•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This article examines the concepts of self executing treaties and non-self executing treaties. These two concepts are inadvertently related to the dualist and monist theory of international law. They also relate to the question of direct applicability and municipal validity of treaties. This article will show that non-self executing treaties are not always analogous with the concept of dualism under international law. Likewise, treaties might presumably be self executing even in dualist states. It is therefore imperative to acquire an understanding of these two concepts by discerning and analysing them. Such understanding will provide clarity to the question of dualist transformation theory in regards to the municipal validity of treaties. berita politik nasional terkini aims to explore these two concepts, in particular their main ideas, how they relate and attempt to affect the theoretical problem of monism versus dualism with regards to treaties. This article traces the origins of the concept of self-executing treaties by examining it under American law and the European Union legal order as well as relevant decisions by international courts. This Article will then move to examine various scholars suggestion to establish criteria for non-self executing treaties

References

Books and Journals Gerhard Bebr, ‘Directly Applicable Provisions of Community Law: Development of Community Concept’, 19 Int’l & C.L.Q. (1970) 2, 258-259. Albert Bleckmann, ‘Self-Executing Treaty Provisions’, in Rudolf Bernhardt, Encyclopedia of Public International Law, vol. 4 (2000), 374. Edwin Bochard, ‘The Relation between International Law and Municipal Law’, 27 VA. L. Rev. (1940) 2, 194-196 Thomas Buergenthal, ‘Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing Treaties in National and International Law’, RdC (1992-IV), 368. Benedetto Conforti, International Law and the Role of Domestic Legal System (1993), 27 Constitution of the United States Samuel B. Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement (1916), 153 ASIL, ABA/ASIL Joint Task Force on Treaties in US Law, Report (16 March 2009), 11-12 Pieter van Dijk and Bahiyyih G. Tahzib, ‘Parliamentary Participation in the TreatyMaking Process of the Netherlands’, 67 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. (1991), 420. Jana Gogolin, ‘Avena and Sanchez-Llamas Come to Germany – The German Constitutional Court Upholds Rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations’, 8 GLJ (2007) 3 Louis Henkin, ‘Implementation and Compliance: Is Dualism Metastasizing?’ 91 Am. Soc’y Int’l L. Proc. (1997), 517 Louis Henkin, ‘U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker’, 89 AJIL (1995) 2, 346-347 Leslie Henry, ‘When is A Treaty Self-Executing’, 27 Mich. L. Rev. (1929) 7, 777-778 Manley O. Hudson, ‘Charter Provisions on Human Rights in American Law’, 44 AJIL (1950) 3, 545 Carsten Hoppe, ‘Implementation of LaGrand and Avena in Germany and the United States: Exploring a Transatlantic Divide in Search of a Uniform Interpretation of Consular Rights’, 18 EJIL (2007) 2 Yuji Iwasawa, ‘The Doctrine of Self-Executing Treaties in the US, A Critical Analysis’, 26 Va. J. Int’l. L. (1985-1986), 627 Hans Kelsen, Principles of International Law (2003), 401-447 Swan Sik Ko, ‘International Law in the Municipal Legal Order of Asian States: Virgin Land’, in Ronald St. J. MacDonald (ed.), Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya (1994), 739 Virginia A. Leary, International Labour Conventions and National Law: The Effectiveness of The Automatic Incorporation of Treaties in National Legal Systems (1982), 57-63 André Nollkaemper, National Courts and the International Rule of Law (2011), 118 Daniel P. O’Connell, International Law, vol. 1 (1970), 56 H. F. van Panhuys, ‘Relations and Interactions between International and National Scenes of Law’, 112 RdC (1964-II), 79 Pierre Pescatore, ‘The Doctrine of ‘Direct Effect’: An Infant Disease of Community Law’, 8 Europ. L. Rev. (1983), 177 Lawrence Preuss, ‘The Execution of Treaty Obligations Through Internal LawSystem of The United States and of Some Other Countries’, 45 Am. Soc’y Int’l L. Proc. (1951), 102 Stefan A. Riesenfeld, ‘The Doctrine of Self-Executing Treaties and GATT: A Notable German Judgment’, 65 AJIL (1971) 3, 549 Stefan A. Riesenfeld, ‘The Power of Congress and the President in International Relations: Three Recent Supreme Court Decisions’, 25 Cal. L. Rev. (1936-1937) 643, 649-650 Oscar Schachter, ‘The Charter and The Constitution: The Human Rights Provisions in American Law’, 4 Vand. L. Rev. (1950-1951), 645-646 David Sloss, ‘When Do Treaties Create Individually Enforceable Rights? The Supreme Court Ducks the Issue in Hamdan and Sanchez-Llamas’, 45 Colum. J. Transnat’l. L. (2006) 1, 29-37 V.T. Thamilmaran, ‘International Law and National Law: Element of Automatic Incorporation’, 11 Sri Lanka J. of Int’l L (1999), 237-238 Carlos Manuel Vázquez, ‘The Four Doctrines of Self-Executing Treaties’, 89 AJIL (1995) 4, 695-723 Carlos Manuel Vázquez, ‘Treaties as Law of the Land: The Supremacy Clause and the Judicial Enforcement of Treaties’, 122 Harv. L. Rev. (2008), 652-654 Stephen Weatherill, Cases and Materials on EU Law (2007), 96 Luzius Wildhaber, Treaty-Making Power and Constitution: An International and Comparative Study (1971), 226-227 J.A. Winter, ‘Direct Applicability and Direct Effect: Two Distinct and Different Concepts in Community Law, 9 CML Rev. (1972) Tunkin and Wolfrum (eds), Walter Rudolf, ‘Incorporation of International Law into Municipal Law’, in Grigory Tunkin and Rüdiger Wolfrum, International Law and Municipal Law (1988), 40-46 Quincy Wright, The Control of American Foreign Relations (1922), 354-355. QuincyWrights,‘National Courts and HumanRights:The FujiCase’, 45 AJIL (1951), 64-65 Case Laws Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), ICJ Reports (2004), 12 (Judgment of 31 March 2004); Bosch GmbH N.V. v. de Geus en Uitdenbogerd, HR., 1965 N.J. No. 115 Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253 (1829) Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L., (1964) ECR 585, E. Comm. Ct. J. Rep. 585 (Preliminary Volume 11 Number 3 April 2014 343 Jurnal Hukum Internasional Ruling) Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig, Advisory Opinion, 1928 PCIJ Series B, No. 15 Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States), ICJ Reports (2009), 3 (Judgment of 19 January 2009) Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon and the German Bundesverfassungsgericht in the consolidated cases decided on 19 September 2006 (2 BvR 2115/01) Sei Fujii v. State, 217 P.2d 481 (1950) Van Gend en Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, (1963) ECR 1

Download

Share

COinS