Rethinking the relationship between international and domestic law.

Despite considerable judicial consideration in recent years, the relationship between international law and domestic law in Canada remains uncertain. While Canadian courts frequently invoke the presumption of conformity to claim that domestic law must be read in light of international law, their interpretations of domestic law often fail to respect the full extent of Canada's international legal obligations. Moreover, Canadian courts rely on an overly restrictive understanding of what it means to implement a treaty in Canada's domestic law, and as a result they tend to give short shrift to the role international treaties can and should play in Canada's legal order.

The authors argue in favour of a number of measures that seek to portray international and domestic law as a unity, held together by an overarching commitment to the rule of law. They argue for a more generous understanding of treaty implementation according to which a ratified treaty would be considered "implemented" if, at the time of ratification, there exists sufficient legislative and regulatory authority capable of enabling Canadian officials to comply with Canada's treaty obligations. They also suggest a variety of means through which federal and provincial legislators could play a more constructive role in the treaty-making process. One option is the development of a Canada Treaties Act that would provide guidance with respect to the specific requirements of treaty negotiation, authorization, and implementation. A less ambitious alternative is the recognition of international law as equal in status to common law. Finally, the authors contend that even in the absence of such steps, Canadian judges and administrative decision makers ought to combine a generous understanding of implementation with a thoroughguing commitment to the presumption of conformity.

Malgre beaucoup d'attention de la part des juristes au cours des demieres annees, au Canada, la relation entre le droit international et le droit domestique demeure incertaine. Tandis que les tribunaux canadians invoquent frequemment la presomption de conformite pour avancer que le droit domestique se doit d'etre analyse a la lumiere du droit international, leurs interpretations du droit domestique ne parvierment pourtant pas a tenir compte dans leur entierete des obligations juridiques internationales du Canada. Qui plus est, les tribunaux canadiens s'appuient sur une comprehension trop restrictive de ce que constitue la mise en oeuvre d'tm traite en droit canadien, ce qui a pour effet de mettre de cote sans menagement le role que les traites internationaux peuvent et devraient jouer dans l'ordre juridique canadien.

Les auteurs argumentent en faveur d'une serie de mesures qui cherchent a presenter le droit international et le droit domestique comme un ensemble, maintenu par un engagement commun envers la suprematie du droit. Ils militent pour une comprehension plus genereuse de la raise en oeuvre des traites, en vertu de laquelle un traite ratifie serait considere > si, au moment de la ratification, il existe une autorite legislative et reglementaire suffisante, en mesure de permettre aux officiels canadiens d'observer les obligations du Canada issues de traites. Ils suggerent aussi plusieurs moyens a travers lesquels les 1egislateurs federal et provinciaux pourraient jouer un role plus constructif dans le processus d'e1aboration des traites. Une des options presentees est le developpement d'une Loi canadienne sur les traites, qui donnerait certaines directives quant aux exigences specifiques de la negociation, de I'autorisation et de la mise en oeuvre des traites. La reconnaissance du droit international comme ayant le meme statut que le droit commun represente quant a elle une alternative moins ambitieuse. Enfin, les auteurs soutiennent que meme en l'absence de telles mesures, les magistrats canadiens et les decideurs administratifs se doivent de combiner une comprehension genereuse de la mise en oeuvre des traites avec un engagement approfondi envers la presomption de conformite.

 
Introduction 
 
  I. Background: Canada and the Challenge of International 
     Law 
     A. The Impact of International Law on Domestic Law-Making 
     B. The Democratic Principle 
 II. The Current Relationship Between Domestic and 
     International Law in Canada 
     A. Customary International Law in Canada 
     B. Treaty Law and Treaty Making in Canada 
        1. How Does Canada Enter into Treaties? 
        2. Where Did the Canadian Approach Come From and 
           What Is Currently Driving It? 
           a. Sources of the Dualist Approach 
           b. Legislative Interpretation and the Principle of 
              Conformity 
           c. Treaty Approval 
III. The Way Forward 
     A. The U.K. Example 
     B. Parliamentary Authorization, Review, Participation, and 
        Oversight 
        1. The Processes and Structures of Other States 
        2. Canada in Historical Perspective 
        3. Canada's New Policy 
        4. On Democratic Legitimacy 
        5. On a Canada Treaties Act 
     C. Rethinking Implementation 
        1. Canadian Implementation Practice 
        2. Implementation Options and Canadian Constitutional 
           Principles 
        3. Enhanced Legal Status for Treaties under a Canada 
           Treaties Act 
        4. An Alternative Approach: The Common Law Status 
           of Treaties 
     D. The Role of Judges and Administrative Decision Makers 
     E. The Role of Provinces 
Conclusion 

Introduction

In light of the increased significance of public international law since 1945, the proliferation of international treaties, and the basic obligation of all states to perform their international legal obligations in good faith, states have good reason to seek a measure of congruence between their domestic legal orders and international law. This article argues that Canada has not yet struck the appropriate balance between domestic and international law. Canadian law views the two legal orders as fundamentally distinct and separate from one another. The result is that Canadian domestic law and its institutions have failed to articulate a persuasive account of the relationship between domestic and international law.