I have explained in two articles here and here how Germany has recently violated international law. Because it is extremely important to obey international law, I have criticized this. It is undeniable that the EU places its autonomy above international law. Some EU member states have even placed their own autonomy above the EU international treaties they have signed. The endless repetition of the claim that the UK`s plan to repeal the Northern Ireland Protocol “violates international law”, as if the UK were some sort of rogue state, does not make this true. Article 16 of the Protocol states that if the agreement results in “serious economic, social consequences […] causes damage or trade diversion, the Parties may unilaterally take appropriate measures. That is what the government is now trying to do through legislation. The Northern Irish government`s decision to unilaterally suspend a key element of the northern Ireland protocol provoked a swift reaction from the European Commission on Thursday (3 February), accusing it of breaching international law. In short, the EU has been punitive and hostile towards the UK, and the UK now has the right, under international law, to reject the Withdrawal Agreement on this basis. Boris Johnson himself has argued that “the rules-based international order we maintain in world Britain is an overwhelming advantage for the world as a whole.” The Internal Market Act makes this more difficult for the United Kingdom. In practice, this would mean changing the Diplock line so that Britain, like Germany, respects international law in principle, but violates international law when it fundamentally violates our Constitution. When looking for previous cases that we can copy, it`s normal to look to other countries – in my field, which deals with complex issues around money/trusts/equity, we often look to Australia. It is true that we do not look at the civil courts, which is so often the case in Germany. But I see nothing wrong in principle with looking to Germany on how the UK should both respect international law and protect our constitution.
The controversial approach of this bill also comes in the context of increasingly negative signals from the government regarding the rule of law. It has opened an investigation into the practice of dubious judicial review, threatens the UK`s international obligations to prosecute war crimes and torture under the Foreign Operations (Military Personnel and Veterans) Bill, and is actively investigating ways to circumvent international human rights law and the UN Refugee Convention to prevent refugees from applying. asylum in the United Kingdom. The UK government`s Internal Market Bill does NOT violate international law. Not at all. The bill is nonetheless worrisome: it violates international law, creates the ground for much broader violations of international law, and seeks to protect ministers from judicial oversight in the country. But wasn`t the Withdrawal Agreement and is it part of a “process” based on a final deal/trade agreement with the EU, and wasn`t it largely about facilitating the transition – the transition year until the end of 2020? Does it seem to me that if the EU does not accept a trade agreement, the withdrawal agreement (or at least significant parts of it) cannot exist? This use of the terminology “breaking the law” is another “Remainer” stick to beat Brexit. And certainly in terms of the relationship between the UK and the EU, nothing is final and agreed until everything is final and agreed – the final agreement leading to the new relationship is crucial, and if it involves minor changes to an interim agreement (the Withdrawal Agreement), what`s wrong with that? In each transition, you may have transitional arrangements, but these will be replaced by a final agreement in due course. It is the enemies of Brexit and the globalists who are simply trying to stop the process. And the EU is not alone. China repeatedly violates international law – in the South China Sea, in its relations with the Uyghurs, in non-compliance with WTO rules, in Hong Kong, etc., etc., etc.
Nevertheless, the EU is injecting new energy into a trade agreement between the EU and China. “This announcement has created uncertainty and unpredictability and certainly no stability, so I`m not sure of the purpose of this decision. This is an absolute violation of international law,” Irish EU Commissioner Mairead McGuinness told Irish broadcaster RTE in response to the decision. The UK government`s admission that the Single Market Act will breach the UK`s obligations under international law is extraordinary, raises concerns about the political division of Brexit and unites former prime ministers in sentencing, as the EU has now launched formal infringement procedures. By failing to abide by an international agreement that is only a few months old, the UK government has faced a confidence deficit as it enters a period of intense trade negotiations around the world. And the deliberate destruction of the UK`s reputation as the guardian of international law weakens the country`s position, as it pursues foreign policy objectives that are also based on international standards. What is perhaps more extraordinary than the provisions of the draft law on international law are the provisions relating to domestic law. According to Article 45(4)(g) of the draft law, rules on State aid or customs declarations adopted by the Minister produce legal effects, notwithstanding their incompatibility with `any rule of international or national law`. It was the policy of lawyers to avoid politics when discussing the right – to be free, of course, to express a personal political opinion, but also to keep our legal opinions free from our policy. It is extremely difficult to do so in relation to international law. He was completely silent on whether or not he thought the example of violating international law was good or bad – silently, because it is a matter of policy. Respect for this law is part of our rule of law.
In a way that some may find confusing, this may mean that we must obey this law – that we may be breaking international law. The case was that Germany, with its irrefutable commitment to international law, essentially stated that it could overturn (violate) international law if an obligation under international law called on Germany to do something that constitutes a fundamental violation of the constitution. But the damage will not be limited to British interests abroad. Ministers who flout international law undermine the rule of law in the UK as well as their own code of ministers. Questions have already been raised about the willingness of the current Attorney General of England and Wales to defend the bill, given her special role in government as guardian of the rule of law. The Withdrawal Agreement and the Northern Ireland Protocol clearly change the status of N.I. as part of the UK, without the consent of the electorate. In doing so, it violates the GFA. and thus violate international law. Israel has been living with its settlements in the West Bank for years in violation of international law. Nevertheless, the EU maintains normal relations with Israel. “This decision departs significantly from the conventional representation and widespread understanding of the EU as an actor that maintains a strong commitment to international law and institutions.
The government`s willingness to fight battles with the EU and the courts has become routine, but the profound and counterproductive effects of this law should nevertheless concentrate the minds of parliamentarians.