DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND DOMESTIC LAW search

differ from each other on the following grounds :

Regarding Sources :
According to dualistic, while the sources of municipal laws are
custom grown up within the boundaries of the state concerned and the
statutes enacted by the sovereign, the sources of International Law are
custom grown up among the states and law-making treaties concluded
by them.

Regarding Subjects :
Dualists are of the view that the subjects of international and
municipal law are different from each other. While municipal law
regulates the relations between the individuals and corporate entities
and also the relations between the state and the individuals,
International Law regulates primarily the relations between
states
3. Regarding Substance of Law :
Substance of the lawsof the two systems are also different. While
municipal lawis a law of a sovereign over individuals, International
Lawis a law not above, but between sovereign states. Its norms
are created by its subjects themselves, i.e.,by the states through
agreements where essence is a concordance of the will of states or by
other subjects of International Law. Thus, Municipal law addresses
itself to the subjects of the sovereigns, International Law to the
sovereigns themsleves .
4Regarding Principles
municipal laws in a state are obeyed because they are the principles
of state legislatures, International Law is obeyed because of the
principle ofPacta Sunt Servanda.
Thus, while in municipal law, there is a legal sanctity International
Law is followed because states are morally bound to observe them.
5Regarding Dynamism of the Subject Matter :
Subject- matter of the two systems are also different. While the
subject-matter of the International Law is limited.
how international law principles become part of domestic law, \The theories of monism and dualism are
the two main theories that explain the relationship between international and domestic law.

How do international law and municipal law interact

 Monistic Theory

According to this doctrine, thereexists only one set of legal system,

i.e., the domestic legal order. It has been denied by the exponents of
this theory that International Law is distinct and autonomous body of
law.
It followed that there was obviously no need for international rules to
be incorporated into municipal legislation, since they have been made
by the states themselves

According to monistic theory, municipal law as well as International

Law are parts of one universal legal system, serving the needs of the
human community in one way or the other

International Law is binding on them through states. Since both the

laws are meant to solve the problems of human beings in different
areas they both are related to each other. They believe that the whole
legal system is one unified branch in which International
Law operates as a part.

Exponents of monistic theory rejected the alleged differences between

the two systems regarding sources, substance and subjects as laid
down by dualists.
Dualism

Dualistic Theory According to dualistic theory, International Law and

municipal laws of the several states are two distinct,
separate and self-contained legal systems. Being separate systems,
International Law would not as such form part of the internal law of a
state, to the extent that in particularinstance rules of International
Law may apply within a state they do so by virtue of their adoption by
the internal law of the state, and apply as part of that internal law
and not asInternational Law. Such a view avoids any question of the
supremacy of the one system of law over the other since they share no
common field of application, each is supreme in itsown sphere.
Dualist view developed by a prominent German Scholar Triepel in
1899.
Harmonisation
Neither monism nor dualism can adequately explain the relationship between
international and domestic law, and alternative theories have developed which regard
international law as having a harmonisation role. If there is a conflict, domestic law is
applied within the domestic legal system, leaving the State responsible at the
international level for any breach of its international law obligations