Abstract Deliberative mini-publics are decision-making bodies that provide technical instruction to a set of randomly-selected citizens, who then deliberate over public policies. Mini-publics have long seen use across a range of policy areas globally. The appeal of using mini-publics lies in their integration of democratic and deliberative inputs, which can enhance the legitimacy of policy decisions and may even help to settle deeply divisive public debates. Yet whether mini-publics can be adapted to the adjudication of human rights remains an open question. This article provides the first general empirical evaluation of this question. It finds, first, an expanding set of bona fide deliberative mini-publics adjudicating rights disputes, on subjects from hate speech to Covid-19. However, a second and more complex analysis considers whether mini-publics can conduct the deliberations necessary to adjudicate rights disputes. Some theoretical commentary assumes that they can, given that rights adjudication requires factual or value-based analyses, to which lay citizens seem well suited. The article indeed finds evidence to support this conclusion, providing proof-of-concept that mini-publics can adjudicate rights disputes effectively. However, support for the conclusion is conditional: how well mini-publics invoke key rights doctrines depends on the nature of support and information provided to lay participants.
Palmerlee et al. (Wed,) studied this question.