Read on Twitter
A lot of people, including the BBC, keep repeating that the UK is "breaking international law". Here is a thread on why this is a meaningless sentence.
Feel free to post in response to anyone using this ill judged term.
Thread
Feel free to post in response to anyone using this ill judged term.
Thread
This sentence could refer to four broad classes of action:
* Violation of international standards of behaviour
* Violation of treaty commitments or accords
* Violation of bilateral agreements
* Violations in the face of supremacy or primacy of foreign courts.
Lets look at each
* Violation of international standards of behaviour
* Violation of treaty commitments or accords
* Violation of bilateral agreements
* Violations in the face of supremacy or primacy of foreign courts.
Lets look at each
Violations of international standards of behaviour, simply means you have done something which some other nations will not like or expect. This is highly subjective. This is not "breaking a law". There is no arbitrating court of international behaviour. Individual nations are ...
... free to take reciprocal actions by way of "punishment". But there is no court to which they can call to ask for penalties to be applied or compensation to be given.
Violations of treaty commitments or accords are more serious. But again, the only laws that can be broken here are domestic ones, not international ones. Only when a nation has *chosen* to encapsulate treaty obligation in domestic primary legislation, can a law said to be broken.
Examples of such commitments are those we make to the WTO, NATO, Paris Climate accord, etc. In fact a great many nations are in contravention of treaties and accords all the time. Those bodies are free to punish or even expel members, but that is not an "international law" break.
Again there is no court to which they can call to ask for penalties to be applied or compensation to be given.
Violations of bilateral agreements are even more serious still. But as with the other examples there is no arbitrating court unless specific commitments have been baked into domestic legislation.
An example of this, is a reciprocal extradition treaty. Here, it is common for...
An example of this, is a reciprocal extradition treaty. Here, it is common for...
... this to be captured in a domestic crime bill. Hence, an accused can turn to a national court to arbitrate in a dispute. But, once again, only domestic law is being tested here.
Our ICC commitments also fall under this section.
Our ICC commitments also fall under this section.
The final action is violation in the face of supremacy or primacy of foreign courts. This IS international law, or more accurately supranational law. BUT since we left the EU, we are no longer subject to ANY such body.
EU members have agreed to hold EU law above domestic...
EU members have agreed to hold EU law above domestic...
...law. Hence people can appeal to a foreign (international) courts for arbitration. In fact, what normally happens is that local judges issue rulings based upon the wider context. In the case of the UK prior to Brexit, UK judges even "set aside" domestic laws citing...
...overriding EU laws.
This is actually at the heart of the point about regaining sovereignty. Supremacy of foreign courts shifts power from the legislature to the judiciary.
I will not go into the difference between primacy and supremacy. Interesting, but not relevant.
This is actually at the heart of the point about regaining sovereignty. Supremacy of foreign courts shifts power from the legislature to the judiciary.
I will not go into the difference between primacy and supremacy. Interesting, but not relevant.
Any ways, in summary, "the UK is breaking interaction law" is (in legal parlance) a *bullshit* sentence.
