Between Normative Universality and Constitutional Sovereignty: A Comparative Examination of National and International Legal Frameworks for Fundamental Rights Protection
Ключевые слова:
Comparative Constitutional Law, Constitutional Pluralism, Fundamental Rights, International Human Rights Law, Judicial Dialogue, Legal Convergence, Monism And Dualism, Treaty InterpretationАннотация
The relationship between national constitutional orders and the international human rights regime has become increasingly complex, moving beyond the traditional dualist/monist dichotomy to a condition of normative interpenetration and structural tension. While both national and international legal frameworks now enshrine fundamental rights protections, they do so through fundamentally different architectures, sources of legitimacy, interpretive methodologies, and enforcement mechanisms. Existing scholarship has examined either domestic constitutionalism or international human rights law as distinct fields, but comparatively systematic analyses of the structural divergences and evolving convergences between the two levels remain underdeveloped. This study addresses that gap through a qualitative comparative legal methodology, employing a functional institutional comparison of three illustrative national constitutional systems—Germany, South Africa, and India—with the core international human rights framework under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and regional equivalents. The analysis reveals four axes of structural divergence: foundations of authority (constituent power versus treaty consent), institutional architecture (centralized constitutional adjudication versus dispersed treaty body and court systems), interpretive approaches (proportionality and structured doctrines versus evolutive and consensus-based interpretation), and modes of enforcement (direct constitutional supremacy versus layered international compliance). Simultaneously, the study identifies convergent dynamics through judicial cross-referencing, the emergence of jus cogens norms, and the incorporation of international standards into domestic constitutional interpretation. The article contributes a novel typology of national-international legal interactions—resistance, accommodation, hybridisation, and convergence—and argues that the contemporary human rights landscape is best understood as a pluralist legal order characterised by heterarchy rather than hierarchy. Practical implications for judicial dialogue, treaty design, and rights advocacy are drawn.Скачивания
Библиографические ссылки
Alston, P., & Crawford, J. (Eds.). (2000). The future of UN human rights treaty monitoring. Cambridge University Press.
Arai-Takahashi, Y. (2002). The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. Intersentia.
Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality: Constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge University Press.
Baxi, U. (2006). The future of human rights (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Benvenisti, E. (2008). Reclaiming democracy: The strategic uses of foreign and international law by national courts. American Journal of International Law, *102*(2), 241–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034656
Bickel, A. M. (1962). The least dangerous branch: The Supreme Court at the bar of politics. Bobbs-Merrill.
Binder, C. (2011). The prohibition of amnesties by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. German Law Journal, *12*(5), 1203–1230. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200017222
Choudhry, S. (Ed.). (2006). The migration of constitutional ideas. Cambridge University Press.
Colón-Ríos, J. I. (2012). Weak constitutionalism: Democratic legitimacy and the question of constituent power. Routledge.
Contesse, J. (2016). Contestation and deference in the Inter-American human rights system. Law and Contemporary Problems, *79*(2), 123–145.
de Wet, E. (2006). The international constitutional order. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, *55*(1), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclq/lei060
Donald, A., Gordon, J., & Leach, P. (2018). The UK and the European Court of Human Rights. Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report.
Gardbaum, S. (2013). The new Commonwealth model of constitutionalism: Theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Hafner-Burton, E. M. (2013). Making human rights a reality. Princeton University Press.
Helfer, L. R., & Slaughter, A.-M. (1997). Toward a theory of effective supranational adjudication. Yale Law Journal, *107*(2), 273–391. https://doi.org/10.2307/797261
Hillebrecht, C. (2014). Domestic politics and international human rights tribunals: The problem of compliance. Cambridge University Press.
Hirschl, R. (2014). Comparative matters: The renaissance of comparative constitutional law. Oxford University Press.
Jackson, V. C. (2010). Constitutional engagement in a transnational era. Oxford University Press.
Joseph, S., & Castan, M. (2013). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, materials, and commentary (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Kelsen, H. (1967). Pure theory of law (M. Knight, Trans.). University of California Press.
Khosla, M. (2012). The Indian Constitution. Oxford University Press.
Klug, H. (2010). The Constitution of South Africa: A contextual analysis. Hart Publishing.
Knop, K. (2000). Here and there: International law in domestic courts. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, *32*(2), 501–535.
Koh, H. H. (1997). Why do nations obey international law? Yale Law Journal, *106*(8), 2599–2659. https://doi.org/10.2307/797228
Krisch, N. (2010). Beyond constitutionalism: The pluralist structure of postnational law. Oxford University Press.
Letsas, G. (2007). A theory of interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press.
Liebenberg, S. (2010). Socio-economic rights: Adjudication under a transformative constitution. Juta.
Loughlin, M. (2010). Foundations of public law. Oxford University Press.
Maduro, M. P. (2012). Three claims of constitutional pluralism. In M. Avbelj & J. Komárek (Eds.), Constitutional pluralism in the European Union and beyond (pp. 67–84). Hart Publishing.
McCrudden, C. (2000). A common law of human rights? Transnational judicial conversations on human rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, *20*(4), 499–532. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/20.4.499
McGoldrick, D. (1994). The Human Rights Committee: Its role in the development of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (2nd ed.). Clarendon Press.
Merkel, R. (2011). Preventive detention in Germany: The European Court of Human Rights and the German Federal Constitutional Court. German Law Journal, *12*(3), 947–970. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2071832200017027
Mowbray, A. (2005). The creativity of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, *5*(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlrev/ngi003
Murray, R. (2004). Human rights in Africa: From the OAU to the African Union. Cambridge University Press.
Perju, V. (2012). Constitutional transplants, borrowing, and migrations. In M. Rosenfeld & A. Sajó (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law (pp. 1304–1327). Oxford University Press.
Posner, E. A. (2014). The twilight of human rights law. Oxford University Press.
Risse, T., Ropp, S. C., & Sikkink, K. (Eds.). (2013). The persistent power of human rights: From commitment to compliance. Cambridge University Press.
Sadurski, W. (2019). Poland’s constitutional breakdown. Oxford University Press.
Shelton, D. (Ed.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of international human rights law. Oxford University Press.
Simmons, B. A. (2009). Mobilizing for human rights: International law in domestic politics. Cambridge University Press.
Slaughter, A.-M. (2004). A new world order. Princeton University Press.
Steiner, H. J., Alston, P., & Goodman, R. (2008). International human rights in context: Law, politics, morals (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Stone Sweet, A., & Keller, H. (Eds.). (2008). A Europe of rights: The impact of the ECHR on national legal systems. Oxford University Press.
Stone Sweet, A., & Mathews, J. (2008). Proportionality balancing and global constitutionalism. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, *47*, 68–161.
Triepel, H. (1923). Les rapports entre le droit interne et le droit international. Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International, *1*, 77–121.
Tushnet, M. (1999). The possibilities of comparative constitutional law. Yale Law Journal, *108*(6), 1225–1309. https://doi.org/10.2307/797327
von Bogdandy, A., & Schill, S. (2011). Overcoming absolute primacy: Respect for national identity under the Lisbon Treaty. Common Market Law Review, *48*(5), 1417–1453. https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2011063
von Staden, A. (2018). Strategies of compliance with the European Court of Human Rights: Rational choice within normative constraints. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Walker, N. (2002). The idea of constitutional pluralism. Modern Law Review, *65*(3), 317–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00383
Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1998). An introduction to comparative law (3rd ed., T. Weir, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
