Replication Data for: The Strength of Weak Review: National Courts, Interpretive Canons, and Human Rights Treaties

Enforcement of international law is often delegated to national courts, creating a space for them to play a part in international judicialization. Under what conditions can they do so? We argue that the answer depends on the relationship between the political and legal constraints national courts face. National courts must be careful to safeguard their independence in the face of potential backlash, but they face constraints in terms of the legal mechanisms available to them when enforcing international law. We focus on the availability of two legal mechanisms: direct effect, under which courts apply treaties directly, setting aside inconsistent domestic laws; and canons of interpretation, under which courts strive to interpret domestic laws in conformity with treaties. We find that the effects of human rights treaty ratification is greater when courts have the canon available to them than it is when courts have direct effect available to them.

国际法的实施常被委托给国内法院，为国内法院在国际司法化（international judicialization）进程中发挥作用创造了空间。那么，国内法院需在何种条件下方能履行此项职能？本文主张，答案取决于国内法院所面临的政治与法律约束之间的相互关系。国内法院在应对潜在的反对反弹时，必须审慎维护自身的司法独立；但在实施国际法的过程中，其可利用的法律机制亦存在局限。本文聚焦两类可资利用的法律机制：其一为直接效力（direct effect）原则，即法院直接适用条约，搁置与其抵触的国内法；其二为解释准则（canons of interpretation），即法院尽力以符合条约的方式解释国内法。研究发现，当法院可运用解释准则时，人权条约批准所产生的实施效果，要优于法院可适用直接效力原则的情形。