The Failure of the Arab Court of Human Rights and the Conflicting Logics of Legitimacy, Sovereignty, Orientalism and Cultural Relativism

In 2014 the League of Arab States (LAS) adopted a statute to establish the Arab Court of Human Rights (ACtHR). However, the proposed court has been strongly criticised for, inter alia, failing to provide for the right of individual petition. Consequently, the statute has failed to receive sufficient ratification and the process of establishing a supranational human rights enforcement mechanism has stalled. This article considers the complex conflict of institutional logics that may explain this failure. On the one hand, the legitimacy and perceived legitimacy that comes with an effective human rights regime creates an isomorphic pressure on the Arab states and the LAS to establish a supranational human rights enforcement mechanism. On the other hand, this pressure is opposed by the conflicting logics arising from the Arab world’s reaction to orientalism, from cultural relativism, and from sovereignty, particularly in the context of authoritarian political systems. It is submitted that, because the proposed ACtHR would be only weakly legitimate, the motivational pressure on LAS member states to ratify the statute and establish the court is insufficient to overcome the pressure from those conflicting logics. It is, however, argued that cultural relativism should be seen, not as an impediment, but as a motivation for establishing an effective and legitimate supranational human rights court. Acting as a ‘norm-broker’, such a court may help to resolve the tension between the currently conflicting logics.