The Pluralism of Human Rights Adjudication

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter


This chapter considers judicial reasoning in ‘human rights’ cases. Are there techniques that courts share, or are different techniques adopted, to decide how human rights, in this broader sense, are protected? The chapter aims to adopt a comparative approach to the examination of this reasoning, through a detailed examination of similar human rights issues in a range of jurisdictions. The aim of the chapter is to examine the similarities and divergences in the reasoning developed by courts when addressing comparable human rights questions. The chapter shows that human rights reasoning involves distinctive and particular forms of legal reasoning, but that its form and content differ significantly
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and over time within jurisdictions. Building upon these findings, the chapter explores what these similarities and differences tell us about the nature, and the direction of travel, of human rights law which comprises notionally universal norms.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationReasoning Rights: Comparative Judicial Engagement
EditorsLiora Lazarus, Christopher McCrudden, Nigel Bowles
Place of PublicationOxford
PublisherHart Publishing
Number of pages24
ISBN (Print)9781849462525
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2014

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law


Dive into the research topics of 'The Pluralism of Human Rights Adjudication'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this