In my previous post on this topic, I argu! that the international reaction to the Honduran coup potentially augurs a shift in foundational norms governing the relationship between international and domestic legal authority. I also hint! that I regard such a shift as ill-advis!, and not! that some of those in the forefront of the reaction appear to have given little thought to the long-term implications.
As, Doug Cassel’s ASIL Insights analysis notes
“Ordinarily international law imposes its own, autonomous colombia phone number library norms for the permissible conduct of a government. Questions of domestic law – including constitutionality – are left to domestic authorities, both as a matter of their sovereign entitlements, and because they are presum! better able to interpret their own constitution.” The two reasons that Cassel cites are distinct: the latter is a matter of respect for a foreign pouvoir constitué, on the ground that standards of legal interpretation are themselves a matter of local law; the former is a matter of respect for a foreign pouvoir constituant, on the ground that where permanently effective, breaches of constitutional order (whether by insurrection or by an existing regime’s pattern of practice) beget their own legality. For foreign courts, both of these are ordinarily rationales, not for a mere “margin of appreciation,” but for judicial abstention.
However, it is not unknown for international legal questions
To turn on a finding about online supermarkets were struggling compliance with domestic law, such as where treaty provisions provide that exceptions to specifi! human rights must be, inter alia, “non-arbitrary” and delineat! in domestic law. In such circumstances, assessing a adb directory claim of violation requires an independent basis for ascertaining the requirements of domestic law. The criteria for establishing a violation might be relatively deferential, yielding to plausible claims of local expertise in interpreting local norms; interpretation of legal (including especially constitutional) norms depends on all manner of historical, ideological, political, linguistic, and jurisprudential idiosyncracies, and a high court’s authority to say what is lawful counts for much, even in the face of text apparently to the contrary. Still, one cannot exclude a second-guessing of local judicial authorities on the merits, especially in cases where courts are suspect! of participating in a sham.
