206:
only pose a problem in dualist states. States are free to choose the way in which they want to respect international law, but they are always accountable if they fail to adapt their national legal system in a way that they can respect international law. Either they adopt a constitution that implements a monist system so that international law can be applied directly and without transformation, or they do not. But then they have to translate all international law in national law. In a monist state we rely only on the judges and not on the legislators, but judges can also make mistakes. If a judge in a monist state makes mistakes when applying international law, then the country violates international law just as much as a dualist country that, for one reason or another, does not allow its judges to apply international law directly and fails to translate or fails to translate correctly and effectively. One reason for preferring dualism is precisely the fear that national judges are not familiar with international law – a highly complex field of law – and hence are liable to make mistakes.
141:
problem with regard to national laws voted after the act of translation. In a monist system, a national law that is voted after an international law has been accepted and that contradicts the international law, becomes automatically null and void at the moment it is voted. The international rule continues to prevail. In a dualist system, however, the original international law has been translated into national law – if all went well – but this national law can then be overridden by another national law on the principle of "
107:
treaty but does not adapt its national law in order to conform to the treaty or does not create a national law explicitly incorporating the treaty, then it violates international law. But one cannot claim that the treaty has become part of national law. Citizens cannot rely on it and judges cannot apply it. National laws that contradict it remain in force. According to dualists, national judges never apply international law, only international law that has been translated into national law.
56:
law is treated as part of national law as well. International law can be directly applied by a national judge, and can be directly invoked by citizens, just as if it were national law. A judge can declare a national rule invalid if it contradicts international rules because, in some states, international rules have priority. In other states, like in
Germany, treaties have the same effect as legislation, and by the principle of
166:
For instance, the
Constitution of the United States provides that the President "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II (2)). Treaties ratified in accordance with the Constitution automatically become part of the municipal law of the United States.
85:. A citizen of that country, who is being prosecuted by his state for violating this national law, can invoke the human rights treaty in a national courtroom and can ask the judge to apply this treaty and to decide that the national law is invalid. They do not have to wait for national law that translates international law.
55:
In a pure monist state, international law does not need to be translated into national law. It is simply incorporated and has effect automatically in national or domestic laws. The act of ratifying an international treaty immediately incorporates the law into national law; and customary international
140:
In dualist systems, international law must be translated into national law, and existing national law that contradicts international law must be "translated away". It must be modified or eliminated in order to conform to international law. However, the need for translation in dualist system causes a
205:
Both a monist state and a dualist state can comply with international law. All one can say is that a monist state is less at risk of violating international rules, because its judges can apply international law directly. Negligence or unwillingness to implement international law in national law can
165:
In the vast majority of democratic countries outside the
Commonwealth, the legislature, or part of the legislature, participates in the process of ratification, so that ratification becomes a legislative act, and the treaty becomes effective in international law and in municipal law simultaneously.
196:
International law does not determine which point of view is to be preferred, monism or dualism. Every state decides for itself, according to its legal traditions. International law only requires that its rules are respected, and states are free to decide on the manner in which they want to respect
106:
Dualists emphasize the difference between national and international law, and require the transposition of the latter into the former. Without this translation, international law does not exist as law. International law has to be national law as well, or it is no law at all. If a state accepts a
127:
If international law is not directly applicable, as is the case in dualist systems, then it must be translated into national law, and existing national law that contradicts international law must be "translated away". It must be modified or eliminated in order to conform to international law.
47:
Monists accept that the internal and international legal systems form a unity. Both national legal rules and international rules that a state has accepted, for example by way of a treaty, determine whether actions are legal or illegal. In most so-called "monist" states, a distinction between
131:
Again, from a human rights point of view, if a human rights treaty is accepted for purely political reasons, and states do not intend to fully translate it into national law or to take a monist view on international law, then the implementation of the treaty is very uncertain.
111:"International law as such can confer no right cognizable in the municipal courts. It is only insofar as the rules of international law are recognized as included in the rules of municipal law that they are allowed in municipal courts to give rise to rights and obligations".
145:", the later law replaces the earlier one. This means that the country – willingly or unwillingly – violates international law. A dualist system requires continuous screening of all subsequent national law for possible incompatibility with earlier international law.
184:." Such treaties must be implemented by statute before their provisions may be given effect by national and sub-national courts. Similarly with regard to customary international law, the Supreme Court stated, in the case of
153:
In some countries, such as the United
Kingdom, the dualist view is predominant. International law is only part of British national law once it is accepted in national law. A treaty "has no effect in municipal law until an
201:"he transformation of international norms into domestic law is not necessary from the point of view of international law…the necessity of transformation is a question of national, not of international law".
188:(1900), that "international law is part of our law". However, it also said that international law would not be applied if there is a controlling legislative, executive, or judicial act to the contrary.
35:
and domestic law. Monism and dualism both offer approaches to how international law comes into effect within states, and how conflicts between national and international law are resolved.
409:
78:
69:
In its most pure form, monism dictates that national law that contradicts international law is null and void, even if it post-dates international law, and even if it is
123:
the self-evident principle of international law that a State cannot invoke its municipal law as the reason for the non-fulfillment of its international obligations.
170:
The United States has a "mixed" monist-dualist system; international law applies directly in US courts in some instances but not others. The
Constitution's
380:
119:
pointed out the
International Court's determination to discourage the evasion of international obligations, and its repeated affirmation of:
94:
325:
142:
174:
states that treaties are part of the supreme law of the land, as suggested by the quote above; however, the U.S. Supreme Court, in
39:, many states are partly monist and partly dualist in their actual application of international law in their national systems.
245:
77:
point of view, for example, this has some advantages. For example, a country has accepted a human rights treaty, such as the
250:
228:
475:
58:
480:
298:
48:
international law in the form of treaties, and other international law, e.g., customary international law or
234:
428:"Basic Concepts of Public International Law - Monism & Dualism", ed. Marko Novakovic, Belgrade 2013.
413:
485:
404:
181:
176:
82:
116:
115:
The supremacy of international law is a rule in dualist systems as it is in monist systems. Sir
386:
376:
321:
315:
155:
32:
89:"So when someone in The Netherlands feels his human rights are being violated he can go to a
456:
353:
269:
223:
171:
437:
337:
282:
240:
215:
459:, Internationaal publiekrecht in vogelvlucht, Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen, 1994, p. 83.
356:, Internationaal publiekrecht in vogelvlucht, Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen, 1994, p. 84.
66:"), only take precedence over national legislation enacted prior to their ratification.
416:
272:, International publiekrecht in vogelvlucht, Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen, 1994, p. 82.
70:
469:
31:
and dualism are used to describe two different theories of the relationship between
97:. He must apply international law even if it is not in conformity with Dutch law".
74:
219:
90:
49:
390:
17:
301:, in M. Akehurst, Modern Introduction to International Law, Harper Collins,
370:
441:
341:
302:
286:
52:, is made; such states may thus be partly monist and partly dualist.
28:
375:. Michael Barton Akehurst (7th rev. ed.). London: Routledge.
197:
these rules and make them binding on its citizens and agencies.
317:
The
Development of International Law by the International Court
320:, Hersch Lauterpacht (ed), Cambridge University Press, 1982,
440:, International Law in a Divided World, Clarendon Press,
340:, International Law in a Divided World, Clarendon Press,
285:, International Law in a Divided World, Clarendon Press,
161:
In other countries this distinction tends to be blurred.
79:
International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
372:
Akehurst's modern introduction to international law
452:
450:
121:
93:judge and the judge must apply the law of the
8:
81:, but some of its national laws limit the
180:(2008), held that some treaties are not "
262:
7:
364:
362:
192:A matter of national legal tradition
25:
158:is passed to give effect to it."
143:lex posterior derogat legi priori
246:List of national legal systems
136:The problem of "lex posterior"
1:
64:Later law removes the earlier
36:
251:Rule according to higher law
59:Lex posterior derogat priori
229:International customary law
502:
369:Malanczuk, Peter (1997).
299:James Atkin, Baron Atkin
235:Schubert Jurisprudence
203:
168:
125:
113:
99:
199:
163:
109:
87:
83:freedom of the press
186:The Pacquete Habana
444:, 1992, pp. 21-22.
117:Hersch Lauterpacht
73:in nature. From a
476:International law
405:MedellĂn v. Texas
382:978-1-280-33847-2
177:MedellĂn v. Texas
156:Act of Parliament
33:international law
16:(Redirected from
493:
460:
457:Pieter Kooijmans
454:
445:
435:
429:
426:
420:
401:
395:
394:
366:
357:
354:Pieter Kooijmans
351:
345:
335:
329:
312:
306:
296:
290:
281:G.J. Wiarda, in
279:
273:
270:Pieter Kooijmans
267:
224:Political asylum
172:Supremacy Clause
21:
501:
500:
496:
495:
494:
492:
491:
490:
481:Theories of law
466:
465:
464:
463:
455:
448:
438:Antonio Cassese
436:
432:
427:
423:
402:
398:
383:
368:
367:
360:
352:
348:
338:Antonio Cassese
336:
332:
313:
309:
297:
293:
283:Antonio Cassese
280:
276:
268:
264:
259:
241:Legal pluralism
216:Non-refoulement
212:
194:
151:
138:
104:
45:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
499:
497:
489:
488:
483:
478:
468:
467:
462:
461:
446:
430:
421:
396:
381:
358:
346:
344:, 1992, p. 15.
330:
307:
291:
289:, 1992, p. 17.
274:
261:
260:
258:
255:
254:
253:
248:
243:
238:
231:
226:
211:
208:
193:
190:
182:self-executing
150:
147:
137:
134:
103:
100:
71:constitutional
44:
41:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
498:
487:
484:
482:
479:
477:
474:
473:
471:
458:
453:
451:
447:
443:
439:
434:
431:
425:
422:
418:
415:
411:
407:
406:
400:
397:
392:
388:
384:
378:
374:
373:
365:
363:
359:
355:
350:
347:
343:
339:
334:
331:
327:
326:0-521-46332-7
323:
319:
318:
311:
308:
304:
300:
295:
292:
288:
284:
278:
275:
271:
266:
263:
256:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
239:
237:
236:
232:
230:
227:
225:
221:
217:
214:
213:
209:
207:
202:
198:
191:
189:
187:
183:
179:
178:
173:
167:
162:
159:
157:
148:
146:
144:
135:
133:
129:
124:
120:
118:
112:
108:
101:
98:
96:
92:
86:
84:
80:
76:
72:
67:
65:
61:
60:
53:
51:
42:
40:
38:
34:
30:
19:
18:Dualism (law)
433:
424:
419: (2008).
403:
399:
371:
349:
333:
316:
310:
294:
277:
265:
233:
204:
200:
195:
185:
175:
169:
164:
160:
152:
139:
130:
126:
122:
114:
110:
105:
88:
75:human rights
68:
63:
57:
54:
46:
26:
486:Dichotomies
220:Refugee law
37:In practice
470:Categories
328:, page 262
257:References
95:Convention
50:jus cogens
27:The terms
391:560416723
305:, p. 45.
222:—
218:—
210:See also
149:Examples
102:Dualism
442:Oxford
408:,
389:
379:
342:Oxford
324:
303:London
287:Oxford
43:Monism
29:monism
412:
91:Dutch
414:U.S.
387:OCLC
377:ISBN
322:ISBN
314:See
417:491
410:552
472::
449:^
385:.
361:^
62:("
393:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.