Introduction – Relationship between International Law and Municipal Law
The relationship between International Law and Municipal Law (Domestic Law) is one of the most fundamental and complex issues in legal theory. While international law governs the relations between sovereign states and international entities, municipal law regulates the rights and duties of individuals within a state’s territorial boundaries. The coexistence of these two systems raises vital questions such as — Which law prevails in case of conflict? How are international obligations implemented domestically?
Theories like Monism and Dualism attempt to explain this relationship, while judicial decisions and state practices further clarify the interaction between these two systems.
1. Meaning and Scope
International Law
International law consists of rules and principles that govern relations between states and other international actors. It includes treaties, customary laws, general principles, and decisions of international tribunals.
Municipal Law
Municipal law (or domestic law) refers to the internal law of a state which governs the behavior of individuals, institutions, and authorities within its territory. It is created by legislative bodies such as Parliament or Congress.
Distinction between the Two
| Aspect | International Law | Municipal Law |
|---|---|---|
| Source | Derived from treaties, customs, and general principles | Derived from constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions |
| Scope | Governs states and international actors | Governs individuals and entities within a state |
| Enforcement | Decentralized (via ICJ, international pressure) | Centralized (courts, police, executive machinery) |
| Nature | Consensual (based on state consent) | Compulsory within state jurisdiction |
2. Theoretical Frameworks Explaining the Relationship
The relationship between the two systems is best understood through two principal theories: Monism and Dualism, and a few modern approaches that bridge these theories.
A. Monistic Theory
Monism asserts that international law and municipal law form one unified legal system. According to this view, international law is automatically part of domestic law and does not require legislative transformation to be applied within a state.
Key Features:
- International law is directly applicable in domestic courts.
- In case of conflict, international law prevails.
- States cannot justify violation of international law by invoking domestic law.
Proponents:
- Hans Kelsen – argued that all laws form part of a single hierarchy with international law at the apex.
- Lauterpacht – emphasized that individuals are subjects of both domestic and international law.
Case Law:
- Reimann v. Federal Republic of Germany (1963) – The German Federal Constitutional Court held that international law automatically forms part of the national legal order.
- Netherlands Supreme Court in the Zweekhorst Case – Confirmed that treaty provisions have automatic domestic effect if self-executing.
Practical Examples:
- The Netherlands and France follow a monistic approach; treaties automatically become law upon ratification.
B. Dualistic Theory
Dualism holds that international law and municipal law are two distinct systems operating independently. For international law to be enforceable domestically, it must be incorporated through national legislation.
Key Features:
- International and municipal laws have different sources and subjects.
- International law requires transformation into domestic law to be effective.
- Conflict between the two is avoided since each applies in its own sphere.
Proponents:
- Heinrich Triepel and Anzilotti, who argued that international law governs relations between states, while municipal law governs individuals.
Case Law:
- The Parlement Belge (1880) – UK Court held that international law cannot override domestic statutes without parliamentary incorporation.
- Mortensen v. Peters (1906) – UK Case Link
The court upheld a Scottish statute even though it conflicted with international law, emphasizing parliamentary supremacy.
Practical Examples:
- The United Kingdom, India, and Canada follow a dualistic approach where treaties need legislative incorporation.
3. Constitutional Position in India
India follows a dualistic system concerning international law.
- Article 51(c) of the Indian Constitution directs the State to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations.”
- However, international treaties are not automatically enforceable unless incorporated by an act of Parliament.
- Customary International Law, if not contrary to domestic law, may be applied by Indian courts.
Case Laws:
- Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey (1984) 2 SCC 534 – Link
The Supreme Court held that international law principles are to be respected unless they conflict with domestic statutes. - Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 – Link
The Court relied on CEDAW (Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), holding that international conventions can be read into domestic law in the absence of conflicting legislation. - People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) – Link
The Court reaffirmed that international covenants can guide the interpretation of constitutional rights.
4. Modern Approaches Bridging Monism and Dualism
In recent times, international law and domestic law have grown increasingly interdependent. The rigid separation between the two is fading due to globalization, human rights obligations, and international institutions.
A. Harmonization Approach
Courts interpret domestic law in harmony with international obligations wherever possible.
Example: Vishaka case (1997) — reading international norms into constitutional interpretation.
B. Transformation with Interpretation
Some treaties require partial transformation, but courts may interpret statutes in line with international law even without direct incorporation.
C. Global Constitutionalism
The concept suggests that certain fundamental principles (e.g., human rights, environmental protection) are universally binding, transcending the distinction between international and domestic law.
5. Comparative Perspective
| Country | Approach | Key Feature |
|---|---|---|
| India | Dualistic | Treaties need incorporation by Parliament |
| UK | Dualistic | Parliament must legislate before treaty enforcement |
| USA | Mixed | Self-executing treaties are directly applicable; others need Congressional approval |
| France | Monistic | International law automatically becomes part of domestic law |
| Germany | Monistic | Constitution grants automatic effect to international treaties |
6. Conclusion
The relationship between International Law and Municipal Law reflects the dynamic interaction between global and national legal orders. While Monism emphasizes unity and supremacy of international law, Dualism stresses sovereignty and constitutional supremacy of domestic law.
In the Indian context, courts have adopted a harmonious and pragmatic approach—respecting international norms while upholding parliamentary sovereignty. As globalization deepens and international obligations expand, this relationship continues to evolve towards greater integration and coherence.
Also Read: Sources of International Law
Online Legal Internship Opportunity – Multi-Disciplinary Exposure at Trust Law Associates, India