4 Relation between International Law and Municipal Law

The two theories (the doctrinal pair):1. Dualism (Triepel, Anzilotti, and in practice the British tradition): international and municipal law are distinct legal orders — different subjects (states vs. persons), sources (consent vs. sovereign will), and substance; international law becomes effective domestically only by transformation (an act of the municipal legislature — ratification-plus-implementing-statute). International law cannot pierce the domestic order without its permission; a treaty unimplemented is (domestically) a promise, not a rule.2. Monism (Kelsen; the continental-and-Latin-American practice in varying degree): one unified legal order — international law above (or within) municipal law; treaties apply domestically automatically upon ratification (direct effect / self-execution), no transformation required. Radical monism (Kelsen): municipal validity itself flows from international law.The practice — where systems sit on the spectrum:• The UK (dualist): treaties need implementing legislation (Parliamentary treaty-implementationrule; the classic Mortensen treatment), but customary international law is part of the common law directly;• The USA: the Constitution makes treaties "supreme law of the land" (Art. VI) — but only "self- executing" treaties apply of their own force (Medellín v. Texas restricting the practice); custom likewise federal common law;• France, the Netherlands: treaty-superiority monism (treaties above statutes, though below the constitution).Nepal's position (the paragraph every Nepali answer needs): a moderate dualism: the Constitution of Nepal (2015), Article 279, requires parliamentary ratification for defined treaty categories — peace…