Relationship Between International Law And Municipal Law With

Reference To Indian Constitution – Aditya Singh

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research paper is to discuss about what are Municipal Laws and International Laws,
along with the relationship and connection of Municipal and International Laws with reference to the
provisions laid down under Indian Constitution.

It also helps to understand how they are linked and their theories of their relationship have evolved and
developed with time and how it is incorporated in our constitution.

It is also important to get a clear idea of the all these terms along with their differences to have a clear picture
of their relationship.
 1. INTRODUCTION

 Knowing how the two laws are related is crucial to establish a connection between
international and municipal law. Generally speaking, these two set of systems are usually
considered distict legal systems having their own set of laws and provisions.
 In situations where there is a conflict between Municipal and International Law, the Court
must state whether it is the municipal or the international law, which will prevail over
other.
 “The subject of importance” (which law will have priority over) is the main direction
which guides international courts and tribunals.
 Whether international laws can be implemented by the municipal courts, it is still directed
by the constitution of the country along with municipal laws. Without the assistance of
national legal systems, international law cannot function effectively and would become
irrelevant1.
 Both are separate and independent set of laws having their own importance at both
domestic and international level.
 International law regulates the behaviour of states whereas domestic law regulates the
behaviour of states, its organs and the individuals.
 Therefore, International law directly or indirectly deals with or is concerned with welfare
of people
 The thing is that both have their own spheres one at global level and one at domestic level,
so conflicts arises where it is difficult to determine which body of law is to be followed
and how both of them should be harmonized in order to reduce conflicts.
 So let us understand what is meant by Municipal Law and International law and their
relationship in India.

INTERNATIONAL LAW
1
Shagarika K. R., “Relationship between International Law and Municipal Law” Vol 1 Issue 2 Ex Gratia Law Journal (2021)

2
  International law regulates the connection and interactions between states and other
subjects of international law, such as international organizations, individuals etc. by
establishing norms, rules, and standards that countries agree to follow in their relations
with one another.
 Oppenheim: “International Law is the body of rules legally binding on States in their
intercourse with each other. These rules are primarily those which govern the relations
of States, but States are not the only subjects of International Law. International
Organizations and, to some extent, individuals may be the subjects of rights conferred
and duties imposed upon International Law”.
 Black's Law Dictionary: “The legal system governing the relationship between
nations; more modernly the Law of International relations, embracing not only nations
but also such participants as International organizations and individuals”.
 Hall: According to Hall, “International Law consists in certain rules of conduct which
the modern civilized states regard as being binding on them in their relationships with
one another”.

MUNICIPAL LAW

 Municipal Law also known as country’s National Law, are the laws which are
applicable “within the domestic territory of a country”.
 According to Black's Law Dictionary, “municipal law is described as the ordinances
and other laws applicable inside a city, municipality, or other municipal government
units”.
 Municipal law refers to “the laws that apply to a specific state or city and the
government organizations that operate within those cities or counties. This can apply
to various topics, including police authority, urban development, educational policies,
and real estate taxes”.

3
 2. AREA OF CONFLICT

 In circumstances where there is dispute or contradiction between municipal law and

international law, courts are stuck in circumstances where they have to decide which law
should prevail.
 The primary question is one of primacy: “does international law take precedence over
municipal law, or vice versa”?
 This question is of great concern because these situations and circumstances and their
resolution affects the status , enforcement and effectiveness of international law.
 International courts and tribunals are mostly in favour of upholding the supremacy of
international law to maintain the status of international legal system.
 However, in cases where a dispute or a conflict is brought before a municipal court, the
answer depends largely on the constitutional framework of the state in question. As a
result more importance is given to municipal laws.
 This situation gives rise to conflict – which law will prevail? Municipal Law or
International Law? Hence the need to study the relationship between both these set of
laws…..

4
 3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL AND MUNICIPAL LAW

 It is believed that the municipal law controls and guides individual behavior inside the
State, whereas international law regulates country to country affairs and relations.
However, the scope of international law has enhanced and expanded quicky, and it now
“dictates and controls not just state-to-state relations but also member-to-member ties in
the international community”. At present, international law applies not only to states but
also to “individuals and non-state entities, and both rules are in sync with one another”2.
 Both these, “municipal and international laws” contributes towards the smooth
functioning at global level. It promotes mutual understanding within nations which creates
a good global environment for progress and development.
 To get a clear idea of their relationship we have to understand various theories of their
relationship.

THEORIES OF RELATIONSHIP

 The relationship of International Law and Municipal Law can be mainly explained by
two principal theories namely “Monism and Dualism”. The former theory states that
“International Law and Municipal Law are two components but complementary to one
single system”. While the later states that, “both the laws are entirely different, distinct
and independent legal system”.
 There are 3 more theories which are Specific Adoption Theory , Delegation Theory
and Trandformation Theory.

MONISM
2
Municipal Law and International Law, by Radhika Saxena available at www.indianjudiciarynotes.com/muni cipal-law-
and-international-law

5
 o International law can be implemented only at the International level and the
Municipal law operates only within its domestic limits. However,
the advocates of natural law argues that “Municipal and International law form
a single legal system, this approach is commonly known as Monism”.
o Monist theory was formulated by German scholars namely “Moser, Hegel,
Bergbohm, Zorn, Wenzel” in the late 18th century and in the 19th century by
“Wright, Kelsen and Duguit”.
o In a true monist country, there is “no need for the translation of International
law into Municipal law”. Once the state gives assent to the treaty, it gets
automatically incorporated in its municipal law. This act of ratification of an
International treaty or obligation will on it own,immediately “incorporate
international principles into states’s Municipal law”, (including customary
International law).
o International law can be implemented by a Municipal Court, and can be
invoked by citizens, depending on the fact that whether the international law is
translated into the state’s Municipal law or not. A municipal court can rule out
any law which is found to be unconstitutional or if it contradicts International
principles.
o In case of a true monist state, if the national law conflicts or contradicts
International law then in such situation, it becomes null and void, no matter
whether “it is of constitutional nature or not”. For instance, a state ratifies or
gives it assent to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
however, a few of its national laws are violating or are in conflict with the
conventions rights of the individuals suffering from a disability. Then, a citizen
of that country, can request the national courts for the implementation of that
treaty, who has been denied of the rights provided by the treaty.
o Kelsen Grundnorm theory: According to him International and Municipal
law is nothing but “manifestations of a single unit of law”. Kelsen’s belief in
the supremacy of International law is the result of his “basic norm”, which
states that: ‘states should behave as they customarily have behaved”.

6
 o “International law is supreme in nature as it represents a legal order” which is
given more importance than Municipal laws, reason being that “the
International law is derived from the state’s practice on the other hand the
Municipal law gains its power from the state’s internal affairs”.
o According to him, International law is placed at the top of the pyramid
(according to his grundnorm theory).
o His statements comes to the conclusion that “all international law rules were
superior over domestic law, that any municipal statute that conflicted with
international law was inherently null and void, and that international law
principles were immediately applicable in states' domestic spheres.”

7
 DUALISM

o Unlike Monists, dualists have their focus on the difference between Municipal
law and International law and have stressed for “the adoption of International
treaties in the Municipal law of the State”.
o According to dualists, the international law will not be a law if the state does
not adopt it.
o The dualist view was first formulated and developed by the prominent German
scholar “Heinrich Triepel” in 1899.
o Triepel contended that both international law and municipal law operates and
exists on different levels and dimesnion.
o International law controls and regulates “the relationships between states and
other international entities”, while municipal law regulates “the relationships
between individuals and between individuals and the state within a particular
country”.
o As per Tripel, these two set of laws works or functions independently of one
another, and none of them can be dominant over the other in its respective
areas.
o This theory was later adopted and presented by the Italian jurist “Dionisio
Anzilotti” in 1929. Like Triepel, Anzilotti argued that “international law and
municipal law are fundamentally different in nature and scope”.
o International law is concerned with how nations and other international players
interact with one another, whereas municipal law is concerned with a state's
internal affairs, regulating the behavior of its population and the structure of its
government.
o Triepel distinguished between state law and international law. For him,
international and municipal law exist as different, distinct sets of systems.
o Triepel made following observations on the relationship between International
law and state law:
o Firstly he stated that, International law and Municipal law differed in
the specific social ties and relations that they govern; State law deals

8
 with the individuals and International law regulates the relations
between States.

o Secondly, he argues that their juridical origins are different; the source
of Municipal law comes from the will of the State itself, the source of
International law is the common will of States.

o There exist differences in: “subjects, sources and content” additionally,

it requires “transformation of International law into Municipal law to
make International law binding on Municipal authorities”.

9
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MONISM AND DUALIST THEORY

MONISM DUALISM
As per the advocates of natural law, Municipal law Municipal law and International Law are two
and International Law forms a single legal system. different and distinct legal systems.

Monism is supported by the advocates of natural Municipal law and International Law are two
law. different and distinct legal systems.

In Monism there exists no need for translation of In a dualist country there exists a need for
International into Municipal law in order to give it translation of International into Municipal law in
an effect. order to give it an effect.

In a true monisitc country if a national law In a true dualistic country, if a national law
contradicts International Law then it becomes null contradicts International law then it becomes
and void. doesn’t becomes null and void, unless it is already
translated in its municipal law

In a monistic State International Law automatically International law does not get automatically
gets embedded in the Municipal law and the embedded in the Municipal law.
contradicting part gets automatically translated
away.
Supporters of Monism: Kelson. Supporter: Hersch Lauterpatch, Triepel.

State which follows Monistic approach: France , Country which follows: India , Canada, United
Spain , Belgium , Netherlands, USA. Kingdom, Austalia , New Zealand.3

3
Article on relation between International law and Municipal law https://blog.ipleaders.in/international-and-municipal-law-an-
ultimate-guide/#:~:text=As%20per%20the%20beliefs%20of,legal%20systems%20on%20their%20own.

10
 SPECIFIC ADOPTION THEORY

 Positivists argue that international law cannot be directly applied to state law.
 It must be formally accepted in the context of municipal law in order to be enforced.
In short, international law can only be used in the context of municipal law if local
legislation i.e the municipal law permits or approves it.
 Only when municipal law allows or incorporates international law, then it it be applied
in municipal law.
 It has, for instance, adopted “the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights as part of the
1993 Protection of Human Rights Act”.
 International treaties as such, “it is maintained, cannot be enforced in the municipal
field unless they are specifically adapted or transformed”. The Indian Parliament
passed “The Diplomatic Relations Act, 1972”, to accept “the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations, 1969”. “The Indian Extradition Act of 1962, the United Nations
Convention Against Apartheid Act of 1981, the Anti-Hijacking Act of 1982”, etc.
 In Jolly George V. The Bank of Cochin, the Supreme Court of India declared that
“while the member nations positive commitment drives legislative action at home, this
will not automatically make the covenant binding under Law in India”.
 The criticism of this theory was that “this perspective is incorrect in terms of all
international law because many elements of international law (particularly customary
rules) are implemented in the realm of municipal law without formal adoption”. 4

TRANSFORMATION THEORY

4
Dr. Pandhare B. D, LC 0703 Public International Law (2017)

11
  As per this theory, “the transformation of the treaty into national laws is the only way
to justify the application of international accords provisions to individuals”. The
transition is “more than a mere formality; it is a need”. Exponents of this idea argue
that “to apply international law in the realm of municipal law, the norms of
international law must be transformed”. As international law becomes more widely
accepted, it undergoes various changes.
 It cannot be applied to Municipal Law unless “it is transformed”. States use particular
"transformational" mechanisms to implement treaties and norms into their municipal
laws5.
 According to this theory, incorporation occurs when a national constitution or statute
says that all state officials, nationals, and other people living on the state's territory are
required to respect or follow the present or future international law.
 As a result, any applicable rule of international law, whether customary or treaty law,
gets automatically incorporated into national law through an internal rule, without the
need for a specific national law to include it.
 As a result, whenever a country enters a treaty or a new customary rule emerges,
governments must comply without any question.

DELEGATION THEORY

 According to the developers of this idea, powers and functions have been defined
under “the constitutions of various states under the statutory principles of international
5
Antonio Cassese, Public International Law, Oxford University Press, (2001)

12
 law to assure how and to what degree these powers are exercised”. Domestic law is
based on treaties. It does not lead “to transformation or the enactment of new
legislation”.
 As a result, there is no need of coversion or specific adoption in every situation. In the
realm of State law, “the rules of international law are applied in accordance with the
process and system in place in each State”, as set out in its Constitutions6.
 International law entrusted the rule-making authority to each state based on their
method and system, as well as the Constitution and rules of the treaty or convention
they sign and adhere to. According to this idea, the international law principles known
as “Constitutional norms of international/treaties” delegate a right to each state
constitution, allowing each state to evaluate or select for itself when and how the
regulations of an international treaty or convention will come into effect and how they
will be implemented.

• While this approach can be interpreted as a reaction to Dualism and positivism, it

raises questions about the constitutional principles of international law. When and how
did these rules delegate power to state constitutions? Every nation is equal and
independent, and no power over or above it is acknowledged.

 Landmark English and American decisions have proved that international law is
incorporated into their respective municipal laws. The United States has continuously
followed the notion that international law is an extension of domestic law.
 All international agreements that the “United States has ratified and customary
international law that has acquired the United States' consent are obligatory on
American courts, even when they conflict with statute provisions. There is a
presumption that the U.S. Congress didn't want to overrule international law in times
of conflict”7.

6
www.brainscape.com/flashcards/relationship-between-international-law
7
Dr. Pandhare B. D, LC 0703 Public International Law (2017)

13
 4. INDIAN APPROACH

1. Article 51
 According to the provisions in this Article, “the state has the responsibility to promote
international peace and security in the nation and maintain just and honourable
relations with other nations”.

14
  The Article specifically mentions that “the state shall respect all the provisions related
to international law and shall make its best efforts to fulfil its treaty obligations and
also encourage the settlement of international disputes with the help of arbitration”.
 This Article tells “the state to respect international law but does not explicitly make it
a part of the Indian laws”.
 Article 51, which mandates “the State to endeavour to promote international peace and
security, to maintain good relations with other nations, to respect international law and
to settle international dispute by peaceful means”, is inspired from the “Declaration of
Havana” adopted on 30th November, 1939.

2. Article 73:
 “The executive power of the union is extended to all the matters with respect to which
the parliament has the power to make laws subject to the provisions of the constitution
or to any other laws made by the parliament”.
 Since Article 73 of the Constitution of India puts “no restriction on the powers of the
executive with relation to international law, this allows the executive to enter into any
type of treaty obligations”.

3. Article 253:
 It is the specific Article that gives “the parliament the special power to legislate and
pass laws in order to implement international agreements”.
 According to Article 253, “the parliament has the sole right to make laws for the
whole or any part of the territory of India with the motive of executing an international
treaty, agreement or convention with other countries or any decision made at any
association or conference”.
 Thus Article 253 empowers “the parliament to pass laws on matters mentioned in list
II of schedule VII in order to execute international treaties, agreements and
conventions”.

 The Indian Constitution via articles 51, 73, 245 and 246 have given importance to
“international laws and treaties”. It is to be noted that “clause (c) of the article 51”
(Directive Principles of the State Policy) mentions “international laws” and “treaty

15
 obligations” specifically. It can be said that article 51(c) does not provide any clear
guidance in reference to the status of international laws in India as well as the
relationship between international laws and municipal laws but according to Professor
C.H. Alexandrowicz, who is of the view that the expression “international law” used
in article 51 refers to “Customary International Law and treaty obligation stands
for treaties.”
 In light of this, India does not adhere to the Blackstonian Doctrine, which holds that
the law of the nations is a component of the law of the lands. Article 51(c) of the
Indian Constitution serves as the guiding stone for Indian practice and international
custom. In this regard, Prof. C.H. Alexandrowicz's words can be quoted. International
custom has been abolished in India, and accepting this approach merely means that
customary international law is not automatically incorporated into Indian legislation.
Thus, we can see that international law has a lower status in India because it is
included into Article 51(c), which is not obligatory in nature.
 The Indian Constitution says that international treaties are the supreme law of the land.
According to Article 73 of the Indian Constitution, the Union's executive power
extends to the Parliament's legislative power, although Article 53 stipulates that the
President of India exercises executive power directly or indirectly. Article 246
specifies that Parliament has exclusive power over the union list, i.e., the list 1 of the
7th schedule, and entry 14 of list 1 deals with entering into treaties and agreements
with foreign countries, while Article 253 states that Parliament could create laws for
the whole or any part of India, but does not explicitly spell out whether legislation by
Parliament is required for the implementation of treaties and agreements.
 The approach of the Indian judiciary puts an important question about the Indian
approach towards international law, that is of monism or dualism. Courts have, in late
2020, have asserted that “India follows dualism”8.Which is incorrect. Both Monism
and dualism are raional ideas and views which do not give a clear picture about the
real status of their interactions between them in India. India does not confirm to strict
dualism and has undoubtedly worked hard to incorporate the jurisprudence with
international law developments that have not been translated into domestic legislation.
Domestic courts treat international law as part of domestic Indian law unless there are
8
Union of India v. AGRICAS LLP., (2020) SCC Online SC 675, 44 (India).

16
 differences between the two, though on paper, the Constitutional scheme is based on
dualism.
 There have been various occasions wherein international conventions and rules have
been invoked to promote constitutional rights in spite of absence of a domestic law
which incorporates the relevant international law.
 This approach does not conform to formal dualism. Further proof is found in G.
Sunderrajan v. Union of India9, wherein the court referenced the Joint Convention on
the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste
Management to draw attention to the importance of safety concerns and environmental
assessment within the international community while acknowledging that India was
not a signatory to the Convention.
 The Supreme Court’s refusal to acknowledge these blurred lines of international law’s
adoption by the domestic legal regime is an indication of a rather conservative and
limited understanding.
 This leads to the question of separation of powers between the judiciary and
legislature in India—whether the Indian judiciary should, itself, reform the
jurisprudence of international law within the domestic framework without the help of
the legislature.
 The executive, a constitutionally elected body of the nation-state, makes decisions on
international treaties, but often under the influence of other nations. This is furthered
by the fact that it is extremely difficult to hold Western countries accountable. To
make matters worse, when Indian courts fail to look at the history behind an
international law rule, democratic deficit is advanced, making it impossible for them
to place these rules within India’s socioeconomic context.
 The Indian Constitution does not mandate courts to implement international law. The
ideal way forward would be to make such an amendment to this effect in the
Constitution44 though realistically, amending the Indian Constitution is a slow
process. Moreover, given its colonial history, as evidenced by the Constituent
Assembly Debates, a developing country like India may be wary of the overspread of
international law within its domestic jurisprudence.

9
G. Sunderrajan v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 620 (India)

17
  In such circumstances, the Indian Judiciary is the most suitable organ for enhancing
international law jurisprudence within the municipal legal apparatus. Therefore,
systemic integration within domestic jurisprudence is the most plausible way forward.
This can be achieved by courts citing international instruments more often.
 Indian judges have traditionally played a proactive role in the development of laws as
instruments for empowerment. This is evidenced through numerous interim guidelines
that the judiciary has developed while waiting for the legislature to fill a void in the
law.
 The difficulties in applying international law within the domestic framework have
multiplied in the past couple of decades with increasingly changing norms.
Specifically for India, there have been multiple doubts cast on the feasibility of a
system in which the judiciary plays a role more extensive than that of a simple
upholder of law, often venturing along the lines of legislating. But it cannot be denied
that such an activist role of the Indian judiciary has furthered law as an instrument for
empowerment under both domestic law and international law.
 The monist approach of this formally dualist country has been a source of the limited
discussions on international law within the legal space. With increasing globalization
and vast intercountry disputes, the Indian judiciary can expect to come across more
frequent brushes with international law.
 Ideally, the parliament should play a proactive role in preempting the increased
influence of international law through its legislative responsibilities, and the judiciary
should equip itself for a deeper jurisprudential analysis of international law regimes in
domestic cases, cautiously adding it to the domestic jurisprudence.

5. JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Shri Krishna Sharma v The State of West Bengal:

18
 In this case the Calcutta HC stated that “if the Indian statute are in conflict with the
international law, then the Indian Courts will have to obey the law of their land. In
adopting such the courts will look that such interpretation dose not comes in conflict with
the rights and obligations of the International law and if such situation arises the
municipal law may prevail”.

2. ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla :

After the emergency which was declared in the year 1975 under the MISA several
oppositions were arrested. Justice Beg stated that “UDHR is part of Indian convention and
since article 21 is suspended no relief were to be provided. He also rejected UDHR being
part of municipal law. Justice H.R. Khanna held his dissenting opinion and stated that
when there is a conflict between the municipal law and international customary law, the
court shall give municipal law. But if two interpretation of municipal law is possible the
court would go for such construction that municipal law should go in harmony with the
international law or treaty obligations”.

3. Birma v State:

In this case the court stated that “treaties which are the part of international law don
not form the part of the municipal law unless it is expressly incorporated by the
legislative authority. In the mentioned case the treaty remained a treaty only and no
action was taken to incorporate the same in municipal law. So, the treaty cannot be
regarded as a part of municipal law”.

4. Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala

Honorable Chief Justice Sikri in this case said that “in situation where the language of
municipal law is not clear or contrary then the support of international law must be

19
 taken. Article 253 gives power to the parliament of our country to make laws for
giving effect to international treaties and conventions”.

5. Vellore Citizen Welfare Forum v Union of India:

Referring to the precautionary principle and the Polluter pays principle as part of
the environmental law of the country, held as follows:
“Even otherwise, once these principles are accepted as part of the Customary
International Law there would be no difficulty in accepting them as part of the
domestic law. It is almost accepted proposition of law that the rules of Customary
International Law which are not contrary to the municipal law shall be deemed to have
been incorporated in the domestic law and shall be followed by the Courts of Law”.

6. Shin Kumar Sharma & Ors. v Union of India:

In this case the court held that “In India, treaties do not have the force of law and
consequently obligations arising there from not be enforceable in Municipal Courts
unless the same is backed by sanction”.

7. State of West Bengal vs Kesoram industries (2004):

The supreme court emphasized that “India obeys the doctrine of dualism and stated
that any treaty that has been entered into by India cannot become the law of the land
unless the parliament passes a law as under section 253 of the constitution of India.
In the case of the court utilized the principles of the Universal declaration of human
rights while widening the scope of Article 21 of the constitution by providing security
to rape victims of foreign nationals”.

8. Jolly George Verghese vs Bank of Cochin (1980):

20
 The supreme court has reflected a dualist approach of the Indian legal system. Justice
Krishna Iyer stated that “unless the municipal law is altered to accommodate the
treaty, what is binding on the court is the former and not the latter”.

9. Civil Rights Vigilance Committee S.L.R.C. College of Law Bangalore V. Union of India.
While assessing this case, the High Court of Karnataka “analyzed the relation between
International Law and Municipal Law. With the increasing relevance of International
Law on the global and municipal scene, several unique and novel questions about the
relationship between the two are beginning to be raised. The Hon'ble High Court, on
the other hand, decided that because municipal and international law are based on
distinct sources, the two systems can become incompatible”.

10. Shiv Kant Shukla v State of West Bengal

The court said that in case of conflict between International law and Municipal law,
municipal law will be given priority over international law.

11. ADM Jabalpur v Shiv Kant Shukla

In case of conflict between International Law and Municipal law, municipal law will
be preferred but the main focus would be on harmonization between the said set of
laws.

21
 6. CONCLUSION
 • The constitution is regarded as the supreme law of the land. As a result, when
examining India's commitment to international law, the constitution serves as an
important document, which outlines India's perspective and approach to the growing
area of international law. As previously stated, India's links to international law trace
back to its pre-independence status as one of the United Nations' founding members.
 The “constitution of India”, adopted in the year 1950 was made keeping in mind
“India’s position and stance in the international community”. As discussed, “the
preamble, organs of the government, fundamental rights and various other provisions”
in the constitution were formulated so as to be consistent with international law. India,
on various occasions, has tried to encompass and use international law in many of its
“judgments and decisions” subject to the requirement that “they are consistent with the
domestic laws of the land”.
 International law treaties and customary law principles have enhanced the
applicability of many Articles, strengthening India's legal framework and standing in
the world.
 Municipal law governs behaviour of individuals within a state's jurisdiction, whereas
international law governs state action in the international community. International
law is concerned with a country's exterior affairs, whereas municipal law is concerned
with its internal matters. International law is weak in comparison to municipal law
since it is law between states rather than above them. Both domestic and international
legal systems work independently of one another, with no presumptions of hostility or
enmity. Both systems are critical, interrelated, and interactive in the contemporary
context of various transboundary challenges.
 For emample, the State's secondary duty is delegated to an international authority
established via international law. Monism and Dualism are widely seen as opposing
views of the relationship between international and municipal law.
 Many modern scholars be feels that both Monism and Dualism have less
demonstrating power as theories because of reason that “they fail to show how
international law functions within states”. Whatever the case may be, Monism and
Dualism are powerful analytical tools.

22
  They act as standard commencing point for research into the relationship between
international and municipal law. Thus, International law “not only applies to nations it
also applies to individuals”.
 It can be stated that both dualistic and monistic theories are traditional and widely
recognized, neither of them alone is entirely correct and sufficient. It is essential to
“harmonize international law and municipal law”, as both of them, at the end are
ultimately designed to serve human beings. This harmonization acknowledges the
“interconnectedness and mutual relevance of both legal systems, aiming to ensure that
they work together effectively for the benefit of humanity”.
 International law “increasingly moved toward a human commonwealth” that
encompasses “individuals, states, and other aggregates that cut state borders”.

23