Modern law is founded on an idea of justice that is made felt through rights and entitlements legal subjects enjoy. As such, for law and its idea of justice, rights are inherently good and therefore abundant. On encounter with injustice, it has become commonplace to inquire what laws and rights have been flouted, as if injustice would disappear in encounter with rights that encode justice. But what if no number of laws and rights – even with faultless execution – is up for the task of upholding what we deem just? In this dissertation, I look at the heart of this question, and find the law’s answer not simply wanting but repugnant.

The research is animated by interaction of three topoi: personhood, technology, and international law. The first part concerns how these concepts are perceived in law and by those working with laws. As part of the unearthing of the conceptual ground rules, a trilemma between effectiveness, responsiveness, and coherence familiar from regulatory research and international law rears its head. I show how setting the priority on effective and responsive solutions has amounted to derogation of justice and diminishment of law’s foundational entity, a natural person. I explore whether these outcomes could be avoided within liberal international law and answer my own question on the negative. I title this systematic outcome a theory of repugnant rights.

The latter part of the dissertation concerns technology, its regulation, and tendency to produce repugnant outcomes in international law. I focus on bio- and information technologies and their legal coding as tools to dismantle legal protection provided by our quality of being human. I will show how intricate legal norms break and remake us in ways that blur the boundaries between persons and things. Once something falls beyond or below the category of a person, its legal status can be warped, twisted, and turned – all while remaining at arm’s length from the person it was once legally part of. Technological intervention to such things allows for effective circumvention of legal shelter provided by human rights, as I show through example of regulation of surrogacy and data storage.

To come to terms with the repugnancy, I seek shelter from anger as a transitory category that would enable us to move across the present impasse with rights. I suggest that at the very least international lawyers ought to be angry at quotidian horrors international law upholds. And through such anger overcome the misery and repugnancy of international law.