Application of international human rights law by States

Issues concerning the application of international human rights law at the national level have frequently involved the status of international human rights treaties in domestic law. International treaties take precedence over domestic law, although some States do not fully recognize this. While States broadly recognize that international treaties take precedence over domestic law, some States have taken the position that this does not include the State’s constitution.⁴⁶

45 The Universal Human Rights Index provides a summary of the recommendations of the different human rights mechanisms (available from http://uhri.ohchr.org). The examples in the text are non-exhaustive and were chosen to illustrate some of the issues that could arise in drafting a constitution.

46 CCPR/C/KAZ/CO/1 (2011). The decision of the Constitutional Council of the State party established the supremacy of the constitution over international treaty law and declared unenforceable any treaty provision that is in conflict with the constitution. See also CERD/C/NIC/CO/14 (2008). The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination had the status of ordinary law and was not included among the international treaties listed in the pertinent article of the State party’s constitution as having constitutional status.

Nevertheless, international treaties do take precedence over the provisions of a national constitution,⁴⁷ although where a State party makes a reservation to an international human rights treaty with respect to a specific article or provision prior to a treaty’s ratification or accession, this is in compliance with international law when the reservation is not incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty in question.⁴⁸

Another question concerning the application of international human rights law by States relates to the issue of whether a State follows the monist tradition or the dualist tradition of international law. The monist tradition provides for the direct application of international law in the courts provided that the right in question is capable of being self-executing, which means that the provision in question can be applied directly without any implementing law at the national level.⁴⁹ The monist tradition is frequently used in civil law States. The dualist tradition, alternatively, requires that all of the rights contained in an international treaty be adopted into domestic law before the provisions of the treaty can become binding and invoked in the courts.⁵⁰ The dualist tradition is followed in most common law States.⁵¹

The dualist tradition can create an unusual situation where a State has ratified or acceded to a human rights treaty, but part or all of its provisions are not binding in domestic law and cannot be invoked in the State’s courts.

47 A/56/44. The constitution of the State party provided for the supremacy of international human rights instruments over domestic law, including the State’s constitution. See also CERD/C/60/CO/3 (2002).

48 Article 2(1)(d) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; General comment No. 24 (1994) on issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the optional protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under article 41 of the Covenant (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.6), paragraph 6.

49 CAT/C/KGZ/CO/2 (2013). The State party provided in its constitution that international treaties are directly applicable in domestic law.

50 CEDAW/C/PNG/CO/3 (2010). Concern was expressed when an international human rights convention had been ratified by the State party in 1995 but subsequently had not been accorded the status of domestic law because the State party, which followed the dualist tradition, had not adopted implementing legislation or amended its constitution.

51 Benedetto Conforti and Francesco Francioni, eds., Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1997), p. 9.

This is because there has been either no or only partial adoption of domestic law to implement the treaty in domestic law.⁵²

However, the differences between the monist and dualist traditions are not as great as they may appear initially. In States where the monist tradition is followed, often a substantial number of provisions of a human rights treaty are not self-executing. Therefore, a State needs to adopt a domestic law to implement the provisions of the treaty for the human rights provision to be applied in the courts. Even when a provision is self-executing, States may be urged also to adopt legislation as a means of advancing the implementation of a particular human right.⁵³ While the Human Rights Committee has expressed its preference that States use the principle of direct applicability, it has acknowledged that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights imposes no obligation to do so.⁵⁴

Another fundamental question that has arisen concerns the right to a remedy for violations of the human rights articulated in international treaties. Human rights treaty bodies have concluded that States parties must provide for remedies for such violations in order for human rights to be truly applicable domestically, and when the right to a remedy has been established in a State party’s constitution this has been welcomed.⁵⁵

52 CRC/C/ERI/CO/4 (2015). Considering the State party’s dualist system, concern was expressed that, without effective implementation of the constitution and the adoption of legislative reforms, the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child would not be legally binding in domestic legislation.

53 CAT/C/LIE/CO/3 (2010). Noting that constitutional amendments prohibited torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and that this prohibition was absolute and may not be undermined by law or by emergency decree, and that according to the monist legal system of the State party the provisions had become part of domestic law, it was still recommended to the State party to incorporate into domestic law the distinct crime of torture based on the definition contained in the Convention against Torture to advance the Convention’s overarching aim of preventing torture or ill treatment.

54 General comment No. 31 (2004), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13.

55 CERD/C/63/CO/10 (2003). The State party had a constitutional provision that any individual alleging his or her constitutional rights had been violated could apply for redress in the High Court. See also CAT/C/TUR/CO/3 (2011). The State party amended its constitution to provide for the right to appeal to the constitutional court with regard to alleged violations of fundamental rights and freedoms.

2. Protection of substantive human rights