Resolving the Entropic Dissonance: Treaty Provisions vs Domestic Law - A Paradigm of Order in the Hierarchy of Norms

2025-12-20 | By Sarah Heidt

Introduction

In the grand tapestry of the universe, two fundamental forces are at play: Entropy and Order. Entropy, a measure of disorder or randomness, tends to increase over time, while Order, a state of organization and structure, is the product of complex systems and processes. This dichotomy is reflected in the realm of human affairs, particularly in the development and application of laws. The evolution of legal systems can be seen as a perpetual struggle between Entropy, which seeks to disrupt and randomize, and Order, which strives to establish and maintain harmony. This blog post will delve into the paradigm of Order in the hierarchy of norms, specifically focusing on the relationship between treaty provisions and domestic law, and how this interplay resolves the entropic dissonance that may arise.

Historical Context

The concept of Entropy vs Order has its roots in the physical sciences, but its implications extend far beyond the realm of physics. In the context of law, the struggle between Entropy and Order is evident in the development of legal systems. As human societies grew and became more complex, the need for organized systems of rules and regulations arose. This marked the beginning of the quest for Order in the legal realm. Treaties, as a form of international agreement, represent a higher level of Order, as they establish common standards and norms among nations. However, the relationship between treaty provisions and domestic law is not always straightforward, and this is where the concept of Entropic dissonance comes into play.

In the context of treaty provisions and domestic law, Entropic dissonance refers to the potential conflict or inconsistency between the two. This dissonance can arise when a treaty provision contradicts or overrides a domestic law, creating a state of uncertainty and disorder. To resolve this dissonance, legal systems have developed various strategies, including the principle of prioritization. This principle dictates that, in cases of conflict, one set of rules or laws takes precedence over the other. The question then becomes, which set of rules should take precedence: treaty provisions or domestic law?

Legal Analysis

The relationship between treaty provisions and domestic law is a complex one, and different legal systems have developed varying approaches to resolving potential conflicts. In some jurisdictions, the principle of prioritization is based on the idea that treaty provisions should take precedence over domestic law. This approach is reflected in option B, which states that "if a treaty belongs to the civil realm, then the provisions of the treaty should be given priority." This approach is based on the idea that international agreements should take precedence over domestic laws, in order to maintain consistency and harmony in the international sphere.

However, this approach is not without its limitations. Option C, which suggests that "if a treaty belongs to the civil realm, then the court should exercise its discretion, based on the specific circumstances of the case, and apply the principle of fairness to determine which set of rules should take precedence," introduces an element of uncertainty and unpredictability. This approach is akin to a dynamic compilation, where the rules are subject to change and interpretation on a case-by-case basis. While this approach may provide flexibility and adaptability, it also risks introducing Entropy and disorder into the legal system.

Option D, which states that "any treaty that our country has concluded, without reservations, should take precedence over domestic law," represents an overly broad and absolute approach. This approach risks modifying the underlying architecture of the legal system, by giving treaty provisions blanket precedence over domestic law. This could lead to unintended consequences and disruptions to the domestic legal order.

In contrast, option A, which suggests that "if a treaty belongs to the civil realm, then the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress should determine which set of rules should take precedence," represents a more nuanced and context-specific approach. This approach recognizes that the relationship between treaty provisions and domestic law is complex and multifaceted, and that a one-size-fits-all solution is not appropriate. By allowing the Standing Committee to determine which set of rules should take precedence, this approach introduces an element of deliberation and consideration, which can help to resolve Entropic dissonance and maintain Order in the legal system.

Future Outlook

As the global landscape continues to evolve, the relationship between treaty provisions and domestic law will remain a critical issue. The rise of international cooperation and globalization has created new opportunities for cooperation and exchange, but it has also introduced new challenges and complexities. In order to resolve the Entropic dissonance that may arise, legal systems will need to develop more sophisticated and nuanced approaches to prioritization. This may involve the development of new principles and frameworks, such as the concept of "conditional loading," which allows for the dynamic and context-specific application of treaty provisions and domestic law.

Ultimately, the struggle between Entropy and Order in the legal realm is an ongoing and dynamic process. As human societies continue to evolve and grow, the need for organized systems of rules and regulations will remain. By recognizing the interplay between treaty provisions and domestic law, and by developing more sophisticated approaches to prioritization, we can work towards creating a more harmonious and ordered legal system, one that balances the need for consistency and predictability with the need for flexibility and adaptability.

META: Resolving the Entropic Dissonance: Treaty Provisions vs Domestic Law - A Paradigm of Order in the Hierarchy of Norms. This blog post explores the complex relationship between treaty provisions and domestic law, and how this interplay resolves the entropic dissonance that may arise, providing a nuanced and context-specific approach to prioritization.