The difference between monoism and dualism concerning European international law?

[smitty]

Hi. I have an exam tomorrow concerning european international law and I know that there could be a question concerning the difference between monoism and dualism. The only problem is that I've looked it up but remain very confused! Could someone please enlighten me (in as simple a manner as you can-bear in mind I need to fully undersatnd it by tomorrow!)

[Ayla S]

This is from Dixon's internaational law: so not specific to European law but this might help you anyway:
•Monism
Monists suppose that international law and national law are to components of a single body of knowledge called ‘law’. Both sets of rules operate in the same sphere of influence and are concerned with the same subject matter.
Therefore, as they are part of the same hierarchical legal order, they must be ranked in order of priority should a conflict occur in a concrete case.

Monists suppose the primacy of international law over national law.
Where this primacy comes from is a matter of debate.

Kelsen thinks that international law derives from the practice of states and national law derives from a state as established in international law. Thus, international law is a ‘higher’ legal order.

Lauterpacht sees international law as superior because it offers the best guarantee for the human rights of individuals as national law cannot be trusted to protect individuals.

•Dualism
Dualism denies that international law and national law operate in the same sphere, although it does accept that they deal with the same subject matter.

Dualists think that
International law regulates the relations between states.
National law regulates the rights and obligations of individuals within states.

International courts apply international law, whilst national courts apply national law.

International law has primacy over national law in international tribunals, but national law has primacy over international law in national tribunals.