Advertisement

Theorising the Direct Effect Doctrine of International Law in Human Rights Enforcement

  • Torque MudeEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in African Economic, Social and Political Development book series (AAESPD)

Abstract

This chapter theorises the direct effect of international law in human rights enforcement in the Campbell and Von Abo cases. Since international law has assumed a significant role in relation to securing the rights of individuals in domestic and international courts, it suffices to explore a theoretical framework that provides analytical insight into the competence of international law in this endeavour. For the purpose of this chapter, the triangulation of the realist and transnational legal process theories are explored to provide theoretical grounding upon which the competence of international law in human rights enforcement in the cases in question will be understood. The theories in question were propounded by scholars from across the sister disciplines international politics and international law. Even though they largely diverge in assumptions, both explain why states comply or do not comply with international law at both international and domestic levels. The realist theory focuses on political processes and factors in analysing compliance with international law while transnational legal process focuses on legal processes and factors in examining compliance. Hence, realism deals with how politics influence why states obey international law while transnational legal process is concerned with how international law influences why states obey.

Keywords

International law Direct effect Human rights enforcement Campbell case Von Abo case 

References

  1. Abbott, K.W. 1989. Modern International Relations Theory: A Prospectus for International Lawyers. Yale Journal of International Law 14: 335–411.Google Scholar
  2. Alter, K.J. 2002. The European Union’s Legal System and Domestic Policy: Spill over or Backlash? International Organisations 54 (3): 489–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anghie, A. 2005. Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aust, A. 2005. Handbook of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin, J. 1832. The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. In Austin: The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, ed. W.E. Rumble, 1995. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bartelson, J. 2006. The Concept of Sovereignty Revisited. The European Journal of International Law 17 (2): 463–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, R.J., et al. 1996. International Rules: Approaches from International Law and International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berski, A. 2016. Which Doctrine has had the Bigger Impact on EU Law Direct Effect or Supremacy?, 1–12 Dublin Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  9. Bilder, R. 2003. Beyond Compliance: Helping Nations Cooperate. In Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System, ed. D. Shelton, 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Black, H. C. 1990. Black’s Law Dictionary. 6th ed. In Black’s Law Dictionary, ed. H. Black, 1990. Minnesota: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  11. Burley, A.M.S. 1993. International Law and International Relations Theory: A Dual Agenda. American Journal of International Law 87 (2): 205–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carr, E.H. 1946. The Twenty Year’s Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Chapter of International Relations, 2nd ed. London: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cass, D. 1996. Navigating the Newstream: Recent Scholarship in International Law. Nordic Journal of International Law 65: 341–383.Google Scholar
  14. Chalmers, D., and L. Barroso. 2014. What Van Gend en Loos stands for. International Journal of Constitutional Law 12 (1): 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chimni, B.S. 2006. Third World Approaches to International Law: A Manifesto. International Community Law Review 8: 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chinkin, C., and H. Charlesworth. 2000. The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Craig, P.P. 1992. Once Upon a Time in the West: Direct Effect and the Federalisation of EEC Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 12 (4): 453–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. D’Amato, A. 2010. Legal Realism Explains Nothing. Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons, Faculty Working Papers, Paper 84, 1–20.Google Scholar
  19. Dixon, M. 2013. Textbook on International Law, 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eurofound. 2016. Direct Effect. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/direct-effect. Accessed 24 July 2015.
  21. European Court of Justice: Judgment in Van Gend en Loos versus Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration: Case 26-62 [1963] ECR.Google Scholar
  22. Forsyth, D.R. 2006. Group Dynamics. Business Law: Texts and Cases (Online). https://www.cengagebraino.com.mx/forsyth68220_0534368220_02_01. Accessed 28 July 2015.
  23. Gathii, J.T. 2011. Third World Approaches to International Law: A Brief History of its Origins, its Decentralised Network and a Tentative Bibliography. Trade, Law and Development 3 (1): 1–41 [Online]. Available at: http://www.tradelawdevelopment.com/index.php/tld/article/viewFile/3%281%29%20TRADE%20l.%26%20dev.%2026%20%20%282011%29/73. Accessed 29 August 2014.
  24. Guzman, A.T. 2002. A Compliance-Based Theory of International Law. California Law Review 90 (6): 1823–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haas, P.M. 2003. Choosing to Comply. In Commitment and Compliance: The Role of Non-Binding Norms in the International Legal System, ed. D. Shelton, 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Held, D. 2003. The Changing Structure of International Law: Sovereignty Transformed? In The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Global Debate, ed. D. Held and A. McGrew, 162–176. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Henkin, L. 1995. International law: Politics and Values. Dordrecht: Martin Nijholf.Google Scholar
  28. Henkin, L. 1968. How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Higgins, R. 1994. Problems and Processes: International Law and How We Use It. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hillebrecht, C. 2014. The Domestic Mechanisms of Compliance with International Human Rights Law: Case Studies from the Inter-American Human Rights System. Human Rights Quarterly 34 (1): 959–985.Google Scholar
  31. Janis, M.W. 1984. Jeremy Bentham and the Fashioning of International Law. American Journal of International Law 78 (2): 405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jennings, R., and Watts, A. 1992. Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th ed. Harlow: Longmans.Google Scholar
  33. Keohane, R.O. 1992. Compliance with International Commitments: Politics Within a Framework of Law. Proceedings of the American Society of International Law 86: 176–180.Google Scholar
  34. Koh, H.H. 1996. Transnational Legal Process. Nebraska Law Review, Faculty Scholarship Series 2096, 75: 181–207.Google Scholar
  35. Koh, H.H. 1997. Why Do Nations Obey International Law? Yale Law Journal, Faculty Scholarship Series Paper 2101, 2599–2659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koh, H.H. 1999. How Is International Human Rights Law Enforced? Indiana Law Journal 74 (4): 1396–1417.Google Scholar
  37. Koh, H.H. 2002. The Spirit of the Laws. Harvard International Law Journal 43 (1): 23–39.Google Scholar
  38. Koh, H.H. 2006. Why Transnational Law Matters? 2006 AALS Annual Meeting. January 4, 2006.Google Scholar
  39. Lake, D. 2003. The New Sovereignty in International Relations. International Studies Review 3 (1): 303–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Legro, J.W., and A. Moravcsik. 1999. Is Anybody Still a Realist? International Security 24 (2): 5–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mayntz, R. 2002. International Organisations in the Globalisation Process. In Globalisation of Law II: International Organisations and Regulatory Areas, ed. P. Nahamowitz and R. Voigt. Nomos: Baden-Baden.Google Scholar
  42. McDougal, M. 1994. International Law, Power and Policy: A Contemporary Conception. Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
  43. Merriam-Webster.com. Compliance (Online). http://www.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/compliance. Accessed 11 Nov 2015.
  44. Morgenthau, H.J. 1985. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  45. Nijman, J.E. 2010. Non-state Actors and the Rule of Law: Revisiting the Realist Theory of International Legal Personality. Amsterdam: Centre for International Law.Google Scholar
  46. Nollkaemper, A. 2014. The Duality of Direct Effect of International Law. European Journal of International Law 25 (1): 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Olivier, S.R. 2014. The Evolution of Direct Effect in the European Union: Stocktaking, Problems and Projections. International Journal of Constitutional Law 12: 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Posner, E.A., and J.C. Yoo. 2005. Reply to Hefler and Slaughter. California Law Review 93 (3).Google Scholar
  49. Raustiala, K., and A.M. Slaughter. 2002. International Law, International Relations and Compliance. In Handbook of International Relations, ed. W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, and B.A. Simmons, 538–558. London: Sage Publication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roberts, A. 1999. NATO’s ‘Humanitarian War’ over Kosovo. Survival 41 (3): 102–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shany, Y. 2012. Should the Implementation of International Rules by Domestic Courts be Bolstered? In Realising Utopia: The Future of International Law, ed. A. Cassese, 200–210. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith, M.J. 1986. Realist thought from Weber to Kissinger. Baton Ronge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Tladi, D. 2009. The Right to Diplomatic Protection, the Von Abo Decision and One Big Can of Worms: Eroding the Clarity of Kaunda. Stellenbosch Law Review 20 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar
  54. Tyler, T.R. 1997. Compliance and Obedience. In International Encyclopaedia on the Social and Behavioural Sciences, ed. N.J. Smelser, and P.B. Baltes, 2001, 2240–2445. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  55. Waldron, J. 2009. Are Sovereigns Entitled to the Benefits of the International Rule of Law. Indiana International Law Journal 3 (1): 315–343.Google Scholar
  56. Wallace, W., and C. Phillips. 2009. Reassessing the Special Relationship. International Affairs 85 (2): 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wallace, R.M.M., and Ortega, O.M. 2009. International Law, 6th ed. Pretoria: Juta.Google Scholar
  58. Weiler, J.H.H. 2014. Van Gend en Loos: The Individual as Subject and Object of International Law and the Dilemma of European legitimacy. 12 (1): 94–103.Google Scholar
  59. Waltz, K. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  60. Weiss, G. 2007. R2P after 9/11 and the World Summit. Wisconsin International Law Journal 24 (3): 741–760 (Online). http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/wordpress/wilj/files/2012/02/weiss.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2013.
  61. Young, O.R. 1992. International Law and International Relations Theory: Building Bridges—Remarks. Proceedings of the American Society of International Law 86: 172–175.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and Public ManagementMidlands State UniversityZvishavaneZimbabwe

Personalised recommendations