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.

国际法的执行常被委托给国内法院，这为国内法院参与国际司法化进程提供了空间。那么，国内法院需在何种条件下方可承担这一角色？本文认为，该问题的答案取决于国内法院所面临的政治约束与法律约束之间的关系。国内法院在应对潜在反对反弹时，需审慎维护自身的司法独立性；但在执行国际法的过程中，它们又会受到可供支配的法律机制的制约。本文聚焦于两类法律机制的可适用性：一是直接效力原则（direct effect），即法院可直接适用条约，搁置与之冲突的国内法；二是解释准则（canons of interpretation），即法院尽力使国内法的解释符合条约规定。我们发现，当法院可适用解释准则时，人权条约批准（human rights treaty ratification）所产生的效应，要大于法院可适用直接效力原则时的效应。