The Relationship Between International And Municipal Law And Municipal Law

International Law consists of laws that are recognized by countries and nations which bind them through legal obligation wherein countries are obligated to do or not to do laws under customs, treaties, and generally accepted principles. Municipal Law, as defined by Akehurst, is the name used in the international aspect to refer to the internal and domestic law of states (as cited in Malanczuk, 1997, p. 63). As to whether which between international law and municipal law exists there lies two main theories which distinguishes the relationship between these two laws which are the dualist (pluralist) and monist theories. Another source of analysis to determine which prevails between these laws are the nature of the constitution of sovereign states regarding how international law affect their municipal laws, likewise, vice versa.

According to Akehurst, under the dualist theory or pluralist

Circumstances are the ones to provide not on whether either prevails but on how on accounts the two laws are equally balanced, compromising each other for the benefit of sovereign states and individuals. Since the world is in a sense under a state of anarchy wherein no big umbrella weaves all states to be legally binding within each other on the international level even when they form part of treaties or other form of organizations, there will be no claim on to whether international or municipal law may prevail. In principle, international laws will always be binding upon states if no municipal law contradicts it according to Borchard (1940). The same is true that municipal law will nevertheless be binding upon its individuals unless international laws proclaim these municipal laws to be in contrast to international laws. But even then, statesvwill still have the final say on to how its municipal laws are applied as a compromise to their international