Monism and Dualism in International Law
- Edmarverson A. Santos
- Jul 24
- 26 min read
Introduction
Monism and Dualism in International Law address a basic question about legal authority: when an international rule binds a state, what status does that rule possess within the state’s own legal system? The answer determines whether a treaty can be invoked before a national court, whether customary international law forms part of domestic law without legislation, and what happens when an international obligation conflicts with a constitution or statute. These questions arise at the point where the international legal order meets national institutions, procedures, and constitutional limits.
Monism conceives international and domestic law as parts of a single legal order. On that account, an international rule may enter domestic law without being recreated through a separate legislative act. Dualism treats the two bodies of law as distinct legal systems. International rules bind the state externally, but they ordinarily require transformation, incorporation, or another constitutionally recognized act before they can operate as domestic law. The familiar contrast between one legal order and two captures the central theoretical divide, but it does not resolve every issue that arises in practice.
International obligation and domestic enforceability must be kept separate. Once a treaty is in force for a state, it must be performed in good faith, and the state cannot rely on its internal law as justification for non-performance (United Nations, 1969, arts 26–27). National law may nonetheless determine whether the treaty has been incorporated, what rank it occupies, who may rely on it, and which remedies a court may grant. A statute can remain valid under domestic law while its application places the state in breach of an international obligation.
The classical debate developed around broader disagreements about sovereignty, consent, and the source of legal validity. Heinrich Triepel and Dionisio Anzilotti defended accounts in which international and municipal law belonged to separate normative systems. Hans Kelsen rejected that separation and treated law as a unified normative order, although monist theory did not produce a single uncontested answer about which body of law held ultimate primacy. Georges Scelle offered a different form of monism, emphasizing the use of national institutions to perform international legal functions.
Contemporary constitutional practice fits neither model neatly. A state may require legislation before treaties can alter domestic rights while allowing customary international law to operate through common-law or constitutional doctrine. Another may receive treaties automatically but deny direct effect to provisions that are insufficiently precise or that require legislative choices. Human rights conventions, criminal-law treaties, rules of regional integration, and decisions of international institutions may also receive different treatment within the same national system.
Classification as monist or dualist is consequently only a starting point. A sound legal analysis must distinguish reception from legal rank, incorporation from direct effect, and international validity from domestic justiciability. Standing, interpretive doctrine, separation of powers, and remedial competence may decide a case even after an international rule has entered national law. Monism and dualism remain useful because they expose competing assumptions about the unity of law and the autonomy of domestic legal orders. Their limits become apparent when those assumptions are used as substitutes for examining the constitutional rules that govern a specific source, provision, court, and claim.
1. Monism and Dualism in International Law
Monism and dualism offer different accounts of how international law relates to the domestic law of states. Their disagreement concerns the structure of legal authority. Monism treats international and national law as parts of one legal order. Dualism treats them as distinct systems whose rules derive their validity from different legal sources.
These theories are often used to classify states, but that shorthand can mislead. A state may display monist features in one area and dualist features in another. The treatment of treaties may differ from the treatment of customary international law, and the domestic status of an international rule may depend on constitutional text, legislation, and judicial doctrine.
The theories identify opposing starting points. They do not, by themselves, determine whether a particular rule can be invoked before a national court, whether it prevails over legislation, or what remedy follows from its breach. Those questions require a more specific analysis of the relevant legal system and the international norm concerned (Kunz, 2024).
1.1 One Legal Order or Two
Under monism, international and domestic norms belong to a single legal order. An international rule does not lose its legal character when it operates within a state. The same norm may bind the state internationally and form part of the law applied by national institutions.
Monist theories differ on the hierarchy within that unified order. Some place international law above national law. Others accept legal unity while locating the ultimate basis of international law in the domestic legal order. Monism establishes the possibility of normative unity, but it does not produce one necessary rule of supremacy.
Dualism begins from separation. International law and domestic law are treated as independent legal systems, each with its own source of validity. A rule may bind the state internationally without becoming part of the law applied internally. Its domestic operation depends on the national legal order recognizing it through an authorized legal process.
Classical dualist thought also relied on differences in subject matter and legal subjects. International law was commonly described as governing relations among states, while municipal law governed individuals and public institutions within the state. That distinction no longer provides a sufficient explanation. International law now regulates individual rights, criminal responsibility, investment, migration, labor, and many other matters that operate within national legal systems.
The more durable dualist claim concerns legal origin rather than subject matter alone. An international rule and a domestic rule may address the same conduct while belonging to separate legal orders. On this view, the existence of an international obligation does not automatically make that obligation a rule of national law.
Neither position should be reduced to a simple claim that monism favors international law while dualism resists it. Dualism may require legislative involvement because of constitutional rules on democratic authority and the division of powers. Monism may allow international law to enter the domestic order more directly while still subjecting it to constitutional limits. The difference lies in the legal relationship between the two orders, not in the political attitude of the state toward international cooperation.
1.2 International Obligation and Domestic Force
The distinction between international obligation and domestic legal force is central to the debate. A state can be bound by an international rule even when that rule cannot be applied directly by its courts. The international and domestic consequences of the same obligation may differ.
Treaty law illustrates the point. Once a treaty is in force for a state, it must be performed in good faith. A state may not rely on its internal law as justification for failing to perform the treaty (United Nations, 1969, arts 26–27). These rules govern the state’s responsibility on the international plane.
They do not determine the treaty’s domestic status. National law may decide whether the treaty forms part of domestic law, which institutions may apply it, and whether individuals may rely on it in litigation. A court may lack authority to give effect to a treaty even though the state remains internationally bound by it.
The reverse situation is also possible. A statute or executive measure may remain valid under national law while placing the state in breach of an international obligation. International law assesses the conduct by reference to the state’s obligations, not by reference to whether the act was lawful under the state’s own constitution or legislation. Article 3 of the Articles on State Responsibility reflects this separation between domestic legality and international wrongfulness (International Law Commission, 2001).
This distinction prevents two common errors. The first is to assume that international validity guarantees domestic enforceability. The second is to assume that domestic validity removes international responsibility. Neither follows. The two legal planes may reach different conclusions about the same act.
Monism and dualism help explain why this divergence occurs. A monist approach is more receptive to the idea that an international norm can operate within the domestic order without being recreated as national law. A dualist approach insists that international binding force and domestic legal force arise from different legal sources. In practice, however, constitutional rules determine how far either proposition is carried.
1.3 Theory and Constitutional Practice
Philosophical monism and dualism must be distinguished from constitutional arrangements described by the same labels. The classical theories concern the unity or separation of legal orders. Constitutional practice concerns the procedures and institutions through which international rules operate nationally.
A constitution may contain monist features by allowing certain international rules to enter domestic law without separate implementing legislation. That does not necessarily mean that international law has unconditional supremacy. The constitution may remain the highest norm, and courts may be required to respect national limits on judicial authority.
A system commonly described as dualist may also recognize some international norms without specific legislative action. It may apply one approach to treaties and another to custom. It may permit international law to influence the interpretation of domestic law without treating the international rule as an independently enforceable source.
National systems also change over time. Constitutional amendments, legislation, judicial decisions, and regional legal commitments may alter the relationship between international and domestic law. A single label may conceal these developments and the differences among legal sources.
For that reason, calling a state monist or dualist cannot resolve a concrete dispute. The classification indicates a general orientation, but the legal result depends on the source of the international rule, the constitutional framework, and the authority of the institution asked to apply it. Monism and dualism remain useful as theories of legal structure. Their practical value lies in identifying the questions that constitutional law must answer, not in replacing those questions with a national label.
2. The Classical Doctrinal Divide
The classical debate over monism and dualism developed during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when international lawyers were trying to explain how sovereign states could be bound by rules existing beyond their domestic legal orders. The dispute concerned more than treaty implementation. It reflected competing views about legal validity, state consent, sovereignty, and the possibility of treating international and national law as parts of a unified system.
Dualist theories defended the autonomy of municipal law and emphasized the separate foundations of international legal obligation. Monist theories challenged the coherence of two independent systems governing the same conduct. These positions later shaped constitutional debates about reception and implementation, although the classical theories were broader than the domestic procedures now commonly described as monist or dualist.
2.1 Triepel, Anzilotti, and Dualist Thought
Heinrich Triepel’s Völkerrecht und Landesrecht, published in 1899, became one of the principal statements of classical dualism. Triepel treated international and municipal law as separate legal orders. National law originated in the will of the individual state, while international law arose from the common will of states expressed through agreement (Triepel, 1899).
Triepel also distinguished the two systems by their subjects and fields of operation. International law was associated primarily with relations among states, while municipal law governed individuals and institutions within the state. This distinction reflected the international legal order of his period, but it became less convincing as international law increasingly regulated individual rights, criminal responsibility, economic activity, and the conduct of domestic authorities.
The central implication of Triepel’s position was structural. An international rule could bind the state externally without becoming a rule of municipal law. Domestic legal effect required an act of reception or transformation authorized by the national legal system.
Dionisio Anzilotti also defended the separation of international and municipal law, but his account rested on a different explanation of legal validity. He associated domestic law with the authority of the state lawmaker and international law with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, under which agreements between states must be observed (Anzilotti, 1956).
Anzilotti’s theory was more closely connected to positivism than Triepel’s idea of a common state will. Both rejected the automatic domestic operation of international obligations, but they did not rely on identical foundations. Their shared position was that binding force on the international plane did not, by itself, convert an international norm into national law.
Classical dualism’s reliance on consent has since faced substantial criticism. Customary law cannot always be reduced to agree, and peremptory norms cannot be displaced by contrary treaty provisions. Such norms do not depend on each state’s specific acceptance in the same way as treaty obligations. These developments weaken some early dualist explanations without eliminating the distinction between international validity and domestic legal force.
2.2 Kelsen and the Unity of Law
Hans Kelsen rejected the proposition that international and domestic law could constitute wholly independent normative systems. His Pure Theory of Law conceived a legal order as a hierarchy in which the validity of one norm depended on a higher norm and ultimately on a presupposed basic norm, or Grundnorm (Kelsen, 1967).
For Kelsen, two unrelated legal orders could not coherently regulate the same conduct while producing conflicting claims to validity. International and national law had to be understood within a single normative structure. Apparent conflicts were questions of hierarchy within one legal system, not collisions between legally disconnected systems.
Monism did not logically require international-law primacy. A unified order could be constructed on the assumption that international law derived its validity from national law. The alternative was to treat national legal systems as subordinate components of an international legal order.
Kelsen defended the latter view. In The Problem of Sovereignty and the Theory of International Law, he challenged the idea of sovereignty as an authority existing independently of law and treated state competence as legally constituted within the international order (Kelsen, 1920). International-law primacy also supported his wider effort to limit unilateral state power through adjudication and stronger international institutions.
His theory remained normative rather than descriptive. The absence of a centralized international legislature or enforcement authority did not prevent international law from forming a legal system. It meant that the system was comparatively decentralized.
2.3 Scelle and Institutional Monism
Georges Scelle developed a sociological and anthropocentric form of monism. He placed individuals and social relations at the center of legal analysis and rejected the state as the exclusive subject or source of international law.
Scelle’s best-known contribution was dédoublement fonctionnel, commonly translated as functional duplication or role-splitting. International society lacked a complete institutional structure of its own, so domestic officials often performed international functions. A national court applying an international norm or a legislature implementing an international obligation could act both as an organ of the state and as an agent of the wider international legal order (Scelle, 1932–1934; Cassese, 1990).
This theory gave monism an institutional dimension. Legal unity was visible not only in a hierarchy of norms but also in the practical use of domestic institutions to administer international law. Scelle’s approach anticipated later attention to overlapping legal orders and the dependence of international law on national authorities, even though his account of normative conflict and international hierarchy remained open to criticism.
3. Reception of International Law
Reception concerns the process through which an international rule acquires legal effect within a domestic legal system. It must be distinguished from the rule’s binding force on the international plane. A treaty can bind the state before national legislation has been adopted, while domestic law determines whether courts and public authorities can apply it internally.
The terminology is not uniform. “Incorporation” may refer to automatic constitutional reception in one jurisdiction and legislative implementation in another. “Transformation” is also used broadly in some systems. The distinctions below focus on how the international norm enters, or is reproduced within, domestic law.
3.1 Automatic Reception
Automatic reception occurs when the constitution or another domestic rule recognizes an international norm as part of national law without requiring a separate statute that recreates its content. The rule retains its international character while also acquiring domestic legal status.
Reception is not always immediate. A constitution can require ratification, parliamentary approval, official publication, or entry into force before the treaty operates nationally. Some systems also distinguish between treaty provisions capable of immediate application and provisions that require further legislative action.
Automatic reception does not settle every later question. A treaty may belong to the domestic legal order without being directly enforceable in court. Reception concerns the norm’s legal presence; direct effect concerns whether a particular provision can be applied without additional measures (Kunz, 2024).
Different sources may also be treated differently. A constitution can provide one method for treaties and another for customary international law. The description of a system as monist does not remove those source-specific distinctions.
3.2 Transformation and Incorporation
Transformation occurs when an international obligation is converted into a domestic legal rule through national legislation. The resulting rule derives its internal authority from the statute, even where its content closely follows the treaty.
Legislative incorporation gives domestic effect to the treaty or to selected provisions. Parliament can reproduce the treaty text, attach it as a schedule, or declare that specified provisions have the force of law. Incorporation preserves a clearer connection between the treaty and the domestic rule.
The boundary between transformation and incorporation is not always exact. Both depend on national legislative authority, and legal systems use the terms differently. A practical distinction lies in whether the domestic measure gives the treaty itself legal effect or restates the obligation through independently worded national law.
That distinction can influence interpretation. Courts applying incorporated treaty language are more likely to consider the treaty’s context and international meaning. Courts applying transformed legislation may focus primarily on the domestic statutory text. Later treaty amendments do not automatically change the national measure unless the constitution or implementing legislation provides otherwise.
3.3 Legislative Adaptation
A state can comply with a treaty without granting the treaty independent domestic status. It may amend existing legislation, create administrative powers, establish procedures, or repeal inconsistent rules. Legislative adaptation changes domestic law so that national institutions can perform the international obligation.
Criminal-law treaties provide a clear example. A treaty may require states to criminalize specified conduct, establish jurisdiction, provide investigative powers, and cooperate in extradition or legal assistance. Reproducing the treaty text alone would not create a complete criminal regime. Domestic legislation must translate the obligation into rules compatible with legality, due process, and the national criminal justice system.
Adaptation is also common when a treaty establishes an objective but leaves states discretion over implementation. Regulatory, labor, environmental, and human rights obligations can require several legislative and administrative measures rather than one incorporating statute.
In these situations, courts ordinarily apply the amended domestic law rather than the treaty as an independent source. The relevant question is whether national measures give practical effect to the obligation, not whether the international text has been copied word for word (Aust, 2005).
3.4 Parliamentary Control and Executive Treaty-Making
Treaty negotiation and signature usually fall within executive authority because they form part of diplomacy and external relations. Yet treaties can affect matters reserved to the legislature, including taxation, criminal liability, public expenditure, private rights, and existing statutory schemes.
Parliamentary participation can occur at more than one stage. Legislative approval may be required before ratification, while separate implementing legislation may be needed before the treaty alters domestic law. Consent to be bound internationally and the creation of enforceable national rules are distinct legal acts.
This division protects the constitutional allocation of powers. Without legislative control, the executive could use treaty-making to alter domestic law through a process less demanding than ordinary legislation. Dualist procedures often preserve parliamentary authority over changes to rights, duties, and public institutions.
Such procedures do not indicate hostility to international law. They address which institution has authority to create domestic law and through what process. Delayed or absent implementation may engage the state’s international responsibility where it causes nonperformance of a binding treaty obligation. It does not, by itself, authorize the executive or judiciary to exercise legislative powers withheld by the constitution.
4. Rank, Direct Effect, and Legal Conflict
Reception does not determine the authority an international norm will possess within domestic law. A treaty may form part of the national legal order without prevailing over legislation, creating enforceable rights, or authorizing a court to grant a remedy. Rank, direct effect, and conflict rules must be examined separately.
Domestic answers vary by constitutional design and by source. Treaties, customary international law, regional legal rules, and decisions of international organizations may occupy different positions within the same legal system.
4.1 Rank in the Domestic Hierarchy
Domestic law determines where a received international norm stands in the national hierarchy. One constitutional model places treaties below the constitution but above ordinary legislation. Under that arrangement, courts may refuse to apply inconsistent statutes while continuing to treat the constitution as controlling.
Other systems place treaties and statutes at the same level. Conflicts can then be governed by ordinary domestic principles, including the rule that a later enactment prevails over an earlier one. Formal incorporation does not necessarily give a treaty priority over subsequent legislation.
Some constitutions assign special status to particular categories of international law. Human rights treaties may receive enhanced protection, while other treaties remain equivalent to statutes. Customary international law can also occupy a distinct constitutional position.
Domestic rank must not be confused with hierarchy on the international plane. International law determines the obligations binding on the state. National constitutional law determines which rule a domestic court must apply when international and national norms conflict.
4.2 Direct Effect and Self-Execution
A treaty provision can form part of domestic law without being directly applicable. Courts commonly consider whether the provision is sufficiently precise, complete, and capable of judicial application without further legislative or administrative action.
Provisions requiring the creation of institutions, allocation of public funds, definition of criminal offenses, or adoption of regulatory standards normally leave choices to political authorities. A court may lack constitutional authority to make those choices in place of the legislature or executive.
The wording and purpose of the provision are also relevant. Some treaty clauses impose obligations primarily between states. Others are framed in terms capable of conferring identifiable rights or duties in individual cases. A single treaty may contain both directly applicable and non-directly applicable provisions.
“Direct effect” and “self-execution” do not carry identical meanings across jurisdictions. Direct effect often concerns whether an individual may invoke a provision in court. In United States law, self-execution usually concerns whether a treaty has domestic operation without implementing legislation. The concepts overlap, but their precise meaning remains system-specific (Kunz, 2024).
4.3 Conflicts with Constitutions and Statutes
Domestic systems resolve conflicts through several methods. Constitutional supremacy requires courts to apply the constitution over an inconsistent treaty where the constitution holds the highest domestic rank. Treaty-priority systems may permit courts to set aside conflicting ordinary legislation.
Harmonious interpretation provides another route. Where statutory language allows, courts may interpret domestic legislation consistently with the state’s international obligations. This method avoids conflict without necessarily treating the treaty as superior law.
Where treaties and statutes share the same rank, a later-in-time rule may control domestically. A later statute may displace an earlier treaty rule within national law. That outcome does not alter the state’s obligations internationally.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties prevents a state from relying on its internal law as justification for treaty non-performance (United Nations, 1969). A domestic court may still be required to apply a constitution or statute. International responsibility arises where the resulting conduct breaches an obligation binding on the state.
4.4 Interpretation Without Direct Enforcement
A treaty can influence domestic law even when it lacks direct effect. Courts may use it to resolve statutory ambiguity, identify the purpose of implementing legislation, or avoid an interpretation that would place the state in breach.
Treaties may also inform constitutional interpretation, especially where national rights provisions are broadly framed. Their legal weight depends on the constitutional system and cannot be assumed to be uniform.
An administrative authority’s failure to consider a treaty may affect the validity of its decision where domestic administrative law treats the treaty or the relevant international obligation as a legally relevant consideration. The treaty does not become directly enforceable merely because it informs the exercise of discretion.
Common-law courts may also refer to unincorporated treaties or non-directly effective provisions when developing existing doctrine. In such cases, the treaty operates as an interpretive or persuasive source rather than as controlling domestic law.
That distinction must remain clear. Interpretive influence can affect the outcome of a case, but it does not confer the same authority, priority, or remedial consequences as direct enforcement.
5. Treaties, Custom, and Individual Claims
The domestic operation of international law cannot be explained through treaty reception alone. Treaties and customary international law arise through different legal processes and may receive different treatment within the same constitutional system. Their practical significance is most visible when an individual seeks to rely on an international norm before a national court.
A state described as dualist in relation to treaties may recognize customary international law without specific legislation. A monist system may receive a treaty automatically while denying direct enforcement of particular provisions. The source of the rule, its domestic status, and the procedural basis of the claim must be examined separately.
5.1 Treaties on Two Legal Planes
A treaty binds the state on the international plane once it enters into force. It must be performed in good faith, and internal law cannot be invoked as justification for non-performance (United Nations, 1969, arts 26–27).
Domestic effect is governed by national constitutional law. Ratification may bind the state internationally without incorporating the treaty, altering existing statutes, or allowing individuals to invoke its provisions. Legislative approval of ratification is also distinct from legislation that gives the treaty substantive effect within domestic law.
Failure to implement a treaty does not invalidate the international obligation. It may, however, lead to international responsibility where the state’s conduct fails to comply with a binding treaty rule.
5.2 Customary International Law
Customary international law is identified through a general practice accepted as law (Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945, art. 38(1)(b); ILC, 2018). Unlike treaty law, it does not depend on ratification of a written instrument.
Domestic reception varies. Some constitutions expressly recognize general or customary international law. Legislation may give effect to particular rules, while some common-law systems treat established customary international law as part of domestic law, subject to constitutional and statutory limits.
Treaties and custom may consequently occupy different positions within one state. Legislative implementation may be required for treaties because the executive cannot alter domestic law through treaty-making alone, while a separate constitutional or common-law rule permits customary norms to operate without an incorporating statute.
Judicial recognition still requires evidence that the claimed customary rule exists and applies to the dispute. Courts should not treat treaty provisions, declarations, or repeated assertions as custom without sufficient evidence of state practice and acceptance as law.
5.3 Individuals as Holders of International Rights
International law can confer rights on individuals. Human rights treaties, consular agreements, labor conventions, and other instruments may identify persons as rights-holders even though states remain the parties to the treaty.
The existence of an international right does not itself provide a domestic remedy. A claimant must establish that the rule has legal effect within the national system, that the provision is capable of judicial application, and that domestic procedure provides standing, jurisdiction, and an available form of relief.
The same distinction applies to customary norms. A rule may protect individuals internationally, but its enforcement before a national court depends on the domestic treatment of custom and the procedural route available to the claimant.
5.4 The Danzig Courts Advisory Opinion
The Permanent Court of International Justice addressed these issues in the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig advisory opinion. The dispute concerned whether Danzig railway officials could rely before domestic courts on an international agreement governing their employment relationship with the Polish Railway Administration.
The Court accepted that an international agreement may be intended to create rights and obligations for individuals that national courts can enforce. On its interpretation of the agreement, the relevant provisions were capable of being invoked by the officials (PCIJ, 1928, p. 17).
The opinion did not establish a general rule that treaties possess direct effect. Its narrower significance is that the international form of an agreement does not prevent the parties from creating individual rights enforceable in national courts. The result depends on the agreement, the intention of the parties, and the domestic legal system in which the claim is brought.
6. Comparative Constitutional Practice
National systems rarely correspond to pure monist or dualist models. Their treatment of international law varies according to the source of the norm, its constitutional rank, and the authority granted to courts. The comparison below focuses on those differences rather than assigning a single label to each state.
6.1 Treaty Dualism in the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom follows a dualist approach to treaties. The executive may conclude and terminate treaties through prerogative powers, but an unincorporated treaty does not alter domestic law or create enforceable rights. Parliament must legislate where treaty performance requires changes to existing law. In R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the Supreme Court confirmed that ministers cannot use treaty powers to change domestic law without statutory authority (Miller, 2017).
Customary international law receives different treatment. English courts have regarded established custom as potentially forming part of the common law, subject to legislation and constitutional limits. In R v Jones, however, the House of Lords held that the customary international crime of aggression was not a domestic criminal offense without legislation. The judgment concerned criminal liability and the principle of legality; it did not establish that customary international law can never operate domestically (R v Jones, 2006).
Unincorporated treaties may still assist statutory interpretation, particularly where legislation was enacted to implement them. Interpretive use does not give the treaty independent domestic force.
6.2 Conditional Monism in the Netherlands
The Netherlands is commonly associated with monism, but domestic enforceability remains provision-specific. Article 93 of the Constitution provides that treaty provisions and decisions of international institutions capable, by their content, of binding all persons become binding after publication. Article 94 prevents the application of domestic statutory regulations that conflict with provisions possessing that quality (Constitution of the Netherlands, arts 93–94).
A treaty’s entry into the Dutch legal order does not mean that every clause has direct effect. Courts must determine whether the provision is sufficiently capable of binding individuals and public authorities without further legislation. Obligations requiring policy choices or institutional measures do not receive the same judicial operation as provisions that can be applied directly.
6.3 The Mixed Structure of United States Law
Article VI of the United States Constitution places treaties made under federal authority among the supreme law of the land. Domestic doctrine nevertheless distinguishes between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties.
A self-executing provision may be applied by courts without implementing legislation. A non-self-executing provision can bind the United States internationally while remaining unenforceable domestically until Congress acts. In Medellín v Texas, the Supreme Court held that the relevant treaty commitments did not themselves make an International Court of Justice judgment directly enforceable in United States courts (Medellín, 2008).
Self-executing treaties and federal statutes generally occupy the same domestic level. Under the later-in-time rule, courts apply the later measure where an irreconcilable conflict exists. The rule does not make a non-self-executing treaty judicially enforceable without legislation.
6.4 Hybrid Practice in Germany and India
Germany applies different constitutional rules to treaties and general international law. Article 59(2) of the Basic Law requires federal legislative consent for specified treaties, which ordinarily operate domestically through the resulting statute. Article 25 provides separately that the general rules of international law form part of federal law, take precedence over statutes, and directly create rights and duties for inhabitants of Germany (Basic Law, arts 25 and 59(2)).
India also combines legislative control with judicial reliance on international norms. Article 253 authorizes Parliament to legislate for treaty implementation. Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v Union of India distinguished treaties requiring changes to domestic law from agreements capable of implementation through existing executive authority (Maganbhai, 1969).
Indian courts have also used international law interpretively. In Vishaka v State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court relied on international standards consistent with fundamental rights to fill a legislative gap. In Gramophone Company of India v Birendra Bahadur Pandey, it accepted the domestic relevance of international law while maintaining that contrary legislation controls (Gramophone Company, 1984; Vishaka, 1997).
These systems confirm that constitutional practice is usually source-specific. Treaty reception, customary law, direct effect, statutory priority, and judicial interpretation may follow different rules within the same state.
7. The Decline of Pure Classification
Monism and dualism remain useful theories of legal structure, but they no longer provide complete descriptions of national practice. The comparative examples show that domestic outcomes depend on the source and content of the international rule, the constitutional framework, the institution applying it, and the remedy sought.
A system may receive one category of international law automatically while requiring legislation for another. It may recognize a treaty as part of domestic law yet deny direct judicial enforcement of particular provisions. Broad national labels conceal these differences.
7.1 Why National Systems Resist Single Labels
Treaties, customary international law, binding institutional decisions, and international criminal obligations can each be subject to different domestic rules. Criminal obligations often require legislation because the principle of legality prevents courts from creating offenses or penalties from international law alone. Human rights treaties may receive special constitutional treatment unavailable to other agreements.
Supranational law introduces a distinct category. Legal orders such as that of the European Union possess constitutional features, institutions, and doctrines of domestic effect that differ from ordinary public international law. Their treatment should not be generalized to international law as a whole.
Variation also occurs within a single treaty. One provision may be precise enough for judicial application, while another requires legislation, expenditure, or administrative action. Institutional authority can be equally decisive: executives conclude agreements, legislatures authorize domestic changes, and courts determine enforceability within constitutional limits.
Monism and dualism identify broad presumptions about unity, separation, and reception. They cannot predict the result of a dispute without a source-specific and institution-specific inquiry (Kunz, 2024).
7.2 Legal Pluralism and Constitutional Interaction
Legal pluralism begins from the coexistence of overlapping legal orders rather than forcing them into one hierarchy or treating them as wholly separate. International and domestic law may regulate the same conduct while maintaining distinct sources of authority. Courts and public institutions connect those orders through interpretation, implementation, and adjudication (Krisch, 2010; Nollkaemper, 2011).
This approach explains situations in which domestic and international legality diverge. Conduct may be lawful under national law yet breach an international obligation attributable to the state. An international finding of responsibility does not ordinarily nullify the domestic judgment unless the applicable legal regime gives the international decision that effect.
Constitutional approaches focus more closely on legality, democratic authority, rights protection, judicial competence, and the allocation of powers. They explain why domestic institutions can support compliance with international law while refusing to disregard constitutional limits. Neither pluralism nor constitutionalism supplies a universal rule of priority; both are scholarly frameworks for understanding interaction between legal orders.
7.3 A Functional Method of Analysis
A concrete dispute should begin by identifying the source of the international rule and determining whether it binds the state. The analysis must then establish how domestic law receives that source, where the rule stands in the national hierarchy, and whether the specific provision is capable of direct judicial application.
Where direct enforcement is unavailable, the rule may still influence statutory interpretation, constitutional reasoning, or administrative discretion. The final questions concern jurisdiction, standing, justiciability, limitation rules, and the remedies a court is authorized to grant.
This method retains the conceptual value of monism and dualism without allowing either label to decide the case. Their proper function is to frame the relationship between legal orders. The legal result depends on the particular norm, institution, procedure, and claim.
Also read
Conclusion
Monism and dualism remain central to the study of how international law relates to domestic legal systems. Monism explains the relationship through the unity of legal order, while dualism emphasizes the separate sources and authority of international and national law. Neither theory, however, provides a complete account of contemporary constitutional practice.
The domestic operation of an international rule depends on more specific questions. It is necessary to determine how the rule enters national law, what rank it possesses, whether the relevant provision has direct effect, and which institution has authority to apply it. Judicial enforcement may also depend on standing, justiciability, procedural limits, and the remedies available under domestic law.
The source of the norm remains decisive. Treaties, customary international law, institutional decisions, and rules belonging to supranational legal orders may receive different treatment within the same state. Even provisions within one treaty can produce different domestic consequences according to their wording, purpose, and need for further legislative action.
A state cannot be understood adequately by assigning it a single monist or dualist label. Those classifications identify broad assumptions about legal unity, separation, and reception, but they do not decide concrete disputes. A reliable analysis must move from theory to the particular norm, constitutional framework, institution, procedure, and claim through which international law is invoked domestically.
References
Anzilotti, D. (1956) Scritti di diritto internazionale pubblico. Vol. 2, Part 1. Padua: CEDAM.
Aust, A. (2005) Handbook of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Basic Law (1949) Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, adopted 23 May 1949, as amended, arts 25 and 59(2) [online]. Available at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html (Accessed: 20 July 2026).
Cassese, A. (1990) ‘Remarks on Scelle’s theory of “role splitting” (dédoublement fonctionnel) in international law’, European Journal of International Law, 1(1), pp. 210–231. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejil.a035763.
Constitution of India (1949) adopted 26 November 1949, entered into force 26 January 1950, art. 253, consolidated text as at 1 May 2026 [online]. Available at: https://legislative.gov.in/documents/constitution-of-india/constitution-of-india-AjN2EjMtQWa (Accessed: 20 July 2026).
Constitution of the Netherlands (2018) The Constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands 2018, arts 93–94 [online]. Available at: https://www.government.nl/documents/2019/02/28/the-constitution-of-the-kingdom-of-the-netherlands (Accessed: 20 July 2026).
Constitution of the United States (1787) signed 17 September 1787, effective 4 March 1789, art. VI, cl. 2 [online]. Available at: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript (Accessed: 20 July 2026).
Gramophone Company of India Ltd v Birendra Bahadur Pandey and others (1984) judgment, 21 February 1984, AIR 1984 SC 667, (1984) 2 SCC 534, 1984 SCR (2) 664 [online]. Available at: https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/9599.pdf (Accessed: 21 July 2026).
International Law Commission (ILC) (2018) Draft conclusions on identification of customary international law, with commentaries, adopted at the seventieth session, UN Doc. A/73/10, Chapter V [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_13_2018.pdf (Accessed: 21 July 2026).
Kelsen, H. (1920) Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts: Beitrag zu einer reinen Rechtslehre. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Kelsen, H. (1967) Pure Theory of Law. Translated by M. Knight. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Krisch, N. (2010) Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kunz, R. (2024) ‘International law and domestic law’, in González Hauck, S., Kunz, R. and Milas, M. (eds.) Public International Law: A Multi-Perspective Approach. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 143–154. doi: 10.4324/9781003451327-7.
Library of Congress (n.d.) ‘Legal effect of treaties on prior Acts of Congress’, Constitution Annotated [online]. Available at: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-1-7/ALDE_00012958/ (Accessed: 22 July 2026).
Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v Union of India and another (1969) judgment, 9 January 1969, AIR 1969 SC 783, 1969 SCR (3) 254, (1970) 3 SCC 400 [online]. Available at: https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/1860.pdf (Accessed: 22 July 2026).
Medellín v Texas (2008) judgment, 25 March 2008, 552 US 491 [online]. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-984.pdf (Accessed: 22 July 2026).
Miller, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) judgment, 24 January 2017, [2017] UKSC 5, [2018] AC 61 [online]. Available at: https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0196 (Accessed: 22 July 2026).
Nollkaemper, A. (2011) National Courts and the International Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) (1928) Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig, advisory opinion, 3 March 1928, PCIJ Series B No. 15 [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/pcij-series-b (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
R v Jones (Margaret) and others (2006) judgment, 29 March 2006, [2006] UKHL 16, [2007] 1 AC 136 [online]. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060329/jones-1.htm (Accessed: 23 July 2026).
Scelle, G. (1932–1934) Précis de droit des gens: principes et systématique. 2 vols. Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey.
Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945) adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, annexed to the Charter of the United Nations, art. 38(1)(b) [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/statute (Accessed: 24 July 2026).
Triepel, H. (1899) Völkerrecht und Landesrecht. Leipzig: C.L. Hirschfeld.
United Nations (1969) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980, 1155 UNTS 331 [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf (Accessed: 24 July 2026).
Vishaka and others v State of Rajasthan and others (1997) judgment, 13 August 1997, AIR 1997 SC 3011, (1997) 6 SCC 241 [online]. Available at: https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/13856.pdf (Accessed: 24 July 2026).
