ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the possibility of finding justification for private enforcement from the moral communication on dispute resolution, as the sovereignty narrative was unable to address the privatisation and the consent narrative failed in justifying coercion. Unlike sovereignty or private autonomy, access to justice – in the meaning of the human rights discourse it reflects – is mainly a product of the twentieth century, although the roots of inalienable universal rights can be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment. The authority of case law on access to justice draws its strength from the morality of these communications, which is then historicised internally within the legal system. Access to justice works well on the micro level of individual processes but on the macro level of abstract justification its justificatory power falls short of that provided by sovereignty or private autonomy.
