Abstract:
A legal system is based on basic norms and values which guarantee smooth functioning of
the society it serves. These norms and values reflect communal morals rooted in the
natural law tradition and they direct the “Black Letter” legal rules towards social justice.
Justice is the ultimate goal of law and in achieving the same, judiciary plays a vital role.
The courts fulfill a fundamental role in the process of interpretation. Under the laws of Sri
Lanka, only the courts are entitled to give a final and authoritative interpretation of statute
law. In the process of interpretation, International Law (IL) is sometimes used to interpret
domestic legislation, and judges tend to use IL as a tool of inspiration. In Human Rights
and Fundamental Rights (FR) jurisprudence1, it can be observed that IL is often used to
support the reasoning of cases. But it should be noted that there is a qualitative difference
between “using IL as an aid to construction” and “incorporating IL in to Municipal Law
through judicial actions.”
In a dualist system, it is generally accepted that if IL is not incorporated into the domestic
legal system it cannot be used as an aid to construction. Despite such conceptions, some
jurists argue that even though an IL convention is unincorporated, if a country has ratified
that convention, the judiciary can use it in their interpretation process. Bangalore
Principles-19882 are also in support of such arguments. Further it is not realistic to expect
the Legislature to provide for all contingencies and eventualities.
In this context this paper attempts to analyze the approach of judiciary of Sri Lanka
toward using IL as an aid to construction and it evaluates the hypothesis given below.
