Can someone please explain to me what the difference is between ratifying and legislating an international document? For ages I thought ratification was agreeing to be legally bound to a document, so any human rights abuses pertaining to that treaty would be outlawed and punishable.
But in my notes it says that in Australia it's not enough to ratify a treaty - they are only binding if they are enacted into domestic law ?? I'm confused
If that's the case then why do some countries ratify documents but not legislate them? Seems a little pointless to me
Hey hey! So that statement is correct, and it's because Australia has a
dualist legal system. What that means is that the laws we ratify aren't automatically enforceable domestically. Our international and domestic laws are not one; they are separate entities, and only domestic laws are enforceable. There are some countries where ratification makes the laws immediately enforceable (like France I believe), but that is not us. We need to actually legislate on the issue through an act of parliament to make it binding.
As to why governments ratify but don't legislate? It's lip service to the international community. "Yeah, we'll ratify this, it's all sweet, we're playing by the rules." And then they won't legislate or will not legislate to the same effect. Note that this is massively bad conduct and so doesn't happen a massive amount, but you are right! It is a little pointless
Home
Help
Search
Login
