{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012609117361784675, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.179640718562874, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Protecting International Civil Rights in a National Context: Danish Law and its Discontents

The effective impact of international law on national civil rights protection is dependent on being implemented in a modality that allows for the actual use of international rules in domestic courts. With particular reference to the Danish case, this article investigates the effects of lack of ratification for the placement of civil rights in the ranking of sources of law, the issues arising from a dualist approach to international law, and the impact of judicial restraint in resolving conflicts of rights in practice. The study’s focal point is the legal rules and modalities for reception of international standards which can be, in any national legal context, more or less suitable for an appropriate protection of civil rights. The article’s enquiry aims to help revive a debate on these modalities for reception which in practice have a great impact on the effective realisation of civil rights, especially in judicial settings.