In order to look at the dualist and monist approaches, it is important to distinguish between justiciability (which refers to those matters which are appropriately resolved by the courts) and norms which are self-executing (capable of being applied by the courts without further elaboration). While the general approach of each legal system needs to be taken into account, the right to education possesses at least some significant justiciable dimensions.128 Dualist paradigm: right to education Dualism is the theory that international law forms a separate body of law to domestic law. In countries that follow the dualist paradigm, treaties that have not been incorporated into the municipal law do not form part of the legal framework of the country.129 This means that an international treaty provision conferring the right to education cannot, of itself, found the basis for an action in the domestic courts. However, even in dualist jurisdictions where international instruments have not been explicitly incorporated, domestic legislation should be interpreted as far as is possible in accordance with the right to education as expressed in the international instruments.130 International treaties involving the right to education can be persuasive in this context and used more generally by judges as an aid to interpretation.131 Monist paradigm: right to education Monism is the theory that international law and national law form part of the same stream of law. International rights, once ratified, may be enforced by the national courts even when the international instrument has not been incorporated into the domestic legal framework. This is 128 UNESCO CESCR General Comment no. 9 The domestic application of the Covenant, 19th session, 3 December 1998 E/C.12/1998/24 http://www.hri.ca/forthereCord1998/documentation/tbodies/e-c121998-24.htm (last accessed 27 March 2007) at para 10. 129 Bradley v The Commonwealth (1973) 128 CLR 557 at 582 (HCA), Attorney-General for Canada v Attorney-General for Ontario [1937] AC 326 at 347 and 348 (PC), New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Inc v Attorney-General [1997] 3 NZLR 269 (CA), CND v Prime Minister of the UK and Others [2002] EWHC 2777 (Admin) at paras 36 and 47. Galligan and Sandler, “Implementing Human Rights” in Halliday and Schmidt (eds) Human Rights Law in Perspective: Human Rights Brought Home Socio-Legal Perspectives on Human Rights in the National Context, Hart Publishing Oxford and Portland Oregon, 2004 at 24 to 25. UNESCO(CR)/ECOSOC(CESCR) Joint Expert Group on the Monitoring of the Right to Education Justitiability of the Right to Education 175 EX/28 12-13 May 2006, at para 2. 130 However, it is important to note that domestic laws, even incompatible ones, override international obligations. Mewes v Attorney-General [1979] 1 NZLR 648, (SC) at 666. New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association Inc v Attorney-General [1997] 3 NZLR 269, at 289 (CA). Polites v Commonwealth (1945) 70 CLR 60 (HCA); Keith J for the Court. 131 Abbasi v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2002] EWCA Civ 1598 at para 57 per Lord Phillips MR. Tavita v Minister of Immigration [1994] 2 NZLR 257 (CA), Reg v Secretary of State for Home Department, Ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 696 at 761 and 748-9 (HL(E)). The Supreme Court of the United States in Murray v The Schooner Charming Betsy 6 US (2 Cranch) 64 (1804) used the innovative “Charming Betsy” principle to hold that any legislation passed after the 68