International relations: Law Stub‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Law Stub‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This section appears to have little if anything to do with municipal law. But instead jurisprudence question on the nature of law. Municipal law is just a term used by international lawyers to describe law which isn't international law. Lets not get to the meaning of the law, life universe etc.. Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it needs to be mentioned that traditionally international law bound states (not individuals), and that municipal law regulated the relationship between subjects/citizens within a state and between the subject/citizen and the state. To accommodate state obligations under international law, states have often constructed a municipal law that automatically incorporates those international obligations into domestic law, an example of which is the "Supremacy Clause" in the United States Constitution. --PBS (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monists on the other hand see a single legal system and would argue that the "Supremacy Clause" is just the acknowledgement of otherwise pre-existing legal obligations to give effect to international law. -Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've never heard of monist legal movement, but granting there there are some who would argue for the single legal system, I believe Philip is correct in his statement as far he refers to traditionally, which I'm taking to mean pre-WWII. 166.122.98.137 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The traditional common law point of view was certainly dualist, but monism is older. See: [1]. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]