Pacta Sunt Servanda and the Implementation Of International Human Rights Treaties In Domestic Law

This dissertation critically explores the extent to which the foundational international legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, meaning that treaties in force are binding upon the parties and must be executed in good faith, influences the domestic implementation of international human rights treaties. Through detailed case studies of Canada, Australia, and Nigeria, the study interrogates the practical relevance of the pacta sunt servanda principle and its normative authority within divergent constitutional, political, and legal contexts. Although pacta sunt servanda is codified in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and long regarded as a cornerstone of the international legal order, its effective application in domestic settings, particularly in the human rights domain, appears increasingly fragile. Despite widespread ratification of international human rights instruments, a persistent implementation gap exists between states’ international commitments and their domestic legal enactments. This gap raises significant concerns about the durability and credibility of the principle itself. The dissertation contends that, in practice, states frequently subordinate legal obligations under human rights treaties to domestic political considerations, constitutional constraints, and misused state sovereignty. Using Canada, Australia, and Nigeria as comparative case studies, the research reveals a pervasive culture of selective compliance, wherein treaty implementation is often driven less by legal duty or fidelity to international norms than by pragmatic calculations, reputational concerns, or judicial discretion. This disconnect not only undermines pacta sunt servanda, but also calls into question the broader efficacy of the international human rights regime. Uniquely, international human rights treaties impose obligations erga omnes partes, owed not merely between states, but directly to individuals. This sui generis character, acknowledged in the jurisprudence of the European and Inter-American human rights systems, demands a distinct approach to domestic enforcement. However, domestic legal systems respond unevenly. Both Canada and Australia, as dualist common law jurisdictions, require explicit legislative incorporation of treaties to render them enforceable domestically. Nigeria similarly adheres to a dualist model, reinforced by Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, which mandates parliamentary enactment of treaties before they attain domestic legal force. While monist tendencies occasionally emerge through judicial recognition of customary international law, Nigeria continues to grapple with serious implementation deficits, exacerbated by institutional fragility and political inertia. Employing a comparative doctrinal and analytical methodology, this dissertation scrutinizes constitutional texts, enabling legislation, judicial decisions, and treaty engagement practices. It further assesses each state’s interactions with United Nations treaty bodies and other international monitoring mechanisms, identifying patterns of compliance, resistance, and strategic ambiguity. By situating pacta sunt servanda within the cross-currents of domestic constitutional structures and political realities, the study offers a nuanced understanding of the normative and practical tensions between international legal obligations and their domestic uptake. In doing so, it provides valuable insights for international legal scholars, human rights practitioners, and policymakers seeking to bridge the persistent divide between commitment and compliance in the global human rights architecture.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.