The concept of horizontal direct effect has gained prominence in recent years due to the importance it plays in lives of individuals who seek to enforce rights derived from the European Union (EU) law. Classic international law states that each State has the liberty to choose its “domestic law” as well as “international law”. However, this led to monism and dualism with monist States making international law part of their domestic law while dualist States did not automatically consider International norms to be incorporated in their national legal order. European Union law is a set of rules, regulations, legislations and directives which creates direct or indirect effect on Member States (MS) of the EU. Treaties are the primary source of law, while directives and regulations form the secondary source of law that need to be imposed by Member States. However, if the international laws does not transpose into domestic laws of Member States then they can be enforced by the European Commission and interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ).This essay does not look at the direct effect of international laws on domestic laws but rather questions whether EU directives should have horizontal direct effect on Member States (MS). This paper questions the direct effect and indirect effect of EU directives and establishes through various leading judgments that certain directives do give rise to individual rights or obligations that national courts could apply in specific situations. However, the concept of directives continues to be inconclusive as ECJ has failed to remove the confusion over the limitations of horizontal direct effect. This essay considers both sides of the equation to finally agree with A.G. Jacobs that if directives are allowed to have horizontal direct effect then they would definitely lead to a more coherent EU legal effect on domestic laws.