Self-executing right

Article summary

Self-executing rights in international human rights law are formulated in such a way that one can deduce that it was the purpose to create international laws that citizens can invoke directly in their national courts. Self-executing rights, or directly applicable rights, are rights that from the viewpoint of international law do not require transformation into national law. The rights are binding as such and judges can apply the international law as if it were national law. From the viewpoint of national law, it may be required that all international law be incorporated into national law before becoming valid. This depends on the national legal tradition. To decide whether or not a rule is self-executing, one must only look at the rule in question, and national traditions do not count. A rule that says that states should guarantee freedom of expression to its citizens is self-executing. A rule that states should take all the necessary measures to create enough employment is not. Non-self-executing rules of international law impose the obligation on states only to take measures and to create or alter legislation. Citizens or national judges cannot invoke those rules (and demand employment, as in the previous example) in a national court. That means that international law that is not self-executing must be transformed into national law to take effect.…

Key claims

No claims recorded.

Discussion questions

1. Summarise the article in your own words. Which single claim would you verify first, and why?
2. Which claim in this article is most likely to be revised as the sources update? How would you check its current status?
3. If two sources disagreed about one of these facts, what would you need in order to trust one over the other?

Bibliography

No sources recorded.