THE USE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY IN THE EU

Abstract

Since the inception of the international human rights ("IHR") framework, the principle of subsidiarity has served as a cornerstone of its organizational structure. At its core, subsidiarity asserts that IHR norms are most effectively implemented at the lowest feasible level of national authority. Hence, prior to a supranational or multinational body intervening in a human rights case on a global scale, it is incumbent upon them to ensure that the primary responsibility for addressing the pertinent violation lies with the state concerned. Moreover, subsidiarity dictates that the domestic government should be afforded the optimal opportunity to devise corrective measures even after supranational authorities have investigated or adjudicated on a human rights issue. The significance of the principle of subsidiarity within IHR law can be analyzed from various perspectives. Firstly, regarding its applicability, it's recognized that adherence to decisions made by international bodies with binding authority on human rights cannot be compelled solely through subsidiarity. Thus, within the international framework, the execution of judgments from non-enforcement institutions relies on the coherence of national authorities and their utilization of policing functions to enforce IHR legislation. Moreover, a crucial rationale behind subsidiarity is that domestic authorities are better positioned to serve the objectives of IHR content and implementation accurately and effectively in the event of violations. They possess more expertise than international officials in addressing issues within their own borders. Despite IHR legislation being considered universal, subsidiarity acknowledges that each country maintains sovereignty over incidents within its territory. This recognition underscores respect for national sovereignty. The main aim of this research is to present a critical point of view over the use of the principle of subsidiarity in the EU.