Andreas Follesdal is one of the many people who believe that checks and constraints on… Andreas Follesdal is one of the many people who believe that checks and constraints on government are needed – not just in the United States, but in Europe, as well.

Follesdal, who is the director of research at the University of Oslo’s Norwegian Center for Human Rights, spoke on Monday about democracy and the legitimacy of human rights courts and their impact on governments in Europe.

His lecture, titled “The EU’s Legitimacy Deficit as an Assurance Game,” was sponsored by Pitt’s European Studies Center and European Union Center of Excellence.

Follesdal spoke at length about the implications that unelected and unaccountable judges have on the ability of democratically elected legislatures to govern.

Using the European Court of Human Rights as his main example, Follesdal questioned whether appointed judges have the right to overturn actions of democratic governments. He said that at first glance, the process of “judicial review would appear unaccountable and therefore undemocratic.”

However, Follesdal also noted that “we need checks and constraints on legislatures and parliaments.

“Individuals must not only have their best interests protected, they must also have reason to trust their institutions.”

Follesdal attacked the idea that the constraints of democratically elected governments by international human rights law are unnecessary and illegitimate.

“Human rights constraints assure minorities that they are free from domination,” he said.

Follesdal agreed that while some aspects of international human rights law are not democratic, their plight is legitimate because they restrict the actions of some governments in order to protect minorities.

He also discredited the belief that the only source of authority comes from the unconstrained majority rule of elected legislatures.

Follesdal disagreed with the notion that human rights law views legislatures as “predatory