2/26/2016

hanumant.com/ILInternationalMunicipalLaw.html

Disclaimer
Informationinthisdocumentisbeingprovidedasiswithoutanywarranty/guaranteeofanykind.Wehave
takenallreasonablemeasurestoensurethequality,reliability,andaccuracyoftheinformationinthis
document.However,wemayhavemademistakesandwewillnotberesponsibleforanylossordamageof
anykindarisingbecauseoftheusageofthisinformation.Further,upondiscoveryofanyerrororomissions,
wemaydelete,addto,oramendinformationonthiswebsitewithoutnotice.
Thisdocumentisintendedtoprovideinformationonly.Ifyouareseekingadviceonanymattersrelatingto
informationonthiswebsite,youshouldwhereappropriatecontactusdirectlywithyourspecificqueryor
seekadvicefromqualifiedprofessionalpeople.

Q.ExplaintherelationshipbetweenInternationalLawandMunicipalLaw.

InternationalLawisthelawwhichgovernstheRelationsofsovereignindependentStatesinterseMunicipallaworState
lawornationallawisthelawofaStateoracountryandinthatrespectisopposedtoInternationalLawwhichconsistsof
ruleswhichcivilizedStatesconsiderasbindinguponthemintheirmutualrelations.Kelsenobservesthatnationallaw
regulatesthebehaviorofindividualsInternationallawthebehaviorofStatesorasitisputwhereasnationallawis
concernedwiththeinternationalrelationsthesocalleddomesticaffairsoftheState.InternationalLawisconcernedwith
theexternalrelationsoftheStateitsforeignaffairs.
Legislatureandcourtsystemsaredifferentontheinternationalandmunicipallevels.Wherethemunicipallevelusesa
legislaturetohelpenforceandtestthelaws,theinternationalcourtsystemreliesonaseriesoftreatieswithouta
legislaturewhich,inessence,makesallcountriesequal.
Enforcementisamajordifferencebetweenmunicipalandinternationallaw.Themunicipalcourtshavealawenforcement
armwhichhelpsrequirethoseitdeterminestofollowtherules,andiftheydonottheyarerequiredtoattendcourt.The
internationalcourtsystemhasnoenforcementandmustrelyonthecooperationofothercountriesforenforcement.
ThereisadivergenceofopiniononthequestionastowhetherInternationalLawandMunicipalLawonthevarious
nationallawscanbesaidtoformaunitybeingmanifestationsofasingleconceptionoflaworwhetherInternationalLaw
constitutesanindependentsystemoflawessentiallydifferentfromtheMunicipalLaw.Theformertheoryiscalled
monisticandthelatterdualistic.
MonisticTheory:Monistsassumethattheinternalandinternationallegalsystemsformaunity.Bothnationallegalrules
andinternationalrulesthatastatehasaccepted,forexamplebywayofatreaty,determinewhetheractionsarelegalor
illegal.Inmostmoniststates,adistinctionbetweeninternationallawintheformoftreaties,andotherinternationallaw,
e.g.juscogensismade.Internationallawdoesnotneedtobetranslatedintonationallaw.Theactofratifyingthe
internationallawimmediatelyincorporatesthelawintonationallaw.Internationallawcanbedirectlyappliedbya
nationaljudge,andcanbedirectlyinvokedbycitizens,justasifitwerenationallaw.Ajudgecandeclareanationalrule
invalidifitcontradictsinternationalrulesbecause,insomestates,thelatterhavepriority.Inotherstates,likeinGermany,
treatieshavethesameeffectaslegislation,andbytheprincipleoflexposterior,onlytakeprecedenceovernational
legislationenactedpriortotheirratification.Initsmostpureform,monismdictatesthatnationallawthatcontradicts
internationallawisnullandvoid,evenifitpredatesinternationallaw,andevenifitistheconstitution.Itmaintainsthatthe
subjectofthetwosystemsoflawnamely,InternationalLawandMunicipalLawareessentiallyoneinasmuchasthe
formerregulatestheconductofStates,whilethelatterofindividuals.Accordingtothisviewlawisessentiallyacommand
bindinguponthesubjectsofthelawindependentoftheirwillwhichisonecaseistheStatesandintheotherindividuals.
AccordingtoitInternationalLawandMunicipalLawaretwophasesofoneandthesamething.Theformeralthough
directlyaddressedtotheStatesascorporatebodiesisaswellapplicabletoindividualsforStatesareonlygroupsof
individuals.
Dualistictheory:Dualistsemphasizethedifferencebetweennationalandinternationallaw,andrequirethetranslation
ofthelatterintotheformer.Withoutthistranslation,internationallawdoesnotexistaslaw.Internationallawhastobe
nationallawaswell,oritisnolawatall.Ifastateacceptsatreatybutdoesnotadaptitsnationallawinordertoconform
tothetreatyordoesnotcreateanationallawexplicitlyincorporatingthetreaty,thenitviolatesinternationallaw.Butone
cannotclaimthatthetreatyhasbecomepartofnationallaw.Citizenscannotrelyonitandjudgescannotapplyit.
Nationallawsthatcontradictitremaininforce.Accordingtodualists,nationaljudgesneverapplyinternationallaw,only
internationallawthathasbeentranslatedintonationallaw.AccordingtothedualistviewthesystemsofInternationalLaw
andMunicipalLawareseparateandselfcontainedtotheextenttowhichrulesoftheonearenotexpresslyortacitly
receivedintotheothersystem.Inthefirstplacetheydifferasregardstheirsources.ThesourcesofMunicipalLaware
customsgrownupwithintheboundariesoftheStateconcernedandstatutesenactedthereinwhilethesourcesof
InternationalLawarecustomsgrownupwithintheFamilyofNationsandlawmakingtreatiesconcludedbyitsmembers.
InthesecondplaceMunicipalLawsregulatesrelationsbetweentheindividualsundertheswayofaStateorbetweenthe
individualsandtheStatewhileInternationalLawregulatesrelationsbetweenthememberStatesoftheFamilyof
Nations.LastlythereisadifferencewithregardtothesubstanceofthelawinasmuchasMunicipalLawisalawofthe
sovereignoverindividualswhileInternationalLawisalawbetweensovereignStatewhichisarrivedatanagreement
amongthem.Thelatteristhereforeaweaklaw.

http://hanumant.com/ILInternationalMunicipalLaw.html

1/2

2/26/2016

hanumant.com/ILInternationalMunicipalLaw.html

Besidestheabovetwotheories,Starkemakesreferencetotwoothertheoriesnamely,theTransformationTheoryand
DelegationTheory.
TransformationTheory:Accordingtothistheoryitisthetransformationofthetreatyintonationallegislationwhichalone
validatestheextensiontoindividualsoftherulessetoutininternationalagreements.Thetransformationisnotmerelya
formalbutasubstantialrequirement.InternationalLawaccordingtothistheorycannotfindplaceinthenationalor
MunicipalLawunlessthelatterallowsitsmachinerytobeusedforthatpurpose.
Thistheoryisfallaciousinseveralrespects.InthefirstplaceitspremisethatInternationalLawandMunicipalLawaretwo
distinctsystemsisincorrect.InthesecondplacethesecondpremisethatInternationalLawbindsStatesonlywhereas
municipallawappliestoindividualsisalsoincorrectforInternationalLawisthesumoftheruleswhichhavebeen
acceptedbycivilizedstatesasdeterminingtheirconducttowardseachotherandtowardseachotherssubjects.Inthe
thirdplacethetheoryregardsthetransformationoftreatiesintonationallawfortheirenforcement.Thisisnottrueinall
casesforthepracticeoftransformingtreatiesintonationallegislationisnotuniforminallthecountries.Andthisis
certainlynottrueinthecaseoflawmakingtreaties.
DelegationTheory:AccordingtothistheorythereisthedelegationofarighttoeveryStatetodecideforitselfwhenthe
provisionsofatreatyorconventionaretocomeintoeffectandinwhatmannertheyaretobeincorporatedinthelawof
thelandormunicipallaw.Thereisnoneedoftransformationofatreatyintonationallawbuttheactismerelyan
extensionofonesingleact.Thedelegationtheoryisincompleteforitdoesnotsatisfactorilymeetthemainargumentof
thetransformationtheory.Itassumestheprimacyofinternationallegalorderbutfailstoexplaintherelationsexisting
betweenmunicipalandinternationallaws.
ItissettledbytheleadingEnglishandAmericandecisionsthatInternationalLawformspartofthemunicipallawofthose
countries.TheUnitedStateshasunambiguouslyappliedthedoctrinethatInternationalLawispartofthelawoftheland.
AllinternationalconventionsratifiedbytheUSAandsuchcustomaryInternationalLawashasreceivedtheassentofthe
UnitedStatesarebindinguponAmericanCourtseveniftheymaybecontrarytothestatutoryprovisions.Thereisa
presumptionincasesofconflictthattheUnitedStatesCongressdidnotintendtooverruleInternationalLaw.
PositioninIndia
InIndia,SChasheldinseveralcasessuchasVishakhavsStateofRajasthan,RandhirvsUnionofIndia,Unnikrishnan
vsStateofKarnataka,thatdomesticlawsofIndia,includingtheconstitutionarenottobereadasderogatoryto
Internationallaw.Aneffortmustbemadetoreadthedomesticlawasbeinginharmonywiththeinternationallawincase
ofanyambiguity.Atthesametime,theconstitutionisstillthesupremelawofthelandandincaseofanydirectlyconflict
theconstitutionwillprevail.

http://hanumant.com/ILInternationalMunicipalLaw.html

2/2