The effective impact of international law on national civil rights protection is dependent on being implemented in a modality that allows for the actual use of international rules in domestic courts. With particular reference to the Danish case, this article investigates the effects of lack of ratification for the placement of civil rights in the ranking of sources of law, the issues arising from a dualist approach to international law, and the impact of judicial restraint in resolving conflicts of rights in practice. The study’s focal point is the legal rules and modalities for reception of international standards which can be, in any national legal context, more or less suitable for an appropriate protection of civil rights. The article’s enquiry aims to help revive a debate on these modalities for reception which in practice have a great impact on the effective realisation of civil rights, especially in judicial settings.
A. Follesdal and M. Wind‘Nordic Reluctance towards Judicial Review under Siege’. Nordic Journal of Human Rights.Vol. 27:2 (2009) (special issue); R. Hirschl ‘The Nordic counternarrative: Democracy human development and judicial review’ 9:2 International Journal of Constitutional Law (2011) pp. 449–469 at pp. 450–451.
Ryttersupra note 19 p. 23. The same can with a lot of right also be assumed as far as the standards set in the framework of the eu Charter of Fundamental Rights are concerned.
Spiermannsupra note 25 pp. 152 et seq. Rewriting can necessitate that a national rule is repealed and replaced with a new one. An example of re-writing presented by Spiermann is the formulation of Article 60 section 2 of the Danish Criminal Code on the inability of judges in criminal cases rewritten after the ECtHR judgement in the Hauschildt v. Denmark case ECtHR Series A no. 154 (1989).
Spiermannsupra note 25 p. 154.
Spiermannsupra note 25.
Spiermannsupra note 25 p. 160.
Spiermannsupra note 25 p. 161.
Lorenzensupra note 26.
Act no. 285 of 29 April1992. The act was based on report 1220/1991 on the European Convention on Human Rights and Danish law.
Krunkesupra note 24.
Ryttersupra note 51 p. 36.
Ketschersupra note 16 p. 141–154 p. 145.
Krunkesupra note 24 pp. 82–84.
Zahlesupra note 9 p. 40.
Windsupra note 61 at p. 277.
Fengeribid. p. 106et seq.
Fengersupra note 78 pp. 133–134.
Ryttersupra note 10 pp. 357–358.
Zahlesupra note 9 pp. 52 et seq.
Rytter and Lautasupra note 58.
J. Christoffersen‘Kommentar til Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention’Karnovs lovsamlingvol.1 (Thomson Reuters updated 2010).