International Treaty Enforcement Beyond Monism — Institutional Pathways in South Korea and Egypt —

This research investigates treaty enforcement within domestic territories through a doctrinal comparison between South Korea and Egypt. The formally monist constitutional provisions of Article 6(1) in Korea and Article 151 in Egypt do not translate into practical treaty norm enforcement because the systems operate as structurally pluralist frameworks. The article develops functional pluralism as a concept to show how treaty norms in both legal systems become subject to judicial discretion and legislative inertia and executive selectivity. The application of treaties by courts depends on three factors which include subject matter and normative precision and institutional context. The judicial practice in South Korea shows selective use of international law especially in rights-based cases but Egypt demonstrates a complex distribution of authority between its Supreme Constitutional Court and State Council and administrative bodies. This article uses comparative analysis to evaluate the weaknesses of traditional monist–dualist frameworks before introducing functional pluralism as a superior model for treaty incorporation. This research recommends doctrinal clarification together with inter-institutional coordination and oversight reforms to improve treaty enforcement predictability and legitimacy in pluralist systems.