1. On the context and progress of the international law discipline
This section introduces current legal, political and philosophical scholarship on the idea of a crisis of legitimacy (that is, democratic legitimacy) affecting international human rights bodies. The purpose is to provide an overview of the topic that will be used in the following chapters in connection with the dynamics of Latin American legal scholarship.
Introducing “legitimacy” as a term and concept will not necessarily lead to promoting standards that help assess the democratic legitimacy of the IACtHR or find the normative basis for its democratic legitimacy. Rather than using the idea of legitimacy to develop arguments justifying IACtHR activism and the idea of its transformative judicial power, the concept works as a departure point to discuss some of the premises that support its study among legal scholars. The idea of legitimacy is pivotal because it enables me to step back to grasp the rationale of a narrative that supports the concerns and interests contained within this concept.
The following sections will describe the premises that constitute the terrain for concerns regarding the democratic legitimacy of IHRB and the IACtHR. In doing this, they introduce a definition of democratic legitimacy and its link to the idea that IHRB contribute to democratisation or promoting democracy through the protection of human rights—a moral, legal value they pursue by nature.
To begin with, it should be pointed out that the focus on the legitimacy of the IACtHR finds its roots in the rise of discourses on the evolution of international law’s nature and functions, that is to say, in the narrative of progress of the legal discipline. According to this discourse, international law has gained territory and power in itself, as well as in its institutions; it could be a driving force to achieve specific desirable universal goals such as peace, protection of human rights and democracy.
The word “progress” is used here purposefully, because it refers to the idea that the international legal discipline is, per se, in a state of positive development. This idea of progress also serves to demarcate the legal discipline’s autonomy from politics. Similarly, it implies that international law is inherently a force for good that contributes to promoting order and other universal moral values. Indeed, developments in the international legal arena are generally narrated as linear and as the proof of international law’s desired future. The examples I will provide are in fact written in the language of progress, that is to say, in terms of self-evident development, both in the values that international law pursues (away from power, politics and injustice towards law, predictability and justice) and the discipline in itself (as a governance system, as a technique, as effectiveness).2
2 Thomas Skouteris, “The Idea of Progress,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Theory of International Law, eds. Anne Orford and Florian Hoffman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); The Notion of Progress in International Law Discourse (The Hague: Asser Press, 2010). The idea of the legal discipline’s progress defines the grounds of mainstream scholarship in the field. This “immanent progressive value” of international law can be linked with a narrative that is not objective and might be defined as politics. By highlighting the idea of progress, it is possible to demystify mainstream narratives of international law. Demystification could be a meaningful form for thinking about international law with a different horizon of intellectual possibility. Calling into question the idea of progress has also a direct effect on the way one can understand the growing interest in the legitimacy of IHRB and particularly the IACtHR.
To illustrate how the notion of progress operates, Hathaway and Schapiro’s 2017 book The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World is one example of the way in which mainstream international lawyers and international relations scholars describe a unidirectional narrative of international law experiencing a “transformation” from an “Old World Order” to a “New World Order.” The authors guide the reader from the idea of the former, in which the privilege to use force entailed a licence to kill, “diplomacy” and the rights of conquest, towards the latter, which prohibits use of force and qualifies it as a crime of aggression, has no coerced or forced agreements and makes conquest illegal.3 The Internationalists is a typical example of the way in which accounts of international law are written: They are epochal and identify “hinges” upon which international order turns into something better. Mainstream legal perspectives have also portrayed progress by, for example, describing a switch from absolutism to democracy and “the end of history,” a new international liberalism or institutionalism in the international arena after the end of the Cold War,4 and an evolution of the sources of international law.5
3 Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro, The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017). 4 Anne-Marie Slaughter Burley, “Law among Liberal States: Liberal Internationalism and the Act of State Doctrine,” Columbia Law Review 92, no. 8 (1992): 1907–1996; Daniel Joyce, “Liberal Internationalism,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Theory of International Law, eds. Orford and Hoffmann, 471–487; Florian Hoffmann, “International Legalism and International Politics,” in The Oxford Handbook of International Law, eds. Anne Orford and Florian Hoffmann (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 954–984. 5 Skouteris, The Notion of Progress. The pattern of such universal and unilateral narratives entails that the “progress” in question is always led by liberal, democratic heroes battling against conservative forces. These narratives refer to a past that encompasses principles of progress that ratify the successful history of the present.6 Here, it is important to mention that the paradigm shifts narrated are achieved through the adoption of legal forms that enabled outcomes like the prohibition of the use of force. Legal activism is seen as a key element in triggering the change from the old to the new.
6 Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (London: Bell, 1931). Taking into account such accounts of pivots or hinges in the narrative of international law’s progress, this book will focus primarily on a narrative focused on a post–Cold War stage that describes how international law and international structures or institutions have evolved as a result of the historical fact of the war’s end.7 Within that time frame, two main fields overlap in the development of this book, namely the idea of proliferation and the project of international (global) democracy.
7 The way in which this historical fact has been presented or described is not objective either, but to discuss the objectivity or non-objectivity of narrations of the Cold War’s end is not the object of this book. 1.1. A flourishing of international legal institutions and liberal values: after darkness, war and politics
The starting point for discourses on the legitimacy of international institutions and judicial bodies can be found in the end of the Cold War and the ways in which it has been interpreted. The dominant narrative describes the Cold War as a period in which traditional international law was deformed because the hegemonies of the East and West were preoccupied with negotiating power based on the idea of national sovereignty. According to this narrative, during the Cold War, there was no room for applying rule of law (i.e. for judicial institutions’ success as dispute-settlement mechanisms).8
8 Cesare Romano, “The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Pieces of the Puzzle,” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 31, no. 4 (1999): 729, 31. In that context, the mainstream narrative indicates that moralism was necessarily attached to the great powers’ struggles.9 Accordingly, it insists that the end of the Cold War led to morality and liberalism fitting together again, since the former is endemic to the latter.10 The renaissance of liberalism enabled a progressive move to the rule of law in the international arena or a revival of international liberalism.11 According to the mainstream legal discourse, international liberalism involves a project of international law that promotes the development of international institutions and frameworks to enable the coordination of interna...