Following an American doctrine, the Chilean Constitutional Court adopted the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaty provisions nearly two decades ago. The Court has relied on this distinction to define the scope of the ex-ante constitutional review of international treaties. Based on the assessment of the relevant case law, this paper exposes the inconsistencies in the Court’s approach to this matter, arguing that the distinction should be abandoned for the purposes of defining the extent of the ex-ante review. Bearing in mind the forthcoming constitutional debate in Chile, the paper underlines that decisions concerning the implementation of self-executing or non-self-executing treaty provisions through domestic legislation are not a matter for the Constitutional Court. Instead, the Parliament and the President should make such decisions when discussing the approval and ratification of a treaty.