DC Field | Value | Language |
dc.contributor.author | O. Enabulele, Amos | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-12-10T08:31:01Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-12-10T08:31:01Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2016-09 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/mlr.v10i1.1 | - |
dc.description.abstract | There appears to be very few doctrines in contemporary international law that are
in such a problematic state as the doctrine of self-executing treaties. It would
appear that its usefulness is more in the debate it engenders than in its actual
relevance to understanding the interface between international law and municipal
legal systems. This is so because the term is variously applied to different
circumstances and ascribed with varied meanings. One of the many meanings
ascribed to self-executing treaties is that they are treaties that apply in the
municipal realm on their own force, discoverable from the intent of the makers as
expressed in the language of the treaty. This article queries that understanding and
argues that, other than by municipal law, there is no mystical authority by which
treaties are imposed on municipal legal systems and indeed municipal courts. We
argue that any search for the authority of treaties in the municipal realm, ultimately
leads to municipal law as the first point of focus. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | St.Mary's University | en_US |
dc.subject | Self-executing, treaties, non-self-executing, constitution, municipal law, international law, monism, dualism. | en_US |
dc.title | Vol. 10 No.1:Myths and Realities in ‘Self-Executing Treaties’ | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
Appears in Collections: | Mizan Law Review
|