Law is a body of principles (legislature) recognized (courts) and applied (executive) by the state in the administration of justice.

International law has not been defined comprehensively. Many of writers do not consider it as law. Greek scholar Aristotle says, man is a social animal. He said rightly because human being needs co-operation, which is most essential and imperative part of life. He needs assistance of others. Man cannot survive alone in society. In pre-historic era, people were living jointly. With the passage of time, society changed different shapes and developed different groups. They thought the importance of co-ordination. They adopted the principle of give & take. Survival (existence) became impossible without it. They thought the need of international relations. As the man cannot survive alone, state also cannot survive alone. Now, world has became global village. It became possible with the international relations.

International Law or the law of nations is the system of law, which governs relations between states. At one time states were the only bodies which had rights and duties under International Law, but now-a-days international organizations, companies, and individuals also sometimes have rights and duties under International Law, however, it is still true to say that International Law is primarily concerned with sates.

Importance: In the present developed era, its importance cannot be denied. International law plays an important role in social welfare of society. If the international law is not followed then jungle law will come into operation and life will become miserable (unhappy or uneasy). As municipal law plays an important role in the development of social well being, however International Law plays an important role in the establishment of peace among states. Regardless the size of states, they are treated with the same and equal status. They have same importance as the big state may have. It is at the option of the states as to how they act upon.

Basis of International Law: These are the principles upon which International Law relies:

1. Doctrine of Fundamental Rights: Theory of Fundamental Rights is based upon the thoughts of pre-historic era. However state being a separate entity has some Fundamental Rights which include integrity, equality, liberty, respect, and mutual co-operation. Theory of Fundamental Rights has played an important role in the development of International Law. Relationship of states is based upon the alliance and mutual co-operation. If states do not observe the Fundamental Rights then peace of world cannot come into force.

2. Consent theory: Oppenheim propounded (introduced, proposed, presented) this consent theory. According to him International Law is collection of rules which states feel to observe them and recognize them with mutual consent. If they don not agree upon certain law, then no law can be developed. It exists either in customary law or conventional law, in both cases it is consent. Customary laws are developed with mutual consents of states. They are bound to observe them in different ways and act upon. With the passage of time its roots got strengthen and applied on different states. It was recognized compulsorily. Now the consent of state became unimportant whether it will be applied on it.

The customary rules of International Law have grown up by common consent of the states, i.e., the different states have acted in such a manner as to imply their implied consent to these rules. The intercourse of states with each other necessitated some rules of international conduct.

Now states, which come into existence and are admitted into the Family of Nations through express or implied recognition thereby, consented to the body of rules for international conduct in force at the time of their admittance. It is therefore not necessary to prove for every single rule of International Law that every single member of the international community has consented on it.

Some other sages favour the consent theory. Consents are either directly or indirectly. If any rule is recognized which has binding force or show the consents of parties in treaties or in different matters, then it shall be regarded as consent. Customs and usages are treated artificial consent. Some writers have propounded theory against it that solely this theory does not contribute in International Law. It cannot be understood in circumstances that as to why the rule is followed. States do not respect law before its recognition.

Also the principles which are set by the society are called law. International Law is a body of principles prevailing between states. States solely and collectively are subject of International Law. It deals states and its own.

International Law may be defined as that body of law, which is composed for its greater part of the principles and rules of conduct, which states feel themselves bound to observe, and therefore, do commonly observe in their relations with each other, and which includes also:

a) rules of law relating to the functioning of international institutions or organizations, their relations with each other, and their relations with states and individuals; and

b) certain rules of law relating to individuals and non-state entities so far as the rights or duties of such individuals and non-state entities are the concern of the international community.

Professor Charles Cheney Hyde defines International Law as that law concerned with the conduct of states and of international organizations, and with their relations inter se, as well as some of their relations with persons, whether natural or personal.

It is also defined as law of Nations or International Law is the name for the body of customs and treaties, which are considered legally binding by States in their intercourse with each other. Such part of these rules as is binding upon all States without exception, as, for instance, the law connected with the right of legation and treaties, is called universal International Law, in contradistinction to particular International Law which is binding on two or a few States only.

According to Brownlie there are two types of sources of law, i.e., formal sources and the material sources of law. Legal procedures and methods for the creation of rules of general application, which are legally binding on the addressees, are the formal sources of law. Formal sources refer our mind toward state law making machinery such as parliament rules of which are binding to its people. Decisions of the International Courts, unanimous resolutions of General Assembly are lacking the quality to bind states generally in the same way that Acts of Parliament bind its people.

The material sources provide evidence of the existence of rules which, when proved, have the statuses of legally binding rules of general application.

Material sources of International Law: Following are the material sources

1. Customs.

2. Treaties.

3. Decision of judicial or arbitrate tribunals,

4. Juristic work.

5. Decision or determinations of the organs of international institutions.

Material sources of International Law may be defined the actual materials from which an international lawyer determines the rule applicable to a given situation. Final question is that whether what is the order of sources of international law, which is recommended under Article 38, paragraph 1 of the statute of the International Court of Justice. It is as follows:

1. International treaties and conventions.

2. International customs as evidence of a general practice accepted as law.

3. The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.

4. Judicial decisions, juristic opinion, and teachings of the most lushly qualified publicists of the various countries as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.

Following is the some detail of material sources of International Law:

1. Custom: Most part of International Law consists of customary rules. Article 38 refers to international custom, as evidence of general practice accepted as law and Brierly remarks that what is sought for is a general recognition among states of a certain practice as obligatory. The international community evolves it after long historical process achieved recognition. A custom in the intendment of law is such a usage, as hath obtained the force of law. Customary rules are extracted from usages or practices which have evolved in three sets of circumstances:

(a) Diplomatic regulations between states: There are the acts or declarations by statesmen, opinions of legal advisors to state government, bilateral treaties, and now press releases or official statements by government spokesmen may all constitute evidence of usage followed by states.

(b) Practice of international organs: Conduct or declaration of international organs such as ILO who has power to regulate internationally the conditions of labour of persons employed in an international disputes and UNO are the good example of practice of international organs.

(c) State laws, decisions of state courts, and state military or administrative practices: A British vessel Scotia was collided in mid-ocean with the American vessel Berkshire, which was not carrying the lights required by the new law. As a result, the Berkshire sank. It was questioned that whether the old law of Britain or new customary rules should decide this matter or International Law evolved through the wide spread adoption of the British regulations. It was held that new law would govern the dispute.

2. Treaties: This is another important source of International Law. Its importance is constantly increasing. There are two types treaties:

(a) law making treaties, which lay down rules of universal or general application. These are also may be categorized in two types, i.e.,

a) enunciating rules of universal International Law, e.g., the United Nations Charter.

b) laying down general or fairly general rule.

(b) treaty contracts for example a treaty between two or few states dealing with special matter concerning with these states exclusively.

Common examples of law making treaties include General Agreement of Trade & Tariff (GATT), un-ratified conventions states have subscribed, limited participation of restricted countries, regional or community rules, Final Acts, International Regulations etc.

Treaty contracts are CETO, CENTO, WARSA PACT, SAARC etc.

3. Decisions of Judicial or Arbitral Tribunals: Decisions of courts and tribunals are a subsidiary and indirect source of International Law. Article 38 of the Statute of International Court of Justice provides that, subject to certain limitations, the Court shall apply judicial decisions as a subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. They are not strictly speaking a formal source, but in the some instances at least they are regarded as authoritative evidence of the state of the law and the practical significance of the label subsidiary means in Article 38(1)(d) is not to be exaggerated (overstated or distorted). Under Article 59 of its Statute the courts decisions were to have no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.

4. Juristic work: The Statute of the International Court of Justice includes among the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations. These opinions are used widely.

It is indicative of the present potentialities of that particular source that the Court has so far found no occasion to rely on it.

No doubt that juristic work played very important role in the development of International Law, but juristic works are not an independent source of law, although some times juristic opinion does lead to the formation of International Law. According to experts, juristic opinion is only important as a mean of throwing light on the rules of International Law and rendering their formation easier.

5. Decisions or determinations of the organs of international institutions: Decisions and determinations of the organs of international institutions or international conferences, may lead to the formation of rules of International Law in a number of different way.

They may represent intermediate or final steps in the evolution of customary rules. Declaration of Charter of General Assembly and Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discriminations are the examples of decisions of international organs.

Resolution of the organs may formulate principles or regulations for the internal working of the institutions may have full legal effect and binding on members.

Some organs are empowered to give general decisions or directives of quasi-legislative effect, binding on all whom they are addressed.

If the embassy is on fire, can a host State allow to her army to enter in an embassy? However half of the population may affect from the incidence, army cannot cross the doors of an embassy, without permission. International Law says let the population burns out but army is not allowed to enter in.

What are the material sources of law which different writers elaborated and International Court of Justice have described in its statutes. It is just difference of preferences, however they are more or less similar. Custom is very important source of law but it is less emphasized by International Court of Justice thats why emphasize shifted from custom to treaty.

In 1863, British Government had enacted a law regarding the navigation that every ship navigating in high seas would be duty bound to carry on lights while invisibility by such as fog, darkness, or other reasons. This domestic legislation was enacted for safety of navigation. Later on right after one year, in 1864, America adopted this legislation. And soon after some other states adopted these sort of preventive measures. In 1871, a British vessel Scotia collided with an American vessel Berkshire. In result of collision, American vessel Berkshire sank.

It was thought at that time that how this case to be decided. Whether old customary law of Britain would govern the decision made before 1863 or later law, which had been adopted by many nations, should be the yardstick. American Court held that in the scenario of widely adoption of the navigation rules about the carrying out of light, the legislation made after 1863 would decide the case rather than the customs relating before the 1863.Is International Law a true law: There is one theory that International Law does not qualify as true law but it is just a moral force.

Austins view: Austin and Thomas Hobbes insist that law is the command of a determinate superior and that constantly no law can exist where there is no supreme lawgiver and no coercive enforcement. If there is no sovereign authority then the rules could not be legal rules but rules of moral or ethical validity.

Positive morality: Austin and his subscribers say that it is not true law but positive international morality or rules of conduct of moral force only, for there is not supreme lawgiver and no coercive enforcement in it. In that time Austin was rigid. International Law is not a true law but in this time International Law is part of our law, and must be administrated by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction.

Reply to Austins view: The reply to Austins view is as follows:

1. Choice to a penal statute: As Hert points out that the Austins theory of law approximates closer to a penal statute enacted by the legislature of a modern state than to any other variety of law.

2. System of law, without a formal legislature: Modern historical jurisprudence has discounted the force of his general theory of law. It has been shown that in many communities, system of law as in force and being observed, without a formal legislative authority. Such law did not differ in its binding force from the law of any state with a true legislative authority.

3. Questions of International Law: Questions of International Law are always treated as legal questions by those who conduct international business and are regularly stated in legal terms and interpreted by legal methods.

Almost from the early stages of the development of the science of the Law of Nations the question whether International Law is law in true sense has been a subject of much speculation. Has it binding force opinion sharply been divided on this vexed (disturbed) question?

A constantly evolving body of norms: International Law is a constantly evolving body of norms that are commonly observed by the members of international community in their relations with each other for providing an orderly management of international relations.

Whether International Law qualifies as law or not - choice of the definition of law: Whether or not one wishes to attribute a legal character to the norms of International Law depends largely upon the definition of law he chooses to accept.

This question has been matter of discussion since long whether it is law? Some writers object the use of word law. They say that states are free from external pressure. If they consent to follow the principles of International Law, it does not mean they are debarred from their sovereign powers. It does not affect their sovereign powers. In the opinion of some writers law is the name of rule which every superior issues for inferior.

This rule binds the people to prepare its structure. Its compliance would be compulsory and its violation will result in punishment. There is no such compulsion in International Law. In International Law there is not sovereign power that issues orders. If there is any sovereign power in International Law, the sovereign power of the states will be lost.

There is no binding force behind it. It is not doubtful, that states observe the rules and regulations in the compliance of international contracts with the feeling of betterment and ethics. These rules and regulations are decided in their limits and are liable to revoke. There is no law force, which can stop them in doing such act.

International Court of Justice is a forum where states bring their disputes for settlement but states are no more bound to accept them and may refuse. It all depends upon them.

There is no forum for its explanation or interpretation.

There is no concept of legislature in International Law for the enactment and enforcement.

In the opinion of different writers International Law is not real law. According to Austin it has status of positive international morality. It is a collection of emotions of people and common opinions.

Merits of International Law: Presently an International Law is very important for every state. In past there were some problems between states but at present it is very important and all states feel that it should remain there.

1. Protection of states interests: It is doubtless that International Law has protected the interests of the states. It helps those states, which have no such power to protect their interests. It also protects states from suffering of loss. It provides them rules and regulations for which states are bound to follow. It relates with the boundaries, society, morality, ethics, and religious matters. Kuwait was protected by International Law.

2. Welfare of human being: In fact International Law plays an important role in the welfare of human being. Submission of these rules brings prosperity for humankind. It has different institution, which perform its functions.

3. Equality: International Law gives importance to equality. It gives the same status of equality to small state as the big state. In international relations all are equal. One state has no superiority over other one. In international matters, every state plays its role.

4. Individuality: International Law also gives individual importance to each state. All the other states also recognize it. International Law has covered almost all the world and formed a society and promoted brotherhood. Individuality has importance in it.

5. Unity and strength: This law has created the environment of the unity and strength among the different states. It has taken all the states in a line. No one state can separate her from others. Every state has become the need of other one and plays an important role in unity and strength.

6. Development of social values: This law has also played an important role in the development of social values. International Law has tried best to promote the social values.

Demerits of International Law: It has also some demerits as well as merits, which make it weaker. These demerits are as follows:

1. Limited scope: In the present circumstances it seems ambiguous and of limited scope. There is no solid organ of International Law, which can resolve the matters of states equitably. It could not devolve person into state.

2. Ambiguous law: Some of its rules and regulations are not only uncertain but also ambiguous. Pace of its development and promotion is deadly slow. It cannot combat with changing environment of the society.

3. No apparent authority: There is not executive class who can enforce the laws. It lacks the force of law, which enforces the law, and gets exercised. Only International Court of Justice exists. There is not existence of special courts that can decide the particular disputes. International Court of Justice cannot settle certain matters. States do not allow International Court of Justice in the settlement of disputes. After the decision is given, there is no such power that may get it enforced.

4. No administration power: There is no administrative power behind it that can get its decisions enforced.

5. Little enactment: It has little room of enactment. Mostly matters such as excise, intercourse between two or more states, taxes, and market etc. are excluded from its scope.

6. Non interference: International Law does not intervene in the matters, which takes place in any member state.

7. Uncertainty about facts: There may be a genuine uncertainty about the facts. For instance, before one who decide whether United States participation in the Vietnam fighting is legal or illegal, has to decide whether the National Liberation Front (Viet-cong) in South Vietnam represents spontaneous internal revolt or whether it represents subversion from North Vietnam.

8. Uncertainty about law: There may be a genuine uncertainty about the law. For instance, some states think it is lawful to nationalize foreign property without compensation, others disagree. When dispute arises between a state in the first group and a state in the second group, each will be convinced that it is in the right, and it is impossible to predict how an international Court would decide the case.

9. Internal disintegration: Sometimes international dispute may cause internal disintegration such as demand for the increase of wages in employment. However wages are fixed by the contract of employment and contracts can be altered by mutual agreement.

10. Unfriendly legal act: International Law does not prevent a state increasing its tariffs on goods coming from another state, even though the result may be to cause severe unemployment in the other state.

11. Dualism: Dualism can easily be observed in the solution of the international disputes. Dispute of North Tamour has been solved whereas dispute of Kashmir stands unresolved. Terrorism in Israel has not been condemned while liberation struggle of Palestine is condemned.

It is weaker law in the eyes of J. G. Starke. Another writer says that it is not only a weaker law but it contains mostly on customary law.

Despite the existence of International Court of Justice many hurdles came in its development. This law does not resolve the disputes.

How it can grow: Following are the some suggestions, which can determine its pace:

1. Rules and regulations of this law should be revised and taken into writing.

2. It should be given the form and shape as the ordinary law of the state.

3. It should be formed globally.

4. It should be developed through courts.

Many activities are being taken place in this regard. Conferences and other important treaties are playing an important role in its growth. Changing political environment and expertise are trying in changing the International Law. Also courts are playing important role for its development.

Present day International Law: Austins views however rigid for his time are not true of present day International Law. In 20th century a great mass of international legislation has come into existence as a result of law making treaties and conventions.

Procedure for formulating rules: The procedure for formulating the rules of international legislation is practically as settled if not as sufficient as any state legislative procedure.

Conclusion: International Law is law but a weak one, the cumulative evidence against the position taken by Austin and his followers should not bind us to the fact that International Law is a weak law.

Its enforcement devices: It is obvious that there are gaps and ambiguities in the law, that its enforcement devices are often inadequate and it has not succeeded in eliminating the use of force in international relations.

There is no world legislature, no international police, and no international Court with compulsory jurisdiction.

Historic background of International Law: It has not certain period of its beginning. It is explored that it came into existence right from the commencement of human life on earth. States had established mutual relationship and played an important role in social life. International Law has been developing time to time and its form has been changing with the passage of time.

In thirteenth century B. C. a contract took place between Egyptian King Pharaoh and Syrian King after a war. It was consisted on the conditions of peace and co-operation and land acquisition. It was written on a silver plate. It reveals that no doubt this system was available since long before and states were made treaties as the same now is. In old time there was neither travelling arrangements nor concept of states, but agreements were made. There was also diplomatic representation. Disputes were settled with arbitration. There was tradition of asylum in that age.

Greek period: Greek nation was reluctant to maintain relationship with non-Greeks. They were habitant to make slaves others. They had thought that only Greeks are born to be rulers. In words of Aristotle, nature has created non-Greeks only for to be slaves. States either democratic or imperial had mutual relationship and rules and regulations among them. Mostly matters were decided with arbitration. They were not remain civilized but became cruel during war. War was not started without declaration. Religious places were not destroyed. Killed/deceased people were buried. Prisoners of War were exchanged. They had formed Greek union of nations. In that age treaties were made. Such like states may enjoy peace and prosperity.

Roman period: Till 753 B. C. states were not too big. International Law was clarified till 3rd century B. C. after the evaluation of big state founded. Relations were developed with Persia while making the treaties with others. Roman were taken into consideration the principles set out by that former states and they provided the legal protection. They made a treaty for common defence of states. Non-member states could not enjoy such facility. War was formerly declared. Treaties were taken into consideration without which existence was impossible. Principles they had formed played an important role in International Law even today.

Jews period: Jews were considered superior themselves than others. They had superior standard than others. They had treated other inferiors. Thats why they did not contributed in the development of International Law. They were severe enemy of many nations. During the peacetime they had not good moral character. They had bad treatment for others during warfare. They were killed children and aged people. They had good relationship with alien friends. They had respect for diplomatic representatives. Their national law was applied in the territory of subjugated (beaten) country. Agreements were made at the end of war.

Indian period: Historic period of India begins since thousand years back. Age of Raja Geet is supposed with Alexander the Great. Brahmans, Khashtari, Waish, and Jain were also Hindus. They had mutual co-operation. They had good relations among themselves. Agreements were made in that age.

Three stages of the development of International Law: Development of International Law is observed into three ages. Its roots are found in the beginning of history of human life. But its clear form is 400 years old. A writer has divided its development in three stages.

First period: First period of International Law is started right from the beginning of human history and ends at formation of Roman empire. In this period there was respect of same race and same religion. For the achievement of peace, ambassadors were sent. They had certain immunities. They were not treated enemy but friend and had better relations. Romans applied rules relating with peace and war. War was ceased upon the peace and friendship. Tradition of internationalism became ceased after the fall of Roman Empire. Geographic boundaries were not defined. They were united upon common race. Kings were the rulers over certain territories. Same principles of International Law had been developed in this age.

Second period: In this age religious movements came into force. They left certain effects. They emphasized on the importance of International Law.

Roman Empire: Second era was started with the creation of Roman state. It was spreaded over the large part of the world. Need for the importance of International Law became end. Off and on any incident took place which showed the importance of International Law. According to the law of Rome, agreements were made and protected. In the failure to become friend, they were made slaves.

Christian influence: Christian religion gone to Italy. It became official religion of Italy State. This era eliminated the question of International Law. Continuous crusades were started. They treated Muslims their great enemy. Their revenge passions grown up after the concurrence over Bait-ul-Maqdas of Muslims. Christian priests declared all the agreements prohibited with Muslims from religious point of view. The crusades were remaining in operation till long. Despite of the fact, agreements were made. In that age, there was also trend toward International Law.

Islamic influence: After the dawn of Islam, complete change took place. Infidels started harassment to Hazrat Muhammad . In these circumstances they migrated from Makka to Madina. They founded state, which became first Islamic State over the global map (Atlas). They fought many wars. Muslims were martyred and concurred. Moral values were taken into consideration. Killing of women, children, and aged people, if they remain peaceful, transgression of limits, devastation of crops, destruction of buildings and houses, ruin of gardens, killing of animals, and arson of public places became prohibited. Weaker people were remitted. Muslims were spreaded over from east to west.

Hazrat Muhammad said in his Tradition, O people you are followers of one Allah and are progeny of Adam. The best among you is who refrains from evils. All the Muslims are brothers. An Islamic state act upon the light of Quran. They do not discriminate, the matters of the world and hereafter. Islam has made all the principles. Islam is code of life and teaches us in all spheres of life. Islam has also clarified the International Law. Western writers have negated the importance of Islam in the development of International Law. The period of Muslims was so brilliant.

Third period: There was a long war between king and church. German king created a big state. In an agreement Pope took over the matters of religion and secular matter left for king. Despite of this agreement the war period remains continue. In fifteenth century Pope became weaker. In seventeenth century many small states came into existence that made mutual treaties. Despite of war many contracts and peace pacts took place.

International Law: International Law is the law, which governs the relations among states and other international legal persons. The sources of International Law are customs grown up among states and lawmaking treaties concluded by them.

International Law regulates relations between states.

International Law is a law not above but between sovereign states and it therefore a weaker law.

Municipal law: Municipal law is the law of a state, which governs the domestic affairs of the state. The sources of Municipal Law are customs grown up within the boundaries of the state concerned and statutes enacted by the law giving authority.

Municipal Law regulates relations between the individuals under the sway (influence) of a state and the relations between the state and the individual.

Municipal Law is a law of a sovereign over individuals subjected to his sway.

Relationship between International Law and municipal law: There are certain questions which come before international lawyer whether what are nice considerations between international and municipal law. The most important practical problem of more immediate concern to municipal courts are as to what extent may courts give effect International Law in municipal courts both where such rules are, and where they are not in conflict with municipal law. It is a practical problem, which requires consideration of the practice of states.

It is the practice of national courts that the relationship of international law to municipal law is of fundamental importance which means that to what extent they are interrelated with each other, or where they conflicts which will be preferred or the system are to oppose or to coordinate with each other.

Theories in this respect: There are two theories as to relation between International Law and municipal law, i.e., dualism and monism.

Dualism: In nineteenth and twentieth centuries philosophers emphasized on the sovereignty of the state-will and the complete system of legislation in a state. It has developed that trend toward the duelist view. According to dualistic both international and municipal law are distinct systems. There are two basic differences between the two systems:

1. Subject of law: In state law subjects are individuals whereas states are solely and exclusively subjects of International Law.

2. Juridical origin: In state source of law is will of the individuals for which they are concerned while in international source of law is common will of the states concerned.

Distinct legal systems: According to dualism, these two systems are entirely distinct legal system, international law having an internally different character from that of state law.

Chief exponents of the theory: The chief exponents of dualism have been the modern positivist writers Triepal and Anzilotti.

Anzilottis view: Anzilotti distinguished international law and state law according to the fundamental principle by which each system is conditioned in his view.

State law is conditioned by the fundamental principle or rule that state legislation has to obey, while International Law is conditioned by the principle pacta sunt servanda. It means that agreements between states are to be respected.

International Law binds individuals and entities other than states. B section is something misleading to the extent of the superior state in International Law. Superior has definitely dominant role in International Law despite the common will of the states.

State law is based upon the principle and norm, which sates legislation, has to be obeyed. In International Law main principle is agreements between states that are to be respected. Thus the two systems are entirely different. This theory not only has received support from positivists but non-positivists writers and jurists. State law mainly is consisted on judge made law and the statutes passed by legislature whereas International Law is comprised on the customary rules and treaties among the states.

Monism: This is strictly scientific analysis. It is single unity composed of binding legal rules whether those rules are obligatory on states, on individuals, and on entities other than states.

If it is generally accepted that International Law is a true law then there is no doubt to deny that the two systems constitute part of that unity.

Kelsons view: In the view of Kelson and other monist writers, there cannot be any escape from the position that the two systems, because they are both systems of legal rules, are interrelated parts of one legal structure.

States responsibility to enforce International Law: It is the duty of state to enforce the International Law as the state law in its jurisdiction.

Mortenson v peters: In this case High Court of Scotland gave effect to a municipal law against the International Law but the state was under obligation to conform the International Law, therefore, the executive in fact demolished the judgement in order to make Britains behavior conform with her international obligation.

Question of priority: Monists are somewhat divided on this point whereas dualists assert that the two systems are not to supersede, but to coordinate with each other, therefore, there arises no conflict between the two.

Practice as to priority - case before International Tribunal: When the case in which conflict arises between International Law and municipal law before an International Tribunal, the practice is to prefer the International Law over the municipal law.

Practice as to priority - case before Municipal Court: Where conflict arises in a case before a municipal Court (except where the state has adopted the International Law to supersede, by constitution or law), the municipal law is preferred.