Editing Jurisdiction (section)

====Law====
The standard treaties and conventions leave the issue of implementation to each nation, i.e. there is no general rule in international law that treaties have [[direct effect]] in [[municipal law]], but some nations, by virtue of their membership of supranational bodies, allow the direct incorporation of rights or enact [[legislation]] to honor their international commitments. Hence, [[citizen]]s in those nations can invoke the jurisdiction of local courts to enforce rights granted under international law wherever there is incorporation. If there is no direct effect or legislation, there are two theories to justify the courts incorporating international into municipal law:
* Monism
:This theory characterizes international and municipal law as a single legal system with municipal law subordinate to international law.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Monism and Dualism in International Law |url=https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0168.xml |access-date=2025-02-18 |website=obo |language=en}}</ref> Hence, in the [[Law of the Netherlands|Netherlands]], all treaties and the orders of international organizations are effective without any action being required to convert international into municipal law. This has an interesting consequence because treaties that limit or extend the powers of the Dutch government are automatically considered a part of their constitutional law, for example, the [[European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms]] and the [[International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]]. In nations adopting this theory, the local courts automatically accept jurisdiction to adjudicate on [[lawsuit]]s relying on international law principles.
* Dualism
:This theory regards international and municipal law as separate systems so that the municipal courts can only apply international law either when it has been incorporated into municipal law or when the courts incorporate international law on their own motion. In the [[United Kingdom]], for example, a treaty is not effective until it has been incorporated, at which time it becomes enforceable in the courts by any private citizen, where appropriate, even against the UK Government. Otherwise the courts have a discretion to apply international law where it does not conflict with [[statute]] or the [[common law]]. The constitutional principle of [[parliamentary supremacy]] permits the legislature to enact any law inconsistent with any international treaty obligations even though the government is a signatory to those treaties.

In the United States, the [[Supremacy Clause]] of the United States Constitution makes all treaties that have been ratified under the authority of the United States and customary international law to be a part of the "Supreme Law of the Land" (along with the Constitution itself and acts of Congress passed pursuant to it) (U.S. Const.art. VI Cl. 2) As such, the law of the land is binding on the federal government as well as on state and local governments. According to the [[Supreme Court of the United States]], the treaty power authorizes [[United States Congress|Congress]] to legislate under the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]] in areas beyond those specifically conferred on Congress (''[[Missouri v. Holland]]'', 252 U.S. 416 (1920)).