There are two principal theories on the relationship between international law and domestic law- Monism and Dualism. The monistic theory maintains that the subjects of two systems of law, i.e., international law and municipal law are essentially one. The monistic theory asserts that international law and municipal law are fundamentally the same in nature, and arise from the same science of law, and are manifestations of a single conception of law. The followers of this theory view international law and municipal law as part of a universal body of legal rules binding all human beings, collectively or singly. In a monist system, international law does not need to be incorporated into domestic law because international law immediately becomes incorporated in domestic legal system upon ratification of an international treaty. According to this theory, domestic law is subordinate to international law. The Statute of the International Criminal Court, therefore, can be directly applied and adjudicated in national courts according to the monistic theory. According to dualism theory, international law and municipal law represent two entirely distinct legal systems, i.e., international has an intrinsically different character from that of municipal law. International law is not directly applicable in the domestic system under dualism. First, international law must be translated into State legislation before the domestic courts can apply it. For example, under dualism, ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court is not enough-it must be implemented through State legislation into the domestic system. Most states and courts presumptively view national and international legal systems as discrete entities and routinely discuss in dualist fashion incorporation of rules from one system to the other.
The country 'X' has ratified an International Convention which requires each State Party to enact law defining and punishing bribery, i.e., the act of offering bribes to government officials. The Convention has neither defined bribery, nor prescribed a punishment for the same, so that each State Party may define the offence of bribery differently in their respective domestic legislations. by 2022, ‘X’ has not enacted any law defining and punishing the offence of bribery. In November 2021, Mr. A was being prosecuted by a domestic criminal court in ‘X’ for allegedly offering a bribe to a government official. In the given situation, which of the following statements is correct?
Correct Answer :
mr. A cannot be punished for committing an offence under the Convention irrespective of whether ‘X’ is a monist or a dualist State.
Solution :
Correct Answer: mr. A cannot be punished for committing an offence under the Convention irrespective of whether ‘X’ is a monist or a dualist State.
Step-by-Step Explanation:
To evaluate whether Mr. A can be punished, we must analyze the situation under both Dualist and Monist legal theories based on the passage provided.
1. Position under Dualist Theory:
According to dualism, international law and domestic (municipal) law are two completely separate and distinct legal systems. International treaties do not automatically apply in domestic courts; they must first be translated into domestic legislation by the state. Since Country 'X' has not enacted any domestic law defining or punishing bribery by 2022, domestic courts in a dualist framework cannot enforce the Convention or punish Mr. A under it.
2. Position under Monist Theory:
Under monism, international treaties become automatically incorporated into domestic law upon ratification without needing implementing legislation. However, for a criminal provision of a treaty to be directly applied to prosecute an individual, it must be self-executing—meaning it must clearly define the offense and prescribe a punishment.
The facts explicitly state that the Convention has neither defined bribery nor prescribed a punishment for it, leaving it up to each State Party to create specific definitions and penalties in their own domestic laws. Because Country 'X' failed to enact any such domestic law, there is no applicable definition of the crime or set punishment under the Convention itself. Therefore, even in a monist state, Mr. A cannot be punished.
Conclusion:
Because punishment is barred under Dualism (due to lack of domestic incorporation) and also under Monism (due to the non-self-executing nature of the Convention lacking a defined offense and penalty), Mr. A cannot be punished for committing an offense under the Convention regardless of whether Country 'X' is a monist or a dualist State.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
