The “Dual State”, International Law and the UN: a reply to Charles Leben
This article concludes the above series of works by defending the author’s view from the learned, instructive review by Charles Leben of the author’s concept of “Dual State”. The author tries to explain his divergence from the eminent French scholar’s view by exploring the difference between his dualist approach from the opposite views prevailing in France. He stresses his long-considered “dual state” theory as an indispensable additional evidence of the essential correctness of Triepel’s and Anzilotti’s dualist theory of the relationship between international law and municipal law. As the author sees it, the two systems belong, respectively, to international law stricto sensu or interindividual law. Reference is made, in the latter respect, to Nollkaemper and Nijman, New perspectives on the divide between national and international law, Amsterdam, 2007.