Techniques of implementation

8.4.1 Customary international law

· All national systems adopt automatic standing incorporation to incorporate customary law.

· National constitutions, statutes, and judicial decisions of most states stipulate that customary international rules become domestically binding by the mere fact of their evolution in int’l community.

· Why? B/c how else would states incorporate a rule that everyone agrees to and it’s not clear when it first emerged and what exactly it is. Better to leave this interpretation job to judges and state officials rather than parliamentary debate.

· However, there can be customary rules that need to supplemented by national legislation in order to become operative at a national level.

o Example of such non-self-executing customary rules – rule providing that the maximum outer limit of the territorial sea should be 12 miles. But each state can determine by specific legislation the exact width of its territorial sea, within that 12 mile limit.

Rank of customary int’l law in national systems:

· In states with rigid constitutions, int’l customary law overrides any inconsistent ‘ordinary’ national legislation. In some of these states, there is a constitutional court entrusted with judicial review of legislative acts, consequently responsible for ensuring that no law is passed which violates constitution

o Italy, Germany, Japan, Greece, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Belarus

· Other States do not lay down provisions that put customary int’l law higher than ordinary legislation. If parliament passes a law which conflicts with customary law, the national law, being later in time, would prevail

o USA, China, France, UK (in UK, this is due to lack of written constitution), Belgium, South Africa (despite it having a rigid constitution)

8.4.2 Treaty Law

a) Modalities of implementation

· Custom – standing automatic incorporation

· Treaties – combination of standing automatic (1), statutory ad hoc (2a) and automatic ad hoc incorporation (2b)

Some examples

· Domestic authorities are to comply with treaties upon their publication in Official Bulletin (France, many African countries)

· Treaties ratified by the president after Senate approval (US)

· Treaties do not bind national authorities unless they are translated into detailed national legislation (UK, Russian Federation)

· Frequent resort to automatic ad hoc incorporation (Germany, Italy)

b) Non-self-executing treaties

· Particular problem re treaties with non-self-executing provisions – provisions that cannot be directly applied within the national legal system because they must be supplemented by additional national legislation.

· National courts often to broaden the notion of non-self-executing treaty provisions with a view to shielding national legal systems from legal change.

o e.g. French Courts spent forever trying to define whether Art. 8 of European Convention on Human Rights was self-executing or not (Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence).

c) Status of international treaties and possible conflict with later legislation

· Legal standing of treaties within domestic legal orders and the possibility of conflict between int’l treaties and subsequent national legislation vary greatly in different countries.

· In countries where a constitutional provision provides for the incorporation of treaties, duly ratified treaties override national legislation.

o France – treaties acquire a status higher than ordinary legislation, thus treaties prevail in case of conflict. But treaties may not override constitutional provisions. This is why France had to pass a constitutional law in order to ratify statute of ICC

o Similar system in Greece, French-speaking African countries, Spain (but without reciprocity clause), Russian Federation, Bulgaria, Moldova, Estonia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Tadzhikistan, Netherlands (where treaties are even higher than constitutional law in some cases)

· In contrast, in other countries, constitutions or national laws provide (explicitly or implicitly) that treaties possess the same rank and status as laws enacted by parliament. This grants parliament the power to change legislation implementing a treaty whenever national interests are regarded as paramount.

o Italy, US (treaties have the status of federal law, prevail over state law, but can be superseded by later federal law)

· Conflicts frequently arise, so Courts tend to use interpretation principle that in case of doubt a national statute should be construed so as not to conflict with int’l treaty ratified by state.

o Scholars have criticized this approach, saying that legislatures rarely set out to expressly contradict treaty obligations, it happens through lack of co-ordination or oversight.

o Other scholars advance a different principle of interpretation: that when interpreting and applying international treaties that might be inconsistent with national legislation, one ought to proceed on the basis that the legislation implementing the treaty is a special law, because it originates from attempt by legislature to conform to int’l treaty. This ‘specialness’ should justify treaty implementation laws overriding national laws in cases of conflict.

· But there are many states that have not made any provision in their constitution or national legislation for the implementation of treaties. In these countries, treaties are incorporated by means of ad hoc mechanisms. The rank and status of the treaty in the national legal system depends on the rank and status of its ad hoc implementing legislation.

o China, Italy, Ghana, Uganda, Nigeria, Tanzania

8.4.3 Rights of individuals v. discretionary power of states in treaty implementation

· When a state party to an int’l treaty fails to implement some of its provisions within its domestic legal order, this may mean that individuals lack the fundamental rights which the treaty intends to confer on them.

· This often happens when a foreign state violates international rules granting rights to nationals of a contracting party. If the injured state does not respond to breach of treaty, the individuals’ rights may end up being jeopardized. Thus, individuals’ right remain unfulfilled at national level, due to discretion of states.

· Tension between respect for fundamental rights of individuals at national level and political discretion of states in international affairs.

8.4.4 Implementation of binding decisions of international organizations

· Some inter-governmental organizations are empowered to adopt binding decisions (some producing outside effects, some consisting of administrative acts) that require implementation at national level.

o e.g. UN Security Council resolutions on economic and diplomatic sanctions – only work if the member states comply with the resolutions and apply them in domestic law

· Normally, national legal systems do not contain any special provisions on the automatic or ad hoc incorporation of decisions of international organizations.

o Exceptions – Netherlands, Greece, Spain, France а provide that internationally binding resolutions and decisions of inter-governmental organizations become binding with the internal legal system simply upon their publication in the Official Journal

· For most countries, however, specific legislative enactments are necessary to turn the decisions of international organizations into binding national law.

o e.g. Laws passed at national level re ICTY and ICTR

· Special case – organs of the European Communities – Treaties establishing EC provide that regulations are directly applicable in national legal order of member states. Directives are directly applicable in some specific cases, but not all. This works because the EC needs immediate harmony across legal systems for the EC to work, and because European Court of Justice has a judicial review role.

8.5 Statist versus international outlook: emerging trends

· Choice of mechanism for applying int’l rules is the acid test for finding out how states feel about international values.

· States sensitive to international demands – opt for automatic standing incorporation mechanisms of customary law, treaty rules, and decisions of int’l organizations

· Very few countries adopt such an overall internationalist outlook.

o Greece, Netherlands and Spain stand out as countries which do.

· Most states still take a nationalist approach to the implementation of int’l law. They do not make international values prevail over domestic interest and concerns. Put int’l law on same footing as domestic law.

o UK – most extreme respect of parliament supremacy over int’l law.

o France and Russian Federation – more moderate, partially internationalist approach – customary law prevails over domestic law, but not treaty law.

· Most states do not accord primacy to int’l rules in their national legal systems. This shows that they do not want to tie their hands formally with international rules, but does not necessarily mean that they don’t usually follow int’l rules.

· Courts may play a crucial role in ensuring compliance at national level with international legal standards. They can use two interpretive tools – presumption of in favour of international treaties and presumption that treaty-implementing national law is “special”. This can advance int’l law over domestic law.

· Furthermore, there are more international rules that address themselves directly to individuals, either by imposing obligations or granting rights. These international rules reach individuals directly, not via domestic law. Passing of domestic law re this body of individual international law bolsters this body of law, but does not create these rights and obligations – Individuals acquire them automatically, bypassing state.