Record Detail

India has traditionally been described as a dualist country in relation to its
engagement with international law. Formally at least, the allocation of the power of
assumption of international obligations rests with the Executive, while its domestic
implementation requires Parliamentary sanction. In this paper, I argue that while India
remains formally committed to dualism, in practice it exhibits many monist tendencies.
Once international law obligations are assumed, they are transported into
domestic law through various channels, not all of which require Parliamentary
approval. Further, the Indian judiciary also applies non-domesticated international law
obligations in various ways that reflect shades of monism. I argue that this departure
from dualism is problematic since it removes much needed Parliamentary scrutiny,
and results in a lack of executive accountability, erosion of federalism, the loss of value
of legal pluralism, and the amplification of international law’s democratic deficits.