•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This study addresses the constitutional ambiguity surrounding the hierarchical status and domestic application of international human rights treaties, particularly in legal systems where treaty incorporation lacks explicit constitutional regulation. Though earlier researches have discussed issues such as treaty incorporation and constitutionality, there has been little analysis of the comparative role played by courts in bridging the international and domestic legal systems. The study adopts a qualitative doctrinal and comparative legal methodology, analyzing constitutional provisions, legislative frameworks, and judicial decisions across Jordan, France, and selected Arab jurisdictions, including Egypt and Morocco. The findings reveal that France adopts a hierarchical model granting supremacy to ratified treaties, whereas Jordan reflects a pluralist approach in which international norms function primarily as interpretive tools rather than directly binding rules. Egypt and Morocco exhibit hybrid models that combine formal recognition of international obligations with varying degrees of judicial and legislative mediation. The study concludes that the implementation of international human rights treaties cannot be adequately explained through traditional monist–dualist frameworks. It seeks greater clarity with regard to the constitutional or statutory treatment of treaties without compromising judicial flexibility in interpretation for the sake of legal certainty.

Pages

34-50

DOI

10.65844/2442-9899.1260

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS