ABSTRACT
This chapter analyses the grounds for change amongst human rights and the theoretical context in which such an analysis must take place. It argues that change is properly conceptualised on the basis of commitment to cosmopolitan public reason but also responsiveness to threats to the human condition. The chapter shows that competing human rights theories which seek to justify only the status quo are theoretically incoherent. It provides examples of the justifications for change in human rights and outlines the criticism, of “rationalisation” as a more restrictive position on change. Law makers and judges need to make human rights responsive to new circumstances and emerging threats. Fidelity to the existing system and instruments of human rights is inconsistent with the reforms necessary to maintain human rights in circumstances of dire physical and institutional pressures. “Rationalisation” is an ideal type created from common features and resemblances found across modern human rights theory.
