ABSTRACT
This article scrutinises the evolving paradigm of human rights justifications (HRJs) and the growing complexities encountered by civil society when states invoke human rights to legitimise restrictive migration policies. Originally conceived as a shield to protect individuals from state power, human rights have increasingly been appropriated by states as instruments of governance, particularly in migration law. Through a typology comprising direct reference, misuse of human rights doctrine, and misuse of international law, the article analyses contemporary legislative reforms in the EU and Sweden—including the activation of the Temporary Protection Directive, tightening of residency requirements, and citizenship restrictions. The empirical and methodological approach integrates the co-production of knowledge with civil society actors. The analysis demonstrates that, while HRJs can be mobilised to expand rights in times of crisis, as in the EU’s response to the Ukrainian refugee influx, they are also deployed to restrict rights, as seen in recent Swedish legislative processes. The article further explores intersectionality as a critical lens and outlines coalition-building and experiential learning as strategies for civil society to counter HRJs. Ultimately, it contends that reinstating human rights as a protective shield depends on strengthening civil society’s role in legal and policy advocacy, knowledge production, and accountability requirements in an era of shifting state rationales.
CITATION (Oxford)
Carlson, Laura. ‘The Changing Paradigm of Human Rights Justifications: Challenges for Civil Society’. Zbornik znanstvenih razprav (Ljubljana Law Review) 85 (2025): 135–164