?

What are the difference Monism theory and Dualist theory

The terms monist and dualist are terms used to describe the theories that have
been formulated to explain the inter relationship between the international law
.and the national law

Over the last century there has been unprecedented growth in the premise of
international law. It has developed in huge proponents as the world grows forth
to become what some scholars call a global village. Thus it is of utmost
importance that we give the theoretical approaches to this inter relation a lot of
consideration. According to J.G Starke there is a danger that there may be a lot of
.conflicts if such development is not treated with certain weight

According to Dixon, the monist theory supposes that international law and
national law are simply two components of a single body of knowledge called
‘law’. ‘Law’ is seen as a single entity of which ‘national’ and ‘international’
versions are merely particular manifestation. In the case of conflicts between the
two systems, international law is said to prevail. He is also of the idea that incase
of any would be conflict between the two laws, international law is said to
.prevail. An explanation to this has been offered by various theorists and scholars

Hans Kelsen offers an explanation as to why international law is deemed

supreme. He sees the superiority of international law as a direct consequence of
his “basic norm” of all law. This basic norm (fundamental principle from which
all law gains its validity) is that the states should behave as they have
customarily behaved. Thus international law ranks higher in the hierarchical
.order and national law should be subject to such norms

To know the relationship between International law and Municipal law, it is

important to know what these to laws are. International law is the rules and
conducts which deals with the conduct of states. To put into simpler terms, the
international law is a set of rules in which the countries use in dealing with each
.other. The Municipal law is the internal law of the land
There are different theories that distinguish the difference of the two laws. The
dualists or the pluralist theory states that international law and municipal law
are different with each other in terms of heir source, the relations they regulate,
.and their substance

Both of the laws differ in source because the international law came from treaties
and customs grown among states while the municipal law is a product of local or
domestic custom. They differ in the relations they regulate. How? The
international law regulates the relationship of states with one another and is
concerned with the external and foreign affairs of the state while the municipal
law regulates the relationship of individuals under the state and is concerned
.with the domestic affairs of the state. They also differ in their substance

The international law is a law between sovereign states while municipal law is
the law of the sovereign over the individuals in the state. In this theory when a
conflict arises as to whether what law should be used in dealing with an issue,
the municipal law prevails. The dualists are positivists that biases greatly on
state sovereignty. Next theory is the monistic theory or monism. In this theory,
the international law and the municipal or domestic law are under one system of
law. But there are two monistic theories that states what law should be used in
.settling disputes or the likes

One monistic theory has a stand that international law is superior to municipal
law which is supported by Kelsen. It holds that international law is superior to
municipal law because monistic theorists believe that international law can
instill domestic order. Kelsen also believes that the international law
encompasses every aspect of human life. Monistic theorists also see international
law as a collective outcome of different local sovereigns. The other monistic
theory believes that municipal law is superior to the international law

Keeping international law and domestic law as separate entities, then, is

important. A state under the dualist doctrine may deal with the consequences of
international law (typically it affects that state’s position among other
international entities) without having the validity of its internal laws
undermined. Conversely, a state’s domestic law may not be used at the
international level in order to defend its actions. If a legal issue arises which
international law doesn’t cover, then a state’s domestic law can be referenced,
but not enforced at the international level. In conclusion, one can assume that the
generally accepted view describes that international and municipal law are
supreme in their own spheres. However, one can also argue that there has been a
fusion of the operating fields of both concepts. In the spirit of modernization,
both the municipal and international courts have recognized the need to resort to
.the other’s sphere of operation as aids to interpretation