States increasingly rely on the language of human rights to frame and legitimise their policy choices. This practice is not inherently problematic: limitations on rights often require justification, and human rights law itself has an inherently justificatory structure. Problems arise, however, when states rely on arguments that deviate from the established criteria for limiting or derogating from rights, or when human rights rhetoric is deployed selectively to obscure violations.

This report examines how states invoke human rights language to justify their actions or inactions, sometimes in ways that undermine human rights. Focusing on the Finnish legislative process, the report analyses case studies to develop a typology of problematic human rights justifications. The report contributes to existing scholarship on abusive constitutionalism and the appropriation of human rights by offering a framework for identifying and analysing such practices within ordinary democratic settings.