Lakshmi P Nath, CMR University School of Legal Studies, Bangalore
ABSTRACT
International laws have impacted the domestic legal order of different nations in a manifold way. International treaties may be referred to or applied by the judiciary in nations that adhere to the "monist school." Monist school is of the view that the internal and international laws bring a form of unity. These rules are generally accepted by the state generally through a treaty. These determine whether the actions are legal or illegal. They equate international laws with that of domestic laws. These agreements are referred to as self- executing.
On the other hand, when it comes to the domestic application of international law, nations like India adhere to the "dualist" school of law. Dualists emphasize the distinction between international and domestic law and demand that the latter be incorporated into the former. International law does not exist as law without this translation. National law must be incorporated into international law in order for it to exist. A state violates international law if it accepts a treaty but fails to modify its domestic legislation to comply with it or fails to enact domestic legislation that expressly incorporates the treaty.
International accords do not, therefore, automatically become a part of Indian law. Where necessary, they must be included in the legal system through legislation passed by the Parliament.
Although it lacks the authority to enact laws, the Indian judiciary is free to apply the country's local laws to interpret India's duties under international law when making a ruling in a case involving such matters. In this regard, the Indian judicial system has taken the initiative to carry out India's commitments under international treaties, particularly in the areas of human rights and environmental law. In light of pertinent constitutional provisions, this essay explores the judiciary's role in India's implementation of international law.
Comments