The Relationship Between International Law and Municipal Law
The relationship between International Law (the law of nations) and Municipal Law (domestic or national law) is one of the most sophisticated puzzles in legal theory. At its core, this relationship explores how a treaty signed in Geneva or a resolution passed in New York finds its way into the courtrooms of London, Lagos, or New Delhi. Does international law automatically become part of a nation’s legal fabric, or does it sit outside the gates, waiting for an invitation?
Understanding this interplay is not merely an academic exercise; it determines how human rights are protected, how trade is regulated, and how sovereign states maintain order in a globalized world. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the theories, application methods, and judicial precedents that define this legal frontier.
The Theoretical Foundations: Monism vs. Dualism
To understand how these two systems interact, we must first look at the two competing schools of thought.
Monism
Monists view the entire legal universe as a single, unified system. In this view, International Law and Municipal Law are just two different branches of the same tree.
- The Concept: If a state ratifies a treaty, it automatically becomes the “law of the land” without needing a local act of parliament.
- The Proponent: Hans Kelsen argued that the validity of all law derives from a single “Grundnorm” (basic norm).
- Practical Example: If Country A is a Monist state and signs a treaty banning a specific chemical, a citizen can go to a local court the next day and sue a company using that chemical, even if the local legislature hasn’t passed a new law yet.
Dualism
Dualists argue that International Law and Municipal Law are two entirely separate systems operating on different planes.
- The Concept: International law governs relations between States, while Municipal law governs relations between individuals and the State. For an international rule to apply domestically, it must be “transformed” into local law.
- The Proponents: Lassa Oppenheim and Heinrich Triepel.
- Practical Example: In a Dualist state like the UK, if the government signs a treaty on environmental protection, that treaty has no effect in domestic courts until the UK Parliament passes an Act (like the Environment Act) to give it life.
The Doctrine of Incorporation vs. Transformation
How does a rule of international law actually enter the domestic sphere? There are two primary “bridges.”
The Doctrine of Incorporation (Customary International Law)
This doctrine suggests that Customary International Law (CIL)—rules arising from general state practice—is automatically part of municipal law unless it contradicts an existing Act of Parliament.
- Leading Case: Blackstone’s Commentaries and later confirmed in Barbuit’s Case (1737), where it was held that the law of nations is part of the law of England.
- Modern Reference: Trendtex Trading Corp v Central Bank of Nigeria [1977]. The court held that the rules of international law regarding “restrictive state immunity” were incorporated into English law automatically as international practice changed.
The Doctrine of Transformation (Treaty Law)
This is the “Dualist” tool. It posits that treaties are not self-executing. They require an enabling statute to “transform” the treaty obligations into domestic rights and duties.
- Leading Case: Attorney-General for Canada v. Attorney-General for Ontario [1937] (The Labour Conventions Case).
- Judicial Observation: Lord Atkin famously stated: “Within the British Empire, there is no such thing as a self-executing treaty.” This means the executive can sign a treaty, but the legislature must bake it into the domestic legal “cake.”
State Practice: A Comparative Analysis
Different countries lean toward different theories depending on their constitutions.
| Country | Approach | Key Judicial Authority |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Dualist Leanings | Maclaine Watson v Department of Trade and Industry [1989] |
| United States | Mixed Approach | Medellín v. Texas (2008) |
The United Kingdom (Dualist Leanings)
In the UK, the “Crown” (Executive) has the power to make treaties, but only “Parliament” (Legislature) can change the law. Therefore, treaties must be transformed.
Leading Case: Maclaine Watson v Department of Trade and Industry [1989] (International Tin Council Case). The House of Lords held that the courts could not enforce rights under a treaty that had not been incorporated into English law by statute.
The United States (The “Supreme Law” Clause)
The US takes a “Mixed” approach. Under Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, treaties are the “supreme Law of the Land.” However, the US Supreme Court distinguishes between Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing treaties.
Leading Case: Medellín v. Texas (2008). The Supreme Court ruled that even if an international body (the ICJ) issues a judgment, it is not binding in US state courts unless the treaty is self-executing or Congress has passed implementing legislation.
The Supremacy Debate: Which Law Prevails?
What happens when a domestic law says “Yes” and an international law says “No”?
In International Tribunals
In the eyes of an international court (like the ICJ), International Law always prevails. A state cannot use its own internal constitution as an excuse for failing to perform a treaty obligation.
- Leading Case: Alabama Claims Arbitration (1872). The tribunal ruled that Britain could not plead a lack of domestic regulations to escape liability for failing to maintain neutrality during the American Civil War.
- Legal Maxim: Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) explicitly states: “A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”
In Municipal Courts
In domestic courts, the domestic statute usually prevails if there is a direct conflict. However, judges use the “Presumption of Compatibility.” They assume that Parliament did not intend to break international law and will interpret the domestic law in a way that aligns with international obligations.
Leading Case: Salomon v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1967]. The court held that if a statute is ambiguous, it should be interpreted in a way that is consistent with international treaty obligations.
Practical Examples of Interaction
- Human Rights: The European Convention on Human Rights (International) was incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998 (Municipal). Before 1998, UK citizens had to go to Strasbourg to fight for these rights; now, they can do so in London.
- Diplomatic Immunity: The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is a treaty. For a diplomat to avoid a speeding ticket in a local city, the local law (like the Diplomatic Privileges Act in the UK) must recognize that treaty.
- Maritime Boundaries: If the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) grants a country a 200-mile Economic Zone, that country must update its domestic “Maritime Zones Act” to enforce fishing rights against local poachers.
Conclusion
The relationship between international and municipal law is a dynamic bridge rather than a wall. While Monism offers the ideal of a unified global legal order, Dualism protects the sovereignty of national legislatures. Modern legal systems are increasingly moving toward a “Harmonization” approach, where domestic courts look to international law as a persuasive guide, and international law respects the constitutional frameworks of states.
As a student of law, we must remember the golden rule: In an International Court, the treaty wins; in a Domestic Court, the local statute (properly interpreted) is the final word.
Written By: Judge Nazmul Hasan
Senior Judicial Magistrate | Prime Minister Gold Medalist
Profile Overview
p>Nazmul Hasan is a highly accomplished judicial officer and legal scholar from Bangladesh, distinguished by a rare blend of judicial service excellence and unparalleled academic achievement.
Professional Expertise
| Title | Achievement / Service | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Senior Judicial Magistrate | Bangladesh Judicial Service (BJS) | Serving as a Senior Judicial Magistrate, demonstrating profound expertise in dispensing justice and administering court procedures. |
| Service Rank | 11th Bangladesh Judicial Service (BJS) | Secured the 7th Merit Position overall in the rigorous 11th BJS competitive examination, marking an exceptional start to a distinguished judicial career. |
Academic Distinction
| Qualification | Institution | Recognition |
|---|---|---|
| LL.B. (Hons.) | University of Rajshahi | First Class First (Top of the Cohort), signifying ultimate academic mastery in undergraduate legal studies. |
| LL.M. | University of Rajshahi | Achieved First Class standing, further solidifying expertise and specialized knowledge in advanced legal disciplines. |
Honors & Achievements (Awards of Excellence)
- Prime Minister Gold Medalist (2017)
Awarded the nation’s most prestigious academic honor for outstanding performance across all disciplines at the university level. - Agrani Bank Gold Medalist for Academic Excellence (2023)
Recognized with this distinguished medal for sustained academic excellence and leadership in the field of law.
Contact Information
Email: [email protected]
Connect with Experienced Lawyers in Bangladesh
Find trusted lawyers in Bangladesh offering legal advice, litigation support, corporate law services, and personal legal assistance.
