Otherwise, we can get a lot of rhetorical references that are not formally necessary for the reasons but are there just as a window dressing. We need the Canadian courts under the leadership of the Supreme Court actively and generously interpreting the Charter in accordance with the Slaight Communications presumption. But, even through the Charter , there will be limits to what the courts can do without the legislature itself fashioning a more detailed legislation to which the Court can respond. One way the legislatures can take their role more seriously is by explicitly incorporating the international human rights treaties into Canadian law as a reference point both for future legislation and for interpreting existing legislation. Hopefully, we will ultimately end up with a healthy dialogue between the legislatures and the courts in Canada and between the Canadian legal system and the international system.
States indeed do bargain hard for their own interests.
But when it comes to international human rights treaties, there comes a point at which the discourse constrains the states to present only ideal arguments from their culture or national tradition's perspectives. International human rights treaties are a product of convergence and overlapping of different ideals. Further, these broad and fundamental statements of values are meant to apply systemically across all other subject areas. And, if we think about the fundamental aspirations for protecting human dignity as being at the core of our legal system, then a different reception of international human rights treaties is justified. Until the legislatures get involved, the courts will always want to wait a little bit until there is a certain degree of enlightenment on the part of the legislatures.