If interpretation of a legal norm under national law in conformity with international law indicates that the national law is in conflict with a directly applicable provision of international law, this gives rise to the issue of which has primacy and trumps the other rule. Legislators strive to avoid conflicts with international law. The relationship to international law is addressed by the Federal Council in its draft legislation and by Parliament in its parliamentary deliberations, although it is naturally not possible to foresee all cases of application and subsequent developments. In the case of popular initiatives aimed at amending the Federal Constitution, it occasionally remains unclear during the voting campaign whether the constitutional amendment violates international law if the issue is not addressed in the amendment itself – which it usually is not. The creators of the 1999 constitution were not aiming to conclusively settle the thorny question. Thus in the rare cases in which a conflict between national and international law become apparent, the Federal Supreme Court has to decide the issue of primacy in a case of application. The Federal Supreme Court rulings have always been favourable to international law without further justification of such finding other than the view that all state organs are obliged to voluntarily fulfil obligations entered into by the state (pacta sunt servanda; see for example BGE 21/1895, 705, 710). Exceptions in which the Federal Supreme Court upholds the primacy of national law are very rare. In BGE 59 II 331, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that international agreements only have the rank of law domestically, and conflicts must be resolved according to the principle of lex posterior derogat priori. The national law was more recent in the case reviewed, so it was seen as having precedence even though the international treaty was amended slightly later on.

Continue reading →