Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?

Forum for admin topics, member introductions and general non-hifi chitchat.
User avatar
CN211276
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 9:29 am
Location: Cardiff
Has thanked: 167 times
Been thanked: 93 times
Wales

Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?

Unread post by CN211276 »

Henry Viii did not go back on a signed agreement there is no comparison. In more recent times Britain entered the two World wars in the lastj century because it honoured its internationalb agreements.
System DC Blocker, NVA BMU, Cisco 2960G, Sonore MicroRendu/MCRU PS, AQ JB, ifi iPurifier 3, Chord Mscaler, Chord Qutest/MCRU PS, NVA P90SA Mk2, NVA A80s Mk3, NVA Cube 1s, NVA TSCS, NVA TIS, DH Labs Mirage USB/Silver Sonic BNC, Cat 8 ethernet.
HP Grado SR 325e, Chord Mojo, AQ Carbon.
Analogue Rega Planar 3, Denon DL-110, NVA Phono 1.
Second System Topping E30, NVA P20, NVA A20, NVA Cubettes, NVA LS3, NVA, NVA SSP, SSC, AQ Carbon.
Out Beyerdynamic Avenha, AQ DF Red.

RIP Doc

User avatar
slinger
Posts: 5512
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:30 pm
Location: The Garden of England
Has thanked: 378 times
Been thanked: 388 times
Great Britain

Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?

Unread post by slinger »

I've aggregated below a series of Tweets from Mark Elliott MA, PhD (Cantab), who is Professor of Public Law & Chair of the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. i.e. he should know what he's talking about.

Mr Elliot served as Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, providing advice to the Committee on a range of legislative and other matters, and his research interests lie in UK constitutional law and English administrative law; a good deal of his recent work has concerned the constitutional implications of Brexit. In addition, he is the author of The Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review; based on his doctoral thesis, for which he was awarded a University of Cambridge Yorke Prize.
Attorney General @suellabraverman still hasn’t resigned, but she has broken her recent silence on the Internal Market Bill by publishing a statement of HM Government’s ‘legal position’ on it.

It runs to one side of A4.

And it is utterly risible.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916702/UKIM_Legal_Statement.pdf


The Government’s statement is risible because it utterly misses the central point of concern. That concern is that the Internal Market Bill authorises Ministers to repudiate specific, critical and recently agreed legal obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement & NI Protocol.

The AG freely acknowledges this and concedes that the UK is required, as a matter of international law, to discharge its treat obligations in good faith. She then attempts, but fails, to make an exceptionalist argument based on parliamentary sovereignty & dualism.

The contention appears to be that because the UK’s internal constitutional arrangements allow Parliament, as a matter of *domestic* law, validly to enact any *domestic* law, this somehow makes it acceptable for the UK to breach *international* law. That is a non sequitur.

The AG also places weight on but misunderstands the implications of the ‘dualist’ nature of the UK legal system. She claims that it means that ‘treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation’. That is flatly incorrect.

In a dualist system, matters set out in treaties are *enforceable in* domestic law only to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation — but treaty obligations are nevertheless *binding* on the State in *international law*.

The Government’s argument is that Parliament’s legal capacity in domestic law to make any law it wants somehow makes it acceptable, as a matter of international law, for the UK to renege on its treaty obligations. But the latter does not follow from the former.

Contrary to the Government’s position, the UK, like every other State, is required in international law to abide by its treaty obligations. Neither parliamentary sovereignty nor the notion of dualism is any answer to that point.

The UK may have left the EU, but it has not left the community of nations or the rules-based international order. Treaty obligations are binding upon the UK, and to suggest that they are not ‘because Parliament is sovereign’ is as embarrassing as it is dangerous.
The government, as I heard today, is also apparently trying to turn Gina Miller's winning judgement on it's head somehow and use it as proof of parliamentary soveriegnty, and that doesn't work either.

Ms Miller has released this public response:

Image

Last word to Sir Bob Neil, Chair of the Society of Conservative Lawyers and the Commons Justice Committee
Sir Bob Neill MP
@neill_bob

Any breach, or potential breach, of the international legal obligations we have entered into is unacceptable, regardless of whether it’s in a ‘specific’ or ‘limited way’.
Adherence to the rule of law is not negotiable.

https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/13 ... O5ilQ5.mp4

2:15 PM · Sep 8, 2020·Twitter Web App
These users thanked the author slinger for the post:
CN211276 (Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:01 pm)
Amps - NVA P50, A30, A40, Stanislav Palo Tube Headphone Amp BB 85
Speakers - Monitor Audio Silver RX2
Cables - NVA LS1+LS3, SSC, Gotham S/PDIF, IBRA Optical
Digital - NAD C516BEE, SONY ST-SDB900 DAB TUNER, TEAC UD-H01 DAC
Analogue - Pro-Ject Debut Carbon Esprit SB, Graham Slee Gram Amp 2 Phono
Cans - Grado SR80, ATH-M50X

Ordinaryman
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:50 pm
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 3 times
Great Britain

Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?

Unread post by Ordinaryman »

Thank you Slinger for your enlightenment, whether or not this will lead to legal action, i will wait to see. As for the rest it was the comment "of this magnitude from a head of state" I was referring. As none of which I reference to seem to meet that criteria I shall withdraw and leave those whome appear to know better to continue.

User avatar
Lindsayt
Posts: 3078
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:06 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 57 times
Vatican City

Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?

Unread post by Lindsayt »

Lurcher300b wrote:
Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:30 am
Lindsayt wrote:
Fri Sep 11, 2020 2:30 am

Can anyone please to explain to me, how and why the UK Government's approach to breaking the law discussed in the article quoted in the original post ISN'T a sensible pragmatic solution?
I'm happy to admit that I'm no expert on International Law and the full complexities of Brexit. Maybe I can learn something here.
Maybe there is a valid reason to object to the UK breaking this law in these circumstances?
Or maybe it's more a case of some people not liking the Conservative Government and are looking for any excuse to stick the knife into them? Regardless of whether they deserve it or not.

When I attended a Black Lives Matter protest several weeks ago, the chant broke out "Boris is a racist."
This to me said far more about the people chanting it than it did about Boris Johnson.
“Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is BLACKWHITE. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to BELIEVE that black is white, and more, to KNOW that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”
:text-offtopic:

User avatar
CN211276
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 9:29 am
Location: Cardiff
Has thanked: 167 times
Been thanked: 93 times
Wales

Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?

Unread post by CN211276 »

Lindsayt wrote:
Sat Sep 12, 2020 3:15 am
Lurcher300b wrote:
Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:30 am
Lindsayt wrote:
Fri Sep 11, 2020 2:30 am

Can anyone please to explain to me, how and why the UK Government's approach to breaking the law discussed in the article quoted in the original post ISN'T a sensible pragmatic solution?
I'm happy to admit that I'm no expert on International Law and the full complexities of Brexit. Maybe I can learn something here.
Maybe there is a valid reason to object to the UK breaking this law in these circumstances?
Or maybe it's more a case of some people not liking the Conservative Government and are looking for any excuse to stick the knife into them? Regardless of whether they deserve it or not.

When I attended a Black Lives Matter protest several weeks ago, the chant broke out "Boris is a racist."
This to me said far more about the people chanting it than it did about Boris Johnson.
“Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is BLACKWHITE. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to BELIEVE that black is white, and more, to KNOW that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary.”
:text-offtopic:
I think this is a good description of what has been going on ever since the referendum was anounced. There is a good documentary in the iaplayer series about the Murdoch empire which sheds a lot of light on the situation. The gutter tabloid press were pivortal in convincing masses that black is really white.
System DC Blocker, NVA BMU, Cisco 2960G, Sonore MicroRendu/MCRU PS, AQ JB, ifi iPurifier 3, Chord Mscaler, Chord Qutest/MCRU PS, NVA P90SA Mk2, NVA A80s Mk3, NVA Cube 1s, NVA TSCS, NVA TIS, DH Labs Mirage USB/Silver Sonic BNC, Cat 8 ethernet.
HP Grado SR 325e, Chord Mojo, AQ Carbon.
Analogue Rega Planar 3, Denon DL-110, NVA Phono 1.
Second System Topping E30, NVA P20, NVA A20, NVA Cubettes, NVA LS3, NVA, NVA SSP, SSC, AQ Carbon.
Out Beyerdynamic Avenha, AQ DF Red.

RIP Doc

User avatar
savvypaul
Posts: 5252
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:14 pm
Location: Durham
Has thanked: 393 times
Been thanked: 309 times
Contact:
Great Britain

Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?

Unread post by savvypaul »

Johnson pops something in the oven and 9 months later he's disowning it...
These users thanked the author savvypaul for the post (total 2):
Stemcor1990 (Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:03 am) • CN211276 (Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:49 am)
Amplification - NVA P90SA / A70s & A60
Analogue - BTE Designs Lenco L59 / Garrard 401 / Ortofon TA-210 / Jelco 750L / Audio Technica ATP 12T / Ortofon SPU / Denon 103 / NVA Phono 2
Digital - Sonore MicroRendu / RME DAC-2
Speakers - NVA Cube 1 / Klipsch Heresy 3

“The one who would whistle to, Throbbing Gristle through, harsh times in Umberstone Covert”

Stemcor1990
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:06 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Is it OK for the government to knowingly break international law?

Unread post by Stemcor1990 »

savvypaul wrote:
Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:01 am
Johnson pops something in the oven and 9 months later he's disowning it...
I wish I’d came up with that remark. Mrs S nearly fell off her chair laughing when I told her.
These users thanked the author Stemcor1990 for the post:
savvypaul (Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:17 am)

Post Reply