human Rights.We then consider how if at all The Idea of Human Rights can guide international judges.},

keywords = {Human Rights, International courts, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN52115,

title = {The Significance of State Consent for the Legitimate Authority of Customary International Law},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Panos Merkouris and Jörg Kammerhofer and Noora Arajärvi},

doi = {10.1017/9781009025416.007},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-01-01},

booktitle = {The Theory, Practice and Interpretation of Customary International Law},

pages = {105-136},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

keywords = {International law, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN51888,

title = {Pure Public Goods and Beyond: How Legitimate International Courts Can Help Secure Global Public Goods Worth Having},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Gentian Zyberi},

url = {https://intersentia.com/en/protecting-community-interests-through-international-law.html},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-01-01},

booktitle = {Protecting Community Interests through International Law},

pages = {59-98},

publisher = {Intersentia},

address = {Cambridge},

abstract = {A frequent legitimacy challenge against international law and international courts is that they are too weak to prevent ‘free riders’ among states to help secure 'Global Public Goods (GPG), such as resolving the climate crisis. This description, diagnosis, and prescription for how international law and ICs can and should enable GPG is unfortunate. The assumptions are too narrow, and distract our attention from other valuable contributions made by ICs—in terms of GPGs and beyond—and from other important challenges that ICs face. The shallow focus stifles our assessment of when international law and ICs may be legitimate authorities in general, and in relation to GPGs in particular. In fact, ICs’ legitimacy does not depend on their ability to trigger sanctions against states; they serve several valuable functions for many objectives other than GPGs, including monitoring and providing information about other states’ actions and preferences...},

keywords = {Climate, International courts, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49938,

title = {Religion and the State – the European Court of Human Rights and the ‘Lautsi' case of the European Court of Human Rights about crucifixes in Italian class rooms},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Dirk Ehlers and Henning Glaser},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2020-lautsi.pdf},

doi = {https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748923923-315},

year  = {2020},

date = {2020-01-01},

booktitle = {State and Religion: Between Conflict and Cooperation},

pages = {315 - 330},

publisher = {Nomos},

address = {Baden Baden},

abstract = {The relationship between political authorities and religious communities is complex and controversial. One area where the tensions are evident is in public education. Tensions arise when the state seeks to include or exclude contested religious symbols and teachings within the public educational system.The European Court of Human Rights' track record may seem inconsistent. It has restricted religious teaching in textbooks allowed Turkey to prohibit students from wearing religious headscarves at university , allowed Switzerland to prohibit primary school teachers from wearing headscarves , and allows Italy to require crucifixes on school walls – after first denying Italy that authority. There are several ways to try to make some sense of this cluster of decisions. The explanation which will be addressed here is the ECtHR’s practice to grant states a ‘Margin of Appreciation’ (MA). This article seeks to bring a more precise MA doctrine to bear on the Lautsi case concerning crucifixes on school walls, to assess whether the ECtHR decision and doctrine withstands criticism that it is too vague, or that it is poorly applied in this particular case. The first section presents the Lautsi case, the following sections attend to various elements of the MA doctrine of the court. We return at the end to consider whether critics of the MA doctrine are right.},

keywords = {European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights, Margin of Appreciation},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50854,

title = {Legitimacy criticisms of international courts: Not only Fuzzy Rhetoric?},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Wojciech Sadurski and Michael Sevel and Kevin Walton},

url = {www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2019-legitimacy-ics-fuzzy.pdf},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-01},

booktitle = {Legitimacy: The State and Beyond},

pages = {223-237},

publisher = {Oxford University Press},

address = {Oxford},

abstract = {Many claims that international courts (ICs) are illegitimate are related in complex ways – differently in fields ranging from human rights to trade. This is not to deny that some talk of the illegitimacy of ICs is inaccurate or wrong. But it is possible and indeed valuable to develop a coherent account that connects several various usages, so as to specify better, worse and downright mistaken claims concerning the legitimacy of ICs. normative legitimacy provides helpful unity to many of the canvassed forms of legitimacy. The particular substantive normative conception of global justice to be respected and promoted by these institutions is not central to this task. I develop the outline of a theory by drawing on Joseph Raz' 'service conception' of normatively legitimate authority, David Easton's 'systems analysis,’ and a cosmopolitan normative theory. Section 1 sketches relevant aspects of Raz' account of legitimate authority: the service conception. Section 2 lays out some normative standards relevant for the ICs. The next sections then elaborate why, on the service conception, various legitimacy conceptions matter for normative legitimacy: why legality matters (section 3) including some reasons for the (limited) significance of state consent – even by rogue states. Section 4 starts to explore why and when actual compliance is important but not always decisive. Section 5 considers why the performance or effects of an IC matters.},

keywords = {Human Rights, International courts, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50770,

title = {A better Signpost, not a better walking Stick: How to evaluate the European Consensus doctrine},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Panos Kapotas and Vassilis Tzevelokos},

url = {www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2019-consensus-signpost.pdf},

doi = {10.1017/9781108564779.010},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-01},

booktitle = {Building Consensus on European Consensus: Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights in Europe and Beyond},

pages = {189-209},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

abstract = {One of the more contested interpretative practices of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is its sighting of an ‘emerging European consensus’ (EuC) and the implications that the Court draws. If this practice is to be kept, suggestions for its improvement should be guided by the normatively justifiable roles such a practice should play, be it as part of the Court’s ‘dynamic interpretation’ of the Convention, or as a means to specify the margin of appreciation doctrine, or both. This requires closer reflection about which are sound reasons for the Court to appeal to EuC. Section 9.1 sketches the current practice of the Court. Section 9.2 explains why several critics claim that the EuC practice is too vague and otherwise problematic. Section 9.3 considers some of the most prominent arguments in favour of EuC, noting that several of these arguments fail to consider the peculiar subsidiary role of the human rights review by the ECtHR within the multi-level European legal order.},

keywords = {European Consensus, European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights, Margin of Appreciation},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50987,

title = {A framework for evaluating the performance of international courts and tribunals},

author = {Theresa Squatrito and Oran Young and Andreas Follesdal and Geir Ulfstein},

editor = {Theresa Squatrito and Oran Young and Andreas Follesdal and Geir Ulfstein},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2018-Squatrito-Young-Ulfstein-framework-performance-ics.pdf},

doi = {10.1017/9781108348768.002},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

booktitle = {The Performance of International Courts and Tribunals},

pages = {3-35},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

abstract = {While prior studies have tended to focus on specific questions relating either to the design or to the effects of international courts, we develop an integrated framework for the study of the performance of ICs. .. We explore factors that may explain the patterns of performance we observe. ...We are interested both in the outcomes courts produce and the processes through which they arrive at judgments.... To know whether regimes or governance systems are effective, then, we argue that it is imperative to ask whether international courts perform their roles well or poorly.},

keywords = {International courts, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50929,

title = {Legitimacy and international courts - a framework},

author = {Nienke Grossman and Harlan Cohen and Andreas Follesdal and Geir Ulfstein},

editor = {Nienke Grossman and Harlan Cohen and Andreas Follesdal and Geir Ulfstein},

doi = {10.1017/9781108529570.001},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

booktitle = {The legitimacy of international courts},

pages = {1-40},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

series = {Cambridge Studies on International Courts and Tribunals},

abstract = {This Introduction surveys some of the key contributions of this volume and distills some of the lessons of its varied chapters for the legitimacy of international courts. Parts II and III are largely conceptual in approach, exploring what legitimacy means for each and all of the courts. Part II explores the concept of legitimacy as it pertains to international courts, examining the relationship between source, process, and results-oriented aspects of IC legitimacy and the relationship between legitimacy, justice, democracy, and effectiveness. Part III looks more closely at the chapters in this volume and explores their contributions to the discussions above, as well as their lessons regarding the relationship between sociological and normative legitimacy. 

 Part IV takes a more functional approach, exploring how various factors internal or external to particular courts have contributed to those courts’ normative or sociological legitimacy. It considers international courts in their context, examining the relationship between the specific goals, design choices, audiences, institutional contexts and IC legitimacy. It explores three models of how these factors interact in this volume’s chapters to either support of undermine an international court’s sociological or normative legitimacy. Part V provides thumbnail summaries of each the chapters that follow.},

keywords = {International courts, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50780,

title = {International Courts and Tribunals: Rise and Reactions},

author = {Andreas Follesdal and Geir Ulfstein},

editor = {Andreas Follesdal and Geir Ulfstein},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2018-Ulfstein-ic-rise-reactions-oup-intro.pdf},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

booktitle = {The Judicialization of International Law - A Mixed Blessing?},

pages = {1-8},

publisher = {Oxford University Press},

address = {Oxford},

abstract = {International courts and tribunals (ICs) are increasing in number and importance. They address an expanding variety of issues, ranging from the law of the sea to international criminal law. .. international relations are increasingly judicialized. The present book maps and assesses this development - and reactions thereto, because the trends have met with mixed responses...},

keywords = {International courts, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50401,

title = {Power or Authority; Actions or Beliefs},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Karen Alter and Laurence Helfer and Mikael Rask Madsen},

url = {http://follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2018-power-authority-ics.pdf},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

booktitle = {International Court Authority},

pages = {412-421},

publisher = {Oxford University Press},

address = {New York},

abstract = {Institutional, political and social circumstances affect the impact of international courts ('ICs'). The valuable and intellectually intriguing aim of the project in this volume, 'The Variable Authority of International Courts' is to develop and apply a metric to assess the effects of some of these contexts. 

The chapter discusses two questions concerning the project. What do they seek to measure with their metric – and are the findings actually about authority? Furthermore, AHM go to great lengths to proclaim methodological agnosticism about actors' beliefs and motives, and argue for the irrelevance of normative legitimacy for this research project. Yet the former claim seems incorrect and the second is both unnecessary and ill defended.},

keywords = {International courts, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50652,

title = {The Legitimate Authority of International Courts and its Limits: A challenge to Raz' Service Conception?},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Patrick Capps and Henrik Palmer Olsen},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2018-auth-limits.pdf},

doi = {10.1017/9781108100045.008},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

booktitle = {Legal authority beyond the state},

pages = {188-205},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

abstract = {Very public challenges to international courts (ICs) by state governments, legislatures, domestic or international courts, corporations, investors or civil society groups are often draped in terms of ‘legitimacy’. The challenges provoke several questions. Why should such ‘compliance constituencies’ defer to ICs’ judgments at all? More precisely: when do ICs’ judgments give such constituencies reason to act differently than they would otherwise – and when do they not? The present contribution argues that states’ disobedience may be justified due to the substantive contents of the particular ruling by an IC. Section 1 provides a brief sketch of Raz’s ‘Service account’ of legitimacy, and addresses some criticisms relevant to our concerns. Section 2 brings this account to bear on ICs, and lays out some of its distinguishing features by comparing it to the influential accounts of Daniel Bodansky and Yuval Shany. Section 3 turns to consider how this account accommodates and even justifies cases of disobedience against ICs.},

keywords = {International courts, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50335,

title = {Constitutionalization, not democratization: how to assess the legitimacy of international courts},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Nienke Grossman and Harlan Cohen and Andreas Follesdal and Geir Ulfstein},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2018-democ-const-ic.pdf},

doi = {10.1017/9781108529570.011},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

booktitle = {The legitimacy of international courts},

pages = {307-337},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

series = {Cambridge Studies on International Courts and Tribunals},

abstract = {Several authors - including Armin von Bogdandy and Ingo Venzke, Allan Buchanan and Robert Keohane, Gráinne De Búrca, and Nienke Grossman address the legitimacy deficits of international courts (ICs). They propose the 'democratization' of ICs, by which they often mean to increase their transparency, accountability or participation by various parties. There are other, better reasons to value transparency, accountability and participation concerning ICs than as building blocks of democracy, namely insofar as they contribute to valuable forms of constitutionalization of the global basic structure. Moreover, they can be valuable even when such changes do not advance democracy of the kind worth having. We should not assume that democracy is the touchstone for all legitimate modes of governance. TWe should distinguish between democratic institutions of decision-making, the normative principles that justify such institutions, and important features of such institutions that contribute to their justification, such as accountability, participation and transparency. It is only calls for the first of these – formalized institutions of decision-making - which should be considered democratication proper.},

keywords = {International courts, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49344,

title = {Appreciating the Margin of Appreciation},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Adam Etinson},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2018-margin-of-appreciation.docx},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-01-01},

booktitle = {Human Rights: Moral or Political?},

pages = {269-294},

publisher = {Oxford University Press},

address = {Oxford},

abstract = {How should an international human rights court best pay due respect to both the treaty and to its sovereign creators? The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is a prime case. It reviews whether states uphold their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court is also authorized to rule on whether states may violate certain of their citizens’ rights – as the Convention permits - in order to protect morals, the conflicting rights of others, national security or other considerations (e.g. Articles 8 and 15). 

One mechanism that arguably serves to reduce the risk that the ECtHR will abuse its power is the margin of appreciation (MA) doctrine that the Court has developed. The Court grants states the authority to decide, in some cases, whether they are in compliance with their treaty obligations. Is the MA doctrine a sound response to this perceived dilemma between majoritarian democracy and protection of human rights? The present chapter presents and defends some form of the MA doctrine precisely as a contribution by the Court to both protect human rights and to promote domestic democracies. I shall also suggest reforms to render it more legitimate.},

keywords = {Democratic theory, European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights, Margin of Appreciation, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN51031,

title = {De internasjonale menneskerettighetene og Norge: Spenninger og samspill},

author = {Andreas Føllesdal and Morten Ruud and Geir Ulfstein},

editor = {Andreas Føllesdal and Morten Ruud and Geir Ulfstein},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-01-01},

booktitle = {Menneskerettighetene og Norge: Rettsutvikling, rettsliggjøring og demokrati},

pages = {13-32},

publisher = {Universitetsforlaget},

address = {Oslo},

keywords = {Human Rights},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50170,

title = {Theories of Human Rights: Political or Orthodox - why it matters},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Reidar Maliks and Johan Schaffer Karlsson},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2017-pol-moral-hr.pdf},

doi = {10.1017/9781316650134.006},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-01-01},

booktitle = {Moral and Political Conceptions of Human Rights: Implications for Theory and Practice},

pages = {77-96},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

abstract = {One important contribution by a philosophical theory of international legal human rights [ILHR] is to provide normative perspectives and standards to assess the current international human rights regimes. .. There is currently a discussion about how two families of theories may best be used to develop such a philosophical theory of ILHR. .."Orthodox" philosophical accounts .. tend to hold that behind the human rights movement generally – including ILHR - there is a unitary, cogent notion of moral human rights. .. "Political" theories pursue another aim and justificatory strategy. They aspire to systematize the existing international legal human rights practice, and seek to end with a theory with sufficient critical standards, - without drawing on a prior concept of a human right. ... The aim of this article is primarily to alleviate some of the alleged conflicts, in particular to defend at least one Political theory against charges that it is unduly constrained to actual consensus on premises in defense of ILHR, that it is too closely linked to the current state system to match the universal ambitions of human rights, and that it seeks to avoid normative premises.},

keywords = {Human Rights},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50106,

title = {Law making by law breaking? A theory of parliamentary civil disobedience against international human rights courts},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Matthew Saul and Andreas Follesdal and Geir Ulfstein},

url = {www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2017-civil-disobedience-ics.pdf},

doi = {10.1017/9781316874820.014},

year  = {2017},

date = {2017-01-01},

booktitle = {The International Human Rights Judiciary and National Parliaments: Europe and Beyond},

pages = {329-352},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

abstract = {Recent cases of non-compliance with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) raise several profound questions of legitimacy. Some states seem simply unwilling to defer to the ECtHR, putting their own legitimacy on the line. Other cases, such as the Hirst v. UK case of prisoners' voting rights, seem to challenge the legitimacy of the Court or aspects of its practices. May some such non-compliance with international courts in fact be justifiable? The present chapter argues that some forms of parliamentary disobedience may be understood and assessed not only as protest and avoidance, but also as a constructive mode of correcting the law making of the ECtHR. Under some conditions, certain forms of domestic parliamentary disobedience should be considered as and accepted as an extreme form of multi-level law making. Few states can be expected to pressure human rights ICs to interpret the treaties expansively. Thus states might not be suitable actors in a system of checks to ensure that ICs interpret in appropriate ways. Yet checks and balances should be developed in our multi-level legal order to alleviate the risks wrought by ICs’ interpretation and law making.},

keywords = {Civil disobedience, European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights, International courts, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50637,

title = {The European Court of Human Rights and national courts: a constitutional relationship?},

author = {Geir Ulfstein},

editor = {Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir and Antoine Buyse},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-01-01},

booktitle = {Shifting Centres of Gravity in Human Rights Protection},

pages = {46-56},

publisher = {Routledge},

address = {London},

keywords = {Human Rights},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50196,

title = {Subsidiarity to the Rescue for the European Courts? Resolving tensions between the Margin of Appreciation and Human Rights Protection},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Dietmar Heidemann and Katja Stoppenbrink},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2016-subsidiarity-rescue.pdf},

doi = {10.1515/9783110422108-013},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-01-01},

booktitle = {Join, or Die – Philosophical Foundations of Federalism},

pages = {251-272},

publisher = {de Gruyter},

address = {Berlin},

abstract = {Protests against how the European Court of Human Rights manages the dilemma between protecting human rights and respecting sovereignty led to Protocol 15, which includes references to 'subsidiarity and a 'margin of appreciation' in the Preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights. The article argues that a ‘Principle of Subsidiarity’ can alleviate some of the challenges posed by the margin of appreciation doctrine, in particular that it sacrifices human rights protection on the altar of respect for state sovereignty. Section 1 presents the Margin of appreciation doctrine and some criticism raised against it, section 2 sketches versions of the principle of subsidiarity relevant for this discussion. Section 3 seeks to bring subsidiarity to bear on the question of which authority the ECtHR should enjoy within a multi-level European legal order, and in particular why it should grant states a certain margin of appreciation. Section 4 considers how these arguments concerning a margin of appreciation applies to the European Union—leaving the many other aspects of accession aside.},

keywords = {EU - European Union, European Court of Human Rights, Federalism, Human Rights, Margin of Appreciation, Publications, Subsidiarity},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50034,

title = {Squaring the Circle at the Battle at Brighton: Is the War between protecting human rights or respecting sovereignty over, or has it just begun?},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir and Antoine Buyse},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2016-brighton.pdf},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-01-01},

booktitle = {Shifting Centres of Gravity in Human Rights Protection: Rethinking Relations between the ECHR, EU, and National Legal Orders},

pages = {189-204},

publisher = {Routledge},

address = {London},

abstract = {How should the European Court of Human Rights best ‘balance’ respect for the sovereignty of states with protection of the human rights of their citizens? The Court's theory of subsidiarity must inform its margin of appreciation doctrine when Protocol 15 includes these two concepts in the Preamble of the European Convention on Human Rights. Issues for the Court and for researchers include aspects the doctrine of the margin of appreciation: the proportionality test and the 'European consensus’; and a more justifiable conception of subsidiarity.},

keywords = {European Consensus, European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights, Margin of Appreciation, Publications, Subsidiarity},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49151,

title = {Social Primary Goods},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Jon Mandle and David Reidy},

url = {www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2015-social-primary-goods.pdf},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-01},

booktitle = {The Cambridge Rawls Lexicon},

pages = {643-647},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

abstract = {Rawls’ theory of justice concerns the scope of required equalities and permitted inequalities engendered by the basic social structure (BS) of a society. this subject requires an index of benefits and burdens that allows publicly accessible interpersonal comparisons of citizens’ well-being, in the relevant sense, among representative members of various social groups. Rawls’ answer is to focus on how the basic structure of society distributes Social primary goods. The entry discusses this account.},

keywords = {Gender, John Rawls, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50083,

title = {International Human Rights Courts: Beyond a State of Nature - Foreword},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Marjan Ajevski},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2015-hr-ics-state-of-nature.pdf},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-01},

booktitle = {Fragmentation in International Human Rights Law: Beyond Conflicts of Laws},

pages = {xi-xviii},

publisher = {Routledge},

address = {London},

abstract = {The subject of this fascinating volume is the fragmentation of international and regional human rights courts and treaty bodies (ICs), that is, tensions among courts which all address the same functional area, often bringing apparently similar norms to bear. The rights of concern here are widely regarded as belonging to the core of human rights: freedom of expression, right to privacy, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association. 

What are we to make of the conflicts that occur not only among such rights and other norms of international law – ranging from trade to the environment – but conflicts among the various human rights courts empower to adjudicate such rights – which courts and rights often conflict?},

keywords = {Human Rights},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN50186,

title = {Curb, Channel and Coordinate: The Constitutionalisation of International Courts and Tribunals},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Geert De Baere and Jan Wouters},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2015-ICs-rule-of-law-epilogue.pdf},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-01},

booktitle = {The Contribution of International and Supranational Courts to the Rule of Law},

pages = {355-369},

publisher = {Elgar Publishing},

address = {Cheltenham},

abstract = {From the vantage point of normative political philosophy the preceding chapters in this volume offer several lessons and further research questions of how to assess and promote the legitimacy of these ICs. The following comments identify some of these. Several proposals amount to measures of constitutionalisation of ICs. Section I identifies some of the hitherto understudied arenas where the authors remind us that the perceived legitimacy of the ICs matters if they are to secure their various objectives. Section II addresses one central standard of legitimacy: the content of the concept of the Rule of Law, which remains contested both as an objective of ICs, and as a requirement on their operation. I stipulate that two central underlying values justify several if not all rule of law norms: non-domination and stable legitimate expectations. Respect for human rights is a further substantive value which many but not all contributors include in the concept. 

I then consider two main challenges to the legitimacy of ICs from rule of law standards. One is the possible fragmentation and the legal uncertainty that may ensue. Section III thus summarizes the chapters’ insights about the alleged fragmentation wrought by so many ICs. Section IV considers some further challenges to the objectives and performance of ICs by these rule of law standards. Their multiple objectives require that the judges and arbitrators enjoy a wide berth of discretion in interpretation and adjudication – which raise the risk that states and individuals become subject to domination by the ICs themselves. Individuals may end up not living under the rule of law but under the rule of international lawyers. The following two sections gather several possible strands of responses to these fears. Section V elaborates how the power of ICs is constrained by their complex interrelationship with domestic authorities. Some such interdependence may be assessed by a further popular standard of legitimacy in addition to the rule of law, namely subsidiarity. This concept is often invoked in international law, explicitly so for the European Union4 and in debates concerning the European Convention on Human Rights.5 The section explores how several features of the authority of ICs presented by the authors may be explained and perhaps assessed by some standard of subsidiarity, to reduce the risks wrought by the ICs themselves. Appeals to subsidiarity may not so much lay issues to rest as stimulate more structured and systematic arguments concerning the legitimacy of ICs. Section VI considers several ways to regulate the discretion of the ICs to reduce the risks of fragmentation and domination, garnered from the contributions of this volume. Increased legitimacy of international courts requires perspectives and measures of constitutionalisation: Promote rule of law standards by better checks on the international courts, and channel and coordinate them better.},

keywords = {EU - European Union, Human Rights, International courts, Publications, Subsidiarity},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN55344,

title = {Subsidiarity and the global order},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Augusto Zimmermann and Michelle Evans},

url = {Follesdal-2014-subsidiarity-global-order.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity},

pages = {207-220},

publisher = {Springer},

address = {Dordrecht},

abstract = {Subsidiarity has been proposed as an answer to the challenges of globalization and global governance. This chapter addresses some of the strengths and weaknesses of such a principle of subsidiarity for questions of how to allocate and use authority at regional and global levels. The chapter criticizes the 'state centric' versions of subsidiarity often appealed to for such global settings. In particular, there are several challenges wrought by states that fail to respect their citizens' human rights, variously interpreted. More defensible versions of subsidiarity do not provide normative legitimacy to the state centric aspects of the global order. Section 1 sketches some of the remarkably different conceptions of subsidiarity as a background to the usages in the European Union, the Catholic Church and as it allegedly appears in international law. The different versions drastically reduce or enlarge the scope of member unit authority. Section 2 considers some implications for the legitimate allocation of authority in our global order which includes many states that routinely violate their citizens’ fundamental human rights. The function of the European Court of Human Rights offers a helpful contrast.},

keywords = {EU - European Union, European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights, Publications, Subsidiarity},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49321,

title = {Engagement, divestment, or both? Conflicts and interactions: The case of the Norwegian Pension Fund},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Juan Pablo Bohoslavsky and Jernej Letnar Cernic},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-engagement-divestment-both.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

urldate = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Sovereign Financing},

pages = {323-336},

publisher = {Hart},

address = {Oxford},

abstract = {The Norwegian Government Pension Fund is often regarded as the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The Fund merits international attention not only because of its size, but also in terms of its complex mission with regard to responsible investment and the mechanisms it employs in pursuit of this mission. At the same time, the Norwegian Parliament does not want the Fund to contribute to unethical acts or omissions, such as violations of fundamental humanitarian principles, serious violations of human rights, gross corruption or severe environmental damage. It has established two main mechanisms to avoid such complicity. These mechanisms ensure that the Fund is involved in ‘Socially Responsible Investing’ (SRI) of two distinct kinds: An activist approach and a negative approach. 

The following sections explore these mechanisms and discusses tensions among them, against a historic and current background.},

keywords = {Human Rights, Public policy, Publications, SRI - Socially responsible investing},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49702,

title = {The European Court of Human Rights and the Norwegian Supreme Court – Independence and Democratic Control},

author = {Geir Ulfstein and Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Nils Asbjørn Engstad and Astrid Lærdal Frøseth and Bård Tønder},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-Ulfstein-etchr-supreme-court.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {The Independence of Judges},

pages = {247-260},

publisher = {Eleven},

abstract = {How far the courts should go in testing legislation has been highlighted in Norway in recent years by several cases where the Supreme Court has deemed laws unconstitutional. Critics claim that courts thus interfere with democratic decision-making, whilst protecting neither the rule of law nor vulnerable population groups.2 The empowerment of courts means that the independence and qualifications of the judges become more important. It furthermore adds to ‘legalization’, which increasingly causes popular and political concern. 

The internationalization of law raises further issues for judicial review. In this article, we discuss review of national law on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and by the Norwegian Supreme Court. 

We are concerned both with the possible democratic legitimacy of such review, and other grounds for legitimacy. We finally point to some implications of this internationalization of law for public perceptions of the judges’ functions in society and for their independence – and some implications for the Norwegian selection of judges to the Supreme Court and the ECtHR.},

keywords = {European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49801,

title = {Kantian theory and human rights},

author = {Reidar Maliks and Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Andreas Follesdal and Reidar Maliks},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-Maliks-kant-hr.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Kantian theory and human rights},

pages = {1-7},

publisher = {Routledge},

abstract = {It is, perhaps, not by chance that the steep increase in theories of human rights has been matched by a renaissance in studies of Kant’s political philosophy. The essays are animated by the idea that if we get a better grip on Kant’s philosophy of right, we can energize the creative endeavor of developing philosophical theories of human rights, inspired by his particular way of thinking about the relation between rights and the rule of law. Three features characteristic of Kant’s thinking frequently crop up in the following chapters and help explain why so much recent scholarship may indeed properly be called ‘Kantian’. These features concern rights, legitimacy, and institutions. freedom is constituted by the rights and duties that enable individuals to be subject to the rule of law instead of arbitrary power. Second, political and legal authorities that establish human rights through law derive their legitimacy from being capable of justification to individuals. Third, the public institutions at the domestic and the international level are considered part of the same system. The contributions explore these Kantian principles in different directions.},

keywords = {Human Rights},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49330,

title = {Hvis det norske forbudet mot dobbelt statsborgerskap er løsningen, hva er da problemet?},

author = {Andreas Føllesdal},

editor = {Nils Rune Langeland},

url = {http://follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-dobbelt-statsborgerskap.rtf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Politisk kompetanse: grunnlovas borgar 1814-2014},

pages = {78-87},

publisher = {Pax},

address = {Oslo},

abstract = {Hva slags kompetanse bør stemmeberettigede borgere ha? Hva bør de kunne, og hva bør de være lojale mot når de skal ha stemmerett til stortingsvalg? Blant reglene som setter disse spørsmålene på spissen, er forbudet mot dobbelt statsborgerskap i statsborgerloven av 2005. Forarbeidene til loven drøfter disse sentrale spørsmålene om politisk kompetanse og trekker flere konsekvenser. Argumentene fremført til forsvar for forbudet holder ikke mål. Det er derfor vanskelig å se hvilke legitime interesser staten har av dette forbudet, ikke minst fordi påståtte ulemper med dobbelt politisk lojalitet er dårlig begrunnet, og fordi forbudet ser ut til å hemme integrering, i strid med målsettingen.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49917,

title = {Del av problemet, og del av løsningen: Den europeiske menneskerettighetsdomstolen og demokratisk selvstyre},

author = {Andreas Føllesdal},

editor = {Harald Baldersheim and Øyvind Østerud},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-emd-selvstyre.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Det norske demokratiet i det 21. århundre},

pages = {80-91},

publisher = {Fagbokforlaget},

address = {Oslo},

abstract = {For å forstå og vurdere bekymringene for fremveksten av internasjonale domstoler og domstolsliknende organer er det viktig å se hvordan de griper inn i og preger nasjonale domstoler og myndigheter. Bidrar slike domstoler til å undergrave det nasjonale demokratiske selvstyre, og i så fall: hvordan skjer det, og hva skal vi synes om dette? Artikkelen ser på ett av flere viktige områder der disse spørsmålene melder seg, nemlig om og hvordan den europeiske menneskerettighetsdomstolen respekterer nasjonale demokratiske beslutninger der det kan se ut som de bryter med den europeiske menneskerettighetskonvensjon.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49328,

title = {Subsidiarity and the global order},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Augusto Zimmermann and Michelle Evans},

url = {Follesdal-2014-subsidiarity-global-order.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Global Perspectives on Subsidiarity},

pages = {207-220},

publisher = {Springer},

address = {Dordrecht},

abstract = {Subsidiarity has been proposed as an answer to the challenges of globalization and global governance. This chapter addresses some of the strengths and weaknesses of such a principle of subsidiarity for questions of how to allocate and use authority at regional and global levels. The chapter criticizes the 'state centric' versions of subsidiarity often appealed to for such global settings. In particular, there are several challenges wrought by states that fail to respect their citizens' human rights, variously interpreted. More defensible versions of subsidiarity do not provide normative legitimacy to the state centric aspects of the global order. Section 1 sketches some of the remarkably different conceptions of subsidiarity as a background to the usages in the European Union, the Catholic Church and as it allegedly appears in international law. The different versions drastically reduce or enlarge the scope of member unit authority. Section 2 considers some implications for the legitimate allocation of authority in our global order which includes many states that routinely violate their citizens’ fundamental human rights. The function of the European Court of Human Rights offers a helpful contrast.},

keywords = {European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49244,

title = {Okin, Susan},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Michael Gibbons and Diana Coole and Elisabeth Ellis},

url = {http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2398341_code1833176.pdf?abstractid=2398341&mirid=3},

doi = {10.1002/9781118474396.wbept0725},

isbn = {978-1-4051-9129-6},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Encyclopedia of Political Thought},

publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},

abstract = {Susan Moller Okin, an egalitarian feminist liberal, reconstructed the history of political thought to correct for the absence, exclusion or distortion of women, gendered culture and reproduction. She developed the social contract tradition to secure family and gender central place, highlighted the plight of minority women in multicultural societies, and contributed to women-centred development policies.},

keywords = {Gender, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49802,

title = {Kant, Human Rights, and Courts},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Andreas Follesdal and Reidar Maliks},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-Kant-hr-courts.rtf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Kantian theory and human rights},

pages = {193-202},

publisher = {Routledge},

abstract = {why we should go back to Kant when we seek to understand human rights as they exist in today’s globalized world. It is a good question: why turn once again to a dead white European man for answers to our own questions? The social and legal setting of his day differed so much from ours that we may well wonder what his thoughts might contribute to our world. .. It is in order to understand the puzzles raised by human rights principles and institutions that the essays in this volume develop thinking that is Kantian, that is, inspired by his particular way of thinking about the relation between rights and the rule of law. The following are some reflections prompted by these contributions. The first section explores the role of theories of human rights law, the second section explores the unit of analysis, whether it should be courts or the global basic structure. Section three asks whether international courts suffer a democratic deficit worth worrying about; section four addresses prescriptions – what institutional mechanisms would suffice for legitimacy; section five asks what should guide the discretion of judges of international courts, while section six suggests some remaining ‘Kantian’ issues to be explored.},

keywords = {Human Rights, International courts, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49430,

title = {John Rawls' Theory of Justice as Fairness},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Guttorm Fløistad},

url = {www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-Rawls-JasF.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Philosophy of Justice},

pages = {311-328},

publisher = {Springer},

address = {Dordrecht},

series = {Contemporary Philosophy: A new survey},

abstract = {When do citizens have a moral duty to obey the government and support the institutions of society? This question is central to political philosophy. One of the 20 century's main response was John Rawls' theory of justice, "Justice as fairness", in the book A Theory of Justice, published 1971. The book Justice as Fairness was an improved and shorter presentation of Rawls' theory, published 2001 with editorial support by Erin Kelly, one of his former students. ...This introduction of Rawls falls into eight parts. After a brief biographical introduction, Part 2 presents the allocation principles he advocated. Part 3 presents Rawls' conception of society and the individual, as an introduction to the rest of the argument presented in part 4 Section 5 takes up his theory of justification, and part 6 points to three areas where the more recent book Justice as Fairness differs somewhat from A Theory of Justice. Section 7 presents some of the criticisms that have been raised, and section 8 points to some lasting contributions of Rawls’ theory.},

keywords = {John Rawls},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49722,

title = {Global Citizenship},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Aksel Braanen Sterri},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-global-citizenship.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Global Citizen – Challenges and Responsibility in an Interconnected World},

pages = {71-82},

publisher = {Sense},

address = {Rotterdam},

abstract = {Our actions and practices increasingly mutually affect others across territorial borders. Since these processes of globalization affect our opportunities and our possible impact, globalization also affects what we ought to do – as ‘global citizens’. The chapter explores some implications for our conceptions of citizenship beyond the state. Individuals should be able to exercise some democratic voting rights and some human rights vis-à-vis governance structures above the nation state under our conditions of globalization. After a brief overview including a historical backdrop, section 2 sketches some components of global citizenship, and section 3 considers several objections to this notion.},

keywords = {Human Rights},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49661,

title = {Federalism and Human Rights in Nepal's Constitutional Design: Challenges for the Judiciary},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Dirk Ehlers and Hennig Glaser and Kittisak Prokati},

url = {www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-fed-nepal-judges-cpg.pdf},

doi = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2359970},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Constitutionalism and good governance: Western and Eastern perspectives},

volume = {1},

pages = {193-203},

publisher = {Nomos},

address = {Baden Baden},

series = {Comparative Constitutional Law, Politics,and Governance},

abstract = {The article addresses one of the difficult tasks of the Nepal Judiciary, which it shares in part with the Constituent Assembly: how to interpret the idea and mechanisms of federalism in ways that are faithful to the best interests of the Nepal people. The CA must create the constitution of a democratic, human rights-respecting Nepal republic, in light of how the constitution will in turn be interpreted and applied by the judiciary. The reflections in this article concern four varieties of federal elements, discussing arguments in favor and against each drawn from an interpretation of other states’ experiences. Two of the four are territorial: Constitutional – an entrenched split of powers - and Political: decentralised autonomy. Two are non-territorial: Minority Rights, and Minority Representation in common decision making bodies. Some of these arguments and lessons may be helpful also for Nepal’s challenges, two features of which are especially noteworthy: there are very many different groups that must be accommodated fairly. And members of these groups very often live side by side on the same territory. Human rights protections combined with federal elements of Nepal’s new constitution must serve to prevent future domination, especially by the centres, over these many ethnic groups and castes. The new constitution therefore creates several new tasks and challenges for Nepal’s judiciary, several of which are identified.},

keywords = {Federalism, Human Rights, Nepal, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49578,

title = {Democratic standards in an asymmetric Union},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Olaf Cramme and Sara B. Hobolt},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-dem-standards-asymmetric.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Democratic Politics in a European Union under Stress},

pages = {199 -216},

publisher = {Oxford University Press},

address = {Oxford},

abstract = {Throughout the present Eurozone crisis, worries about legitimacy and democracy have been particularly vocal, albeit often conflated, and not always very clear. What are we to make of such concerns, and the proposals brought forward? Discussions about the democratic deficit often target the wrong problems, either because the alleged problems are misinterpreted, or because they are in fact not problems at all. Nevertheless, it remains the case (and notwithstanding the contestability of some of the evidence) that the EU is insufficiently democratically accountable. While some weaknesses may be temporary, others seem to be more entrenched in the constitutional structure of the EU. In particular, we need to reconsider our democratic standards if the scholars who say that we must expect the EU to keep features of an asymmetrical federal order, with differentiated integration, are right. My comments concerning the prospects of a sufficiently legitimate EU are clustered under the rubrics of Symptoms, Diagnoses, Prescriptions, and Prognosis.},

keywords = {Democratic theory, EU - European Union, Federalism, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49273,

title = {Democracy, identity, and European public spheres},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Thomas Risse},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-dem-id-publ-spheres.pdf},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {European Public Spheres: Politics is Back},

pages = {247-262},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

abstract = {The empirical findings of this volume give evidence of Europeanisation in the form of political contestation about matters European. What is the significance for democracy and for the future European Union, of increased politicization in the sense of contestation in various public spheres among political parties about the European polity and regimes – including the territory and competences of the EU. I suggest that there is a third option, in addition to either unfortunate corrosion and fragmentation of the EU or “normalization” of policy contestation, namely permanent salient contestation about constitutional matters – of which the euro crisis may be only one.},

keywords = {Democratic theory, EU - European Union, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49271,

title = {Competing Conceptions of Subsidiarity},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {James E. Fleming and Jacob T. Levy},

url = {http://follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2014-nomos-subsidiarity.pdf},

doi = {http://ssrn.com/abstract=2359964},

year  = {2014},

date = {2014-01-01},

booktitle = {Nomos LV: Federalism and Subsidiarity},

pages = {214-230},

publisher = {New York University Press},

address = {New York},

abstract = {Appeals to a Principle of Subsidiarity has become popular due to its aspirations to address the allocation or use of authority within a political order, typically those where authority is dispersed between a centre and various member units. However, considerations of subsidiarity will seldom resolve disagreements about the allocation of authority. To illustrate how different conceptions of subsidiarity have profoundly different implications for constitutional and institutional design, the article first consider four different theories before turning to some implications as seen in the discussions about US federalism, debates in Europe about the EU and the European Court of Human Rights, and international law.},

keywords = {European Court of Human Rights, Federalism, Human Rights, Publications, Subsidiarity},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49803,

title = {International human rights and the challenge of legitimacy},

author = {Johan Karlsson Schaffer and Andreas Follesdal and Geir Ulfstein},

editor = {Andreas Follesdal and Johan Schaffer and Geir Ulfstein},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2013-Schaffer-Ulfstein-hr-challenges-legitimacy.rtf},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-01-01},

booktitle = {The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Regimes},

pages = {1-30},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

abstract = {The practices and institutions of international human rights would seem to enjoy, on average, a broad, strong legitimacy in the contemporary world. And yet, on the other hand, international human rights practices increasingly face potentially disabling skepticism and critique, resentment and even resistance...this volume ... contributes to an increasingly lively research literature spanning the disciplines of law, philosophy, political science and international relations. This introductory chapter serves, first, to give some examples of the type of political controversies over international human rights regimes that motivate this volume; second, to place the volume in current academic debates about international human rights and about the legitimate authority of international institutions; and thirdly, to outline the topics covered in the individual contributions. ..},

keywords = {Human Rights},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49579,

title = {Introduction},

author = {Andreas Follesdal and Birgit Peters and Geir Ulfstein},

editor = {Andreas Follesdal and Birgit Peters and Geir Ulfstein},

url = {www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2013-Peters-Ulfstein-introduction.rtf},

doi = {http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item7099150/?site_locale=en_GB},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-01-01},

booktitle = {Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context},

pages = {1-24},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

series = {Studies on Human Rights Conventions},

abstract = {This book examines the new institutional settings of the Court. Few contributions have hitherto concentrated on these multiple relationships of the ECtHR.... The book aims to assess the relationship between the Court and the member states, the EU, the UN and the other organs of the Council of Europe, partly by referring to a specific set of normative criteria, and taking into consideration their respective needs and their own institutional functions. It seeks to provide a coherent overview and some more principled answers to the current reform debate and future design of the Court and of its relationship to the national, European and global level. The book's main areas of consideration and main objectives are outlined in the following sections...},

keywords = {European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49580,

title = {Conclusions},

author = {Andreas Follesdal and Birgit Peters and Geir Ulfstein},

editor = {Andreas Follesdal and Birgit Peters and Geir Ulfstein},

url = {www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2013-Peters-Ulfstein-conclusions.rtf},

doi = {http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item7099150/?site_locale=en_GB},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-01-01},

booktitle = {Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context},

pages = {389-402},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

series = {Studies on Human Rights Conventions},

abstract = {...the member states, the organs of the Council of Europe - including the Court itself - the EU and, possibly, the UN, are still seeking to calibrate and develop the ECtHR’s legitimacy within the European sphere of fundamental rights. .... , it is difficult to deny the ECtHR’s constitutional role in its relations with the member states. This is not to say that the ECtHR is formally embedded in the general judicial review structure at the member state levels. Nonetheless, it decides on the compatibility of legislative as well as administrative and judicial acts with the Convention. Pilot judgment cases, in particular, may entail a declaration of incompatibility of particular legal provisions with the Convention ... The Court's Legitimacy..... Development and further solutions ... The Future...},

keywords = {European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49403,

title = {Much ado about Nothing? International Judicial Review of Human Rights in Well Functioning Democracies},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Andreas Follesdal and Johan Schaffer and Geir Ulfstein},

url = {http://www.follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2013-intl-review-democracies.rtf},

year  = {2013},

date = {2013-01-01},

booktitle = {The Legitimacy of International Human Rights Regimes},

pages = {272-299},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

abstract = {The chapter addresses some of the tensions between sovereignty, international human rights review and legitimacy, and bring these findings to bear on the proposals for reform of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that would reduce its authority over national legislatures and judiciaries. The objectives of such review are not obvious, the causes of noncompliance are contested, as is the legality of dynamic treaty interpretation; all of which hamper efforts to assess proposed improvements. Section 1 presents some relevant aspects of the ECtHR. Section 2 reviews some of the recent criticism against the ECtHR practice of judicial review to protect human rights in ‘well-functioning’ democracies, in terms of various forms of legitimacy deficits. It also presents some of the recent proposals for reform of the ECtHR. Section 3 lays out some reasons why such judicial review of majoritarian democratic decision-making may be defensible, also for well functioning democracies. Section 4 responds to some of the criticisms, and presents a partial defence. Some standard objections are not well targeted against the practices of the ECtHR, partly due to the division of responsibility between it and national public bodies, and the different roles of legislators and of judiciaries. Section 5 returns to the proposals presented in section 2. Section 6 concludes by considering some of the important remaining normative challenges, this partial defence notwithstanding.},

keywords = {European Court of Human Rights, Human Rights},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN48050,

title = {Will the Reform Treaty Combat the Union's Legitimacy Crisis?},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Jean-Christophe Merle},

url = {http://follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2012-reform-treaty.rtf},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-01-01},

booktitle = {Die Legitimität von supranationalen Institutionen der EU},

pages = {112-129},

publisher = {LIT-Verlag},

address = {Münster},

abstract = {The Constitutional Treaty (CT) and the Reform Treaty (RT) does take several valuable steps to ensure that the European Union becomes more trustworthy and comes ‘closer to the people’ – though I register some ambivalence. Section 1 provides some fragments of the history of the European Union, to justify the diagnosis that it needs increased levels of trust and arrangements for trustworthiness among Europeans and their political leaders. Section 2 argues that the European Union has certain federal elements that require four peculiar forms of ‘balancing’. Section 4 discusses the increased need for trust among Europeans. Section 4 addresses the role of the Charter on Fundamental Rights as a trust building mechanism. Sections 5 to 7 address how the CT and the RT contribute or detract from each of these three forms of balancing. The conclusion is that certain elements of the CT and of the RT would help European institutions create and maintain their own support among European citizens and officials.},

keywords = {EU - European Union, Federalism, Publications},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49318,

title = {Den europeiske menneskerettighetsdomstolen og Høyesterett - uavhengighet og demokratisk kontroll},

author = {Geir Ulfstein and Andreas Føllesdal},

editor = {Nils Asbjørn Engstad and Astrid Lærdal Frøseth and Bård Tønder},

url = {http://follesdal.net/ms/Follesdal-2012-Ulfstein-emd-hoyesterett.rtf},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-01-01},

booktitle = {Dommernes uavhengighet},

pages = {443-461},

publisher = {Fagbokforlaget},

address = {Bergen},

abstract = {. I denne artikkelen drøfter vi prøvingen av norsk rett i forhold til Den europeiske menneskerettighetskonvensjonen (EMK) ved Den europeiske menneskerettighetsdomstolen (EMD) og av Høyesterett, både ut fra demokratiske legitimitet og mulige andre grunnlag for legitim myndighetsutøvelse. Vi peker til sist på hva denne internasjonaliseringen av retten kan og kanskje bør få å si for den allmenne oppfatningen av dommernes funksjoner i det norske samfunn og deres uavhengighet – og noen konsekvenser for utvelgelsen av dommere til Høyesterett og til internasjonale domstoler og medlemmer av menneskerettslige overvåkingsorganer.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN49391,

title = {Kata pengantar [Preface]},

author = {Andreas Follesdal},

editor = {Rudi M. Rizki},

year  = {2012},

date = {2012-01-01},

booktitle = {Violations of Human Rights by transnational corporations and the effort to hold them accountable},

pages = {vii-ix},

publisher = {Penerbit PT Fikahati Aneska},

address = {Jakarta},

keywords = {Human Rights},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

@inbook{RN48530,

title = {Introduction},

author = {Gro Nystuen and Andreas Follesdal and Ola Mestad},

editor = {Gro Nystuen and Andreas Follesdal and Ola Mestad},

url = {ms/Nystuen-Follesdal-Mestad-2011-hr-corporate-complicity-introduction.rtf},

year  = {2011},

date = {2011-01-01},

urldate = {2011-01-01},

booktitle = {Human Rights, Corporate Complicity and Disinvestment},

pages = {1-15},

publisher = {Cambridge University Press},

address = {Cambridge},

abstract = {In the twenty-first century, questions of corporate conduct in relation to human rights have come to the forefront of public attention....Several institutional investors such as pension funds , especially responsible private funds and government funds have established policies and practices to handle issues of corporate involvement which they find unethical.... The discussions of the book lie at the intersection of three important current developments relating to normative frameworks: first, the corporate social responsibility (CSR ) discussion which addresses companies directly rather than the investors’ perspective; second, the ethical, or responsible, investment development; and third, discussions on norms for sovereign wealth funds that are investors of a special breed....It is against this normative background that this book analyses the relationships between investment, companies’ conduct and human rights.... Concepts of complicity in human rights violations are at the core of this book. They are discussed from several philosophical as well as several legal perspectives. The underlying discussion is how to establish norms for assessing corporate conduct and investors’ relationships to 

such conduct, and how to apply them?...},

keywords = {Human Rights, Publications, SRI - Socially responsible investing},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}