National courts play a crucial role in international judicialization. This article explores the conditions under which they enforce human rights treaties by analyzing two legal mechanisms: direct effect and interpretive canons.

Direct effect allows courts to apply treaties directly, disregarding conflicting domestic laws. Interpretive canons require courts to align their interpretation of domestic law with treaty provisions.

We find that treaty enforcement effectiveness varies significantly based on the availability of these tools. Specifically, we demonstrate that interpretive canons have a stronger impact than direct effect does in shaping how national courts handle human rights obligations.

Our analysis reveals several critical insights:

* Mechanism Differences: Direct effect and interpretation differ fundamentally in their legal weight and practical application within domestic systems.

* Country-Specific Effects: The effectiveness of each mechanism varies across different political contexts, exemplified by case studies from France and Germany.

* Political Backlash Considerations: Courts must balance treaty enforcement with potential political pushback against their decisions.

This research provides essential guidance for scholars seeking to understand the complexities of how international human rights norms translate into national legal practice.