Enforcement of International Human Rights Law by Domestic Courts: A Theoretical and Practical Study

Preamble, Arts. 1(3), 55 and 56 of the UN Charter. Human rights provisions of the Charter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) together form the International Bill of Human Rights. Monitoring and reporting bodies established under various international human rights instruments, such as the Human Rights Committee proved so far insufficient to provide for effective implementation. International tribunals lack jurisdiction to prosecute the perpetrators of violation of human rights. The International Criminal Court (ICC) established to apply universal jurisdiction for specific crimes has made a rather shaky start. For a detailed discussion see J.G. Starke, Introduction to International Law, 10th edn. (London, Butterworths 1989) pp. 58–91; I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 3rd edn. (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1997) pp. 33–59; R.B. Lillich, Invoking International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts (Washington, DC, American Bar Association 1985) 49 pp. In the Netherlands, for example, provisions of treaties are not only directly applicable, but are superior to those of the Constitution, with courts playing a major role in their application within national jurisdiction, while in the United Kingdom treaties can never be applied other than by way of implementing legislation. Starke, op. cit. n. 4, at pp. 3–4; the ICC’s jurisdiction is expected to make further progress in the recognition of individuals as subjects of international law. L. Henkin, ‘International Human Rights Standards in National Law: The Jurisprudence of the United States’, in B. Conforti and F. Francioni, eds., Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1997) pp. 189–190. D. Bodansky, ‘Human Rights and Universal Jurisdiction’, in M. Gibney, ed., World Justice? U.S. Courts and International Human Rights (Boulder, Westview Press 1991) pp. 11–13. For a brief description of the Pinochet case, see P. Sands, ‘Turtles and Tortures: The Transformation of International Law’, 33 International Law and Politics (2001) p. 527 at pp. 531–532. P.L. Hoffman and N. Strossen, ‘Enforcing International Human Rights Law in the United States’, in L. Henkin and J.L. Hargrove, eds., Human Rights: An Agenda for the Next Century (Washington, DC, American Society of International Law 1994) p. 484. R. Higgins, ‘The Role of Domestic Courts in the Enforcement of International Human Rights: The United Kingdom Experience’, in Conforti and Francioni, eds., op. cit. n. 7, at p. 38. J.H. Jackson, ‘Status of Treaties in Domestic Legal Systems: A Policy Analysis’, 86 AJIL (1992) p. 310 at pp. 313–315; also see generally Starke, op. cit. n. 4, at pp. 72–74; for a very interesting treatment of the issue, see M. Kumm, ‘Liberal Constitutional Democracy and the Judicial Enforcement of International Law‘, paper presented on Globalization and its Discontents at the New York University School of Law on 22 April 2002. Jackson, loc. cit. n. 12, at pp. 320–321. See generally G.M. Danilenko, ‘The New Russian Constitution and International Law’, 88 AJIL (1994) p. 451; A.N. Talalaev, ‘Relation of International Law and National Law and the Constitution of the Russian Federation‘, 4/4 Moscow JIL (1994) p. 3. Jackson, loc. cit. n. 12, at p. 315. A.F. Bayefsky, ‘International Human Rights Law in Canadian Courts’, in Conforti and Francioni, eds., op. cit. n. 7, at p. 296. See generally Kumm, supra n. 12. Shah Alam, Shomokalin Antorjatik Ain [Contemporary International Law] (Dhaka, New Warsi Book Corporation 2000) p. 83. See generally Shah Alam, ‘God of Globalization’, in Mizanoor Rahman, ed., Human Rights and Globalization (Dhaka, ELCOP 2003) pp. 1–14. Jackson, loc. cit. n. 12, at p. 323. Ibid., at p. 325. Ibid., at p. 322. H.J. Steiner and P. Alston, eds., International Human Rights in Context — Law, Politics, Morals (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1996) p. 729. See generally E.D. Re, ‘Judicial Enforcement of International Human Rights’, 27 Akron L Rev. (1994) pp. 281–300; Steiner and Alston, op. cit. n. 23, at p. 726. Henkin, F. Francioni, eds., Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1997) op. cit. n. 7, at p. 198; H. Tolley, Jr., ‘Interest Group Litigation to Enforce Human Rights: Confronting Judicial Restraint’, in Gibney, ed., op. cit. n. 8, at p. 133; A.O. Sherif, ‘Unshakable Tendency in the Protection of Human Rights: Adherence to International Instruments on Human Rights by the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt’, in E. Cotran and A.O. Sherif, eds., The Role of the Judiciary in the Protection of Human Rights (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 1997) pp. 35–46; Bayefsky, op. cit. n. 16, at p. 323. The Russian Constitutional Court, for example, can declare any executive action or domestic legislation contrary to treaty obligations; see Danilenko, loc. cit. n. 14. Henkin, F. Francioni, eds., Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1997) pp. 189–190 op. cit. n. 7. The term ‘judicial activism’ has been associated with the initiatives the higher judiciary in India has undertaken in recent years to liberally and progressively interpret various laws to provide justice to broader masses. This also relates to the readiness of judges to admit cases without strictly following the procedure for such admission, if it is required by demands of justice; see K.E. Hoque, Administration of Justice in Bangladesh (Dhaka, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh 2003) ch. VII, pp. 215–250. See generally R.G. Steinhardt, ‘Human Rights Litigation and “the One-Voice” Orthodoxy in Foreign Affairs’, in Gibney, ed., op. cit. n. 8, at pp. 23–57. Jackson, loc. cit. n. 12, at p. 326. Ibid., at p. 336. M. Gibney, ‘Courts as “Teachers in a Vital National Seminar” on Human Rights’, in Gibney, ed., op. cit. n. 8, at p. 84. Tolley, Jr., op. cit. n. 25, at pp. 137–138. T. Scovazzi, ‘The Application by Italian Courts of Human Rights Treaty Law’, in Conforti and Francioni, eds., op. cit. n. 7, at p. 59. Francioni, eds., Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1997) Ibid., at p. 60. Bayefsky, Francioni, eds., Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1997) op. cit. n. 16, at p. 325. B. Simma, et al., ‘The Role of German Courts in the Enforcement of International Human Rights Law’, in Conforti and Francioni, eds., op. cit. n. 7, at p. 107. Tolley, Jr., op. cit. n. 25, at p. 137. Ibid. Professor Mattias Kumm has made a comprehensive study of the problem in his paper, see Kumm, supra n. 12. For discussion on prior legislative approval before treaty ratification, see ‘Procedure and Practice of Entering and Implementing International Treaties’, in Background Paper No. 27 (1995), published by Australia’s Parliamentary Research Service. A. Rovine, Proceedings of the American Branch of the International Law Association (2001–2002) p. 27. Ibid., at p. 13. See ibid., at pp. 7–13; also see I.A. Shearer, ‘The Growing Impact of International Law on Australian Domestic Law: Implications for the Procedures of Ratification and Parliamentary Scrutiny’, 69 Australian LJ (1995) p. 404; P. Mathew, ‘International Law and Protection of Human Rights in Australia: Recent Trends’, 17 Sydney L Rev. (1995) p. 177. Senate — Legal and Constitutional References Committee, Commonwealth Power to Make and Implement Treaties — Report, chapter 10, available at <www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/tort10.html>, para. 10.9. Ibid., at paras. 10.24–10.27. Ibid., at paras. 10.39 and 10.40; see generally Bayefsky, op. cit. n. 16, at pp. 295–328. Report of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee, supra n. 45, at para. 10.61; see Simma, op. cit. n. 37, at pp. 71–109. Report of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee, supra n. 45, at paras 10.94–10.95 and 10.98. G.J. Assaf, ‘The Application of International Human Rights Instruments by the Judiciary in Lebanan’, in Cotran and Sherif, eds., op. cit. n. 25, at p. 85. Art. 7, para. 1 of the Constitution of Costa Rica. See generally, Brownlie, op. cit. n. 4, at pp. 44–51; Starke, op. cit. n. 4, at pp. 77–83; R. Higgins, ‘U.K.’, in F.G. Jacobs and S. Roberts, eds., The Effect of Treaties in Domestic law (London, Sweet and Maxwell 1987) p. 123; Higgins, op. cit. n. 11, at pp. 37–58. K. Starmer, ‘The Role of the Judiciary in the Protection of Human Rights: The British Experience’, in Cotran and Sherif, eds., op. cit. n. 25, at pp. 227–228. Ibid., at p. 228. F. Butler, ed., Human Rights for the New Millennium (The Hague, Kluwer Law International 2000) pp. 33–131. Cited in Higgins, ‘The Role of Domestic Courts in the Enforcement of International Human Rights: The United Kingdom Experience’, in Conforti and Francioni, eds., op. cit. n. 11, at p. 51. West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. v. R. [1905] 2 KB 392; Trendtex Trading Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] 1 All ER 881; Congreso del Partido [1981] 3 WLR 328. Starmer, op. cit. n. 53, at p. 228. J. Harrington, ‘Scrutiny and Approval: The Role for Westminster Style Parliament in Treaty-Making’, 55 ICLQ (2006) pp. 126–127. UK Joint Committee on Human Rights, ‘Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights’, HL Paper 8/HC 106, Session 2004–05 (1 December 2004) at p. 6. Harrington, loc. cit. n. 59, at p. 120. R. Hoque and M.M. Naser, ‘The Judicial Invocation of International Human Rights Law in Bangladesh: Questing a Better Approach’, 46 Indian JIL (2006) p. 171, fn. 99. R. v. Home Secretary, ex parte Launder [1997] 1 WLR 839 (HL). Hoque and Naser, loc. cit. n. 62, at p. 173. Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Teoh (1995) 128 ALR 353. As cited in Hoque and Naser, loc. cit. n. 62, at p. 174. Rantzen v. Mirror Newspaper [1994] QB 670 (CA). Hoque and Naser, loc. cit. n. 62, a p. 177. See n. 28; for views of one of the great proponents of judicial activism Justice Krishna Lyer see, V.R. Krishna Lyer, Human Rights and Human Wrongs (New Delhi, B.R. Publ. Corp. 1990) 175 pp.; Naim Ahmed, Public Interest Litigation (Dhaka, BLAST 1999) pp. 146–155. See V.S. Mani, ‘Effectuation of International Law in the Municipal Legal Order — The Laws and Practice in India’, 5 Asian YIL (1995). See generally P.C. Rao, The Indian Constitution and International Law (Delhi, Taxmann 1993) pp. 117–187. Ibid., at p. 148; G. Narasimhan, ‘International Law in Municipal Courts — Analysing a Fifty Years Experience’, 10 National Law School Journal (1998) p. 121. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (v. 65). For an enlightened discussion on the issue, see V. Sripati, ‘Freedom from Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: The Role of the Supreme Court of India’, in M. Gibney and S. Frankowski, Judicial Protection of Human Rights. Myth or Reality? (Westport, CT, Praeger 1999) pp. 107–122. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675. Charles Sobraj v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1514. Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535, 1536 (v. 67). Franies Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746 (v. 68). Sripati, op. cit. n. 74, at pp. 110–116. Gaurav Jain v. India, AIR 1990 SC 292. Nilabati Behera v. Orissa [1993] 2 SCC 746. Hoque and Naser, loc. cit. n. 62, at p. 178. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610. Ibid. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, JT 1997 (7) SC 392. Gramophone Co. of India v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, AIR 1984 SC 667. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India [1996] 5 SCC 647. Rao, op. cit. n. 71, at pp. 181–183. Jackson, loc. cit. n. 12, at p. 320. ‘International Law in Domestic Legal Orders: A Comparative Perspective’, in American Society of International Law (ASIL), Proceedings of the 91th Annual Meeting (Washington, DC, ASIL 1997) p. 289 (hereinafter: ASIL Proceedings). Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. J. Polakiewicz, ‘The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights in Domestic Law’, 17 Human Rights LJ (1996) pp. 405–411; J. Polakiewicz and V. Jacob-Foltzer, ‘The European Human Rights Convention in Domestic Law: The Impact of Strasbourg Case-Law in States Where Direct Effect is Given to the Convention’, 12 Human LJ (1991) pp. 65–85; J. Robert, ‘Constitutional and International Protection of Human Rights: Competing or Complementary Systems?’, General Report to the IXth Conference of European Constitutional Courts, 15 Human Rights LJ (1994) pp. 1–23. Simma, Francioni, eds., Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1997) op. cit. n. 37, at p. 76. Cited in Simma, Francioni, eds., Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1997) op. cit. n. 37, at p. 78. Ibid. ASIL Proceedings, supra n. 90, at p. 291. Simma, Francioni, eds., Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1997) op. cit. n. 37, at p. 85. Cited in Simma, Francioni, eds., Enforcing International Human Rights in Domestic Courts (The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff 1997) op. cit n. 37, at p. 95. Ibid. See E. Stein, ‘International Law in Internal Law: Toward Internationalization of Central-Eastern European Constitutions’, 88 AJIL (1994) p. 427; also see n. 14 supra. Ibid. V.A. Kalanda, ‘The Transformation of Norms of International Law into the Legal System of the Russian Federation’, 4/3 Moscow JIL (1994) p. 12. Cited in ASIL Proceedings, supra n. 90, at p. 296. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., at p. 297. Ibid., at p. 298. Ibid. Ibid., at p. 300. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., at p. 301. See K.L. Port, ‘The Japanese International Law “Revolution”: International Human Rights Law and Its Impact in Japan’, 28 Stanford JIL (1991) p. 139; Soji Yamamoto, ‘Japanese Approaches and Attitudes Towards International Law’, 34 Japanese Annual of International Law (1991) p. 115; Yuji Iwasawa, ‘The Relationship Between International Law and National Law: Japanese Experiences’, 64 BYIL (1993) p. 333; Yuji Iwasawa, ‘International Human Rights Adjudication in Japan’, in Conforti and Francioni, eds., op. cit. n. 7, at pp. 223–293. Cited in ASIL Proceedings, supra n. 90, at p. 302. Ibid. Ibid., at p. 303. Ibid., at p. 304. Ibid., at p. 305; Iwasawa, ‘International Human Rights Adjudication in Japan’, op. cit. n. 115, at p. 234. Ibid., at p. 274. ASIL Proceedings, supra n. 90, at p. 305. Ibid., at p. 306. Ibid.; Iwasawa, ‘International Human Rights Adjudication in Japan’, op. cit. n. 115, at p. 267. Ibid., at p. 282. 1597 Hanrei Jih-o 115 (Tokushima Dist. Ct., 15 March 1996).