Some scholars in international law use the term "public reason" in connection with international courts (ICs), and argue that ICs can, or should, enhance their legitimacy through public reason. Many of these scholars take their inspiration from Rawls who said that the reasoning of the Supreme Court is the exemplar of public reason for a constitutional democracy. However, there are different and conflicting interpretations of what Rawls meant by public reason. It is also unclear how this concept applies to ICs and their legitimacy. What does "public reason" refer to when applied to ICs? Whose "reason" are we talking about? In what sense is this reason "public"? The paper seeks to bring some conceptual clarity to the contested conception of "public reason", and argue that some appeals to the public reason of ICs seem more promising than others.
