Essay On Monism Vs Dualism

An issue in theoretical basis on what should prevail or which is supreme between International Law or Municipal Law (national law) is usually presented as a competition between monism and dualist. But in modern approach there is now the theory of coordination or is also called Harmonization theory that rejects the presumption of the other two theoretical concept, monism and dualism. The monist view asserts the international law’s supremacy over the municipal law even in matters within the internal or domestic jurisdiction of a state. While it is true that the international law defines the legal existence of states as well of the validity of its national legal order, the dualist asserts the international law is an existing system that is completely separated from municipal or national law. That dictates the

There are reasons for this, first is that, internal implementation of international law is always conditioned by a rule of the state’s municipal law. Clearly stating that international law’ internal interpretation is always governed by the municipal constitution. Second is that in national courts, even a monist country, their courts may fail sometimes to execute treaties which are binding under international law. United State law is an example of non-self-executing treaty. While dualist country’s courts, unincorporated treaties are given limited effect on the internal process. The use of ECHR or European Convention on Human Rights in British courts before it was being incorporated into United Kingdom law is an example. UK and any other country which relies to the power of legislation, should always if possible do not conflicts with the international law. Therefore the supremacy of both laws depends on the acceptance if the municipal courts to the international law