Noting that in the growing discourse on domestic implementation national-level courts are reduced to simple enforcers of international law, this Article explores the interpretive trends and theoretical possibilities of using international law in judicial reasoning. Using the Canadian case of Baker as an illustration, the author explores the traditional model of international law in domestic courts, which focuses on bindingness and all-or-nothing application, and transjudicialism, in which the authority of international law is persuasive rather than binding.