Breaking International Law

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
thirdcrank
Posts: 29449
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby thirdcrank » 15 Sep 2020, 12:29pm

As might be expected, there's some history and background material about International Law on the www of the International Court of Justice.

https://www.icj-cij.org/en/court

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17692
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby [XAP]Bob » 15 Sep 2020, 12:36pm

Mick F wrote:If there is a thing as International Law, it has to be Domestic Law.

An international treaty has to be agreed on domestically, making it a domestic law that we agree to an international agreement.
It doesn't make it International Law. It relies on co-operation with the countries as a whole. No law could stop them ignoring the treaty.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic (as usual).

If the Tory's want to go against the treaty, they'll be breaking our domestic law. As they are the government, they can do as they please.



No they can't - the high court will find against them, as it has in the not too distant past.

It's clear that BoJo and his cronies have been shorting the pound and really want to mash the country into the ground. There has never been any intent to maintain relations with anyone.

Additionally do we really want the IRA to start operations again, because I suspect we will see that if there is a hard border in Ireland.

The "unionist" party seems determined to encourage Ireland to unify.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3288
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby roubaixtuesday » 15 Sep 2020, 12:38pm

Arch remainer and trotskyist sympathiser William Hague weighs in, using the communist "Daily Telegraph" for his platform.


In the four years I spent at the Foreign Office, I doubt there was a single day that I did not rely on international law – the body of treaties, conventions and agreements that we and other nations have signed over the years – in some shape or form. Every time we ask for consular access to a British national held in a foreign prison we are basing our argument on international law, as Dominic Raab has done in the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, held in Iran. Every day that we seek fair treatment for a British company with operations overseas against unfair taxation, or confiscation of assets, or discriminatory exclusion from a domestic market, we refer to international law ....

So international law is not some abstract concept that only comes up occasionally. It matters to British people every hour of every day ...

Yet the concept of international law has also, for Britain, reached far beyond even this day-to-day importance. It has provided the foundation and justification for some of our most momentous decisions as a nation. The declaration of war in 1914 was specifically to uphold a treaty commitment to Belgian neutrality, in contrast to the decision by Germany to regard that as “a scrap of paper” ...

In the event of no deal being reached with the EU, the UK will have particular need of upholding global rules. If some EU members make it difficult for our exports, we will no doubt call to our aid the rules of the World Trade Organisation. And if the fishing boats of other countries intrude into our waters, we will rely on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. All of this is international law, and to set the precedent of breaking it is a very bad idea indeed ...

Whenever I spoke as foreign secretary about the upholding of laws and treaties, to the UN or any errant state, I did so with the utter confidence that my country stood on solid ground. We undermine that ground at our peril

mercalia
Posts: 14032
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby mercalia » 15 Sep 2020, 1:09pm

William Hague's comments are beside the point and irrelevent. From that article previous eg I understand that Germany can reject international law where it conflicts with its constitution and appararantly has done so. That article recommends we follow Germany's example whilst upholding the importance of International law.
Hagues view ( and most others who are protesting incl Blair of all people) is some how that international law is sacrosanct, the absurd belief that there is no such thing as bad law :roll: laws can become bad when the circumstances change which is what has happened or look like whats going to happen with Brexit?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-?
Last edited by mercalia on 15 Sep 2020, 1:41pm, edited 2 times in total.

Tangled Metal
Posts: 7012
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby Tangled Metal » 15 Sep 2020, 1:31pm

Going back to the GFA, what would the consequences be if the UK were to enforce a border between the union and other countries including the republic of Ireland? Basically the trade rules for northern Ireland matching the trade rules for the rest of the UK.

Ignoring the issues of international law and just looking at the idea of sovereign state being intact with the same laws and regulations. If EU gives whole of the UK good trade terms such that there can be open borders between EU and uk as a whole then that's the workable solution surely? Optimist me!!! :lol:

mercalia
Posts: 14032
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby mercalia » 15 Sep 2020, 1:38pm

Tangled Metal wrote:Going back to the GFA, what would the consequences be if the UK were to enforce a border between the union and other countries including the republic of Ireland? Basically the trade rules for northern Ireland matching the trade rules for the rest of the UK.

Ignoring the issues of international law and just looking at the idea of sovereign state being intact with the same laws and regulations. If EU gives whole of the UK good trade terms such that there can be open borders between EU and uk as a whole then that's the workable solution surely? Optimist me!!! :lol:


I thought thats what we were hoping for but looks like unlikey with rubbish from Barnier was it that the waters around the Uk are ours but not the fish, that conditions like that must be agreed first.

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3288
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby roubaixtuesday » 15 Sep 2020, 1:55pm

mercalia wrote:William Hague's comments are beside the point and irrelevent. From that article previous eg I understand that Germany can reject international law where it conflicts with its constitution and appararantly has done so. That article recommends we follow Germany's example whilst upholding the importance of International law.
Hagues view ( and most others who are protesting incl Blair of all people) is some how that international law is sacrosanct, the absurd belief that there is no such thing as bad law :roll: laws can become bad when the circumstances change which is what has happened or look like whats going to happen with Brexit?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-?


Hague's comments highly pertinent.

The author you so admiringly quote in the Spectator advocates upholding International law, indeed argued that the EU should have been stronger with Germany in the word case.

How any of this is supportive of Johnson's folly is utterly mysterious to me. It argues that whilst the uk may be entitled to do what it wants, the EU should throw the book at us if we do. Is that what you want??

Johnson is proposing to go back on a treaty he signed and won an election of the back of just months ago.

How can you, or anyone, possibly support this? It's astonishing. Surely you should be shouting betrayal at Johnson for misleading the country, not at the EU.

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3288
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby roubaixtuesday » 15 Sep 2020, 1:57pm

Tangled Metal wrote: If EU gives whole of the UK good trade terms such that there can be open borders between EU and uk as a whole then that's the workable solution surely? Optimist me!!! :lol:


You're describing a customs union.

The UK - not the EU - has decided not to do that.

mercalia
Posts: 14032
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby mercalia » 15 Sep 2020, 2:17pm

roubaixtuesday wrote:
mercalia wrote:William Hague's comments are beside the point and irrelevent. From that article previous eg I understand that Germany can reject international law where it conflicts with its constitution and appararantly has done so. That article recommends we follow Germany's example whilst upholding the importance of International law.
Hagues view ( and most others who are protesting incl Blair of all people) is some how that international law is sacrosanct, the absurd belief that there is no such thing as bad law :roll: laws can become bad when the circumstances change which is what has happened or look like whats going to happen with Brexit?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-?


Hague's comments highly pertinent.

The author you so admiringly quote in the Spectator advocates upholding International law, indeed argued that the EU should have been stronger with Germany in the word case.

How any of this is supportive of Johnson's folly is utterly mysterious to me. It argues that whilst the uk may be entitled to do what it wants, the EU should throw the book at us if we do. Is that what you want??

Johnson is proposing to go back on a treaty he signed and won an election of the back of just months ago.

How can you, or anyone, possibly support this? It's astonishing. Surely you should be shouting betrayal at Johnson for misleading the country, not at the EU.


But the EU didnt did they?

The authors final words
In practice that would mean modifying the Diplock line to say, as Germany does, the UK will uphold international law in principle, but break international law if it conflicts fundamentally with our constitution.
I would have thought any thing that undermines sovereignty fits the bill

The author ISNT taking the EUs side at all only saying what they should have done given the laws.

You are presenting what Boris has done as mischievous where really he ( and Mrs May etc ) were just hopeful ( maybe over optimistic )that things could be sorted out without damaging this country. Things have changed very quickly? Remember Mrs May's version was to subordinate the whole of the UK to the EU in her withdrawal agreement hardly some thing to cheer about, and it was rejected for fear of locking the UK for years into EU regulations that would require the EU's say-so to leave. Maybe Boris should have agreed to Mays deal as then his case for doing what he is doing would be stronger.
Last edited by mercalia on 15 Sep 2020, 2:34pm, edited 3 times in total.

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3288
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby roubaixtuesday » 15 Sep 2020, 2:21pm

mercalia wrote:
roubaixtuesday wrote:
mercalia wrote:William Hague's comments are beside the point and irrelevent. From that article previous eg I understand that Germany can reject international law where it conflicts with its constitution and appararantly has done so. That article recommends we follow Germany's example whilst upholding the importance of International law.
Hagues view ( and most others who are protesting incl Blair of all people) is some how that international law is sacrosanct, the absurd belief that there is no such thing as bad law :roll: laws can become bad when the circumstances change which is what has happened or look like whats going to happen with Brexit?

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-the-eu-punish-germany-when-it-broke-international-law-?


Hague's comments highly pertinent.

The author you so admiringly quote in the Spectator advocates upholding International law, indeed argued that the EU should have been stronger with Germany in the word case.

How any of this is supportive of Johnson's folly is utterly mysterious to me. It argues that whilst the uk may be entitled to do what it wants, the EU should throw the book at us if we do. Is that what you want??

Johnson is proposing to go back on a treaty he signed and won an election of the back of just months ago.

How can you, or anyone, possibly support this? It's astonishing. Surely you should be shouting betrayal at Johnson for misleading the country, not at the EU.


But the EU didnt did they?
The authors final words
In practice that would mean modifying the Diplock line to say, as Germany does, the UK will uphold international law in principle, but break international law if it conflicts fundamentally with our constitution.

I would have thought any thing that undermines sovereignty fits the bill


And the author is also arguing that doing so would be a bad idea. For the reasons outlined by Hague, and pretty much everybody else not in government.

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3288
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby roubaixtuesday » 15 Sep 2020, 2:22pm

So, mercalia, how about answering the question:


Johnson is proposing to go back on a treaty he signed and won an election of the back of just months ago.

How can you, or anyone, possibly support this? It's astonishing. Surely you should be shouting betrayal at Johnson for misleading the country, not at the EU

mercalia
Posts: 14032
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby mercalia » 15 Sep 2020, 2:23pm

roubaixtuesday wrote:So, mercalia, how about answering the question:


Johnson is proposing to go back on a treaty he signed and won an election of the back of just months ago.

How can you, or anyone, possibly support this? It's astonishing. Surely you should be shouting betrayal at Johnson for misleading the country, not at the EU


answered in the edit

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3288
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby roubaixtuesday » 15 Sep 2020, 2:28pm

mercalia wrote:
roubaixtuesday wrote:So, mercalia, how about answering the question:


Johnson is proposing to go back on a treaty he signed and won an election of the back of just months ago.

How can you, or anyone, possibly support this? It's astonishing. Surely you should be shouting betrayal at Johnson for misleading the country, not at the EU


answered in the edit


No, you've not answered it at all, if this is your answer

You are presenting what Boris has done as mischievous where really he ( and Mrs May etc ) were just hopeful ( maybe over optimistic )that things could be sorted out without damaging this country.

Is that it?

Johnson won an election on the basis of having a great deal, and now he's changed his mind and decided the deal was terrible, you still support him??

Why? What would he have to do to lose your support


He's laughing at you.

mercalia
Posts: 14032
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby mercalia » 15 Sep 2020, 2:37pm

roubaixtuesday wrote:
mercalia wrote:
roubaixtuesday wrote:So, mercalia, how about answering the question:


Johnson is proposing to go back on a treaty he signed and won an election of the back of just months ago.

How can you, or anyone, possibly support this? It's astonishing. Surely you should be shouting betrayal at Johnson for misleading the country, not at the EU


answered in the edit


No, you've not answered it at all, if this is your answer

You are presenting what Boris has done as mischievous where really he ( and Mrs May etc ) were just hopeful ( maybe over optimistic )that things could be sorted out without damaging this country.

Is that it?

Johnson won an election on the basis of having a great deal, and now he's changed his mind and decided the deal was terrible, you still support him??

Why? What would he have to do to lose your support


He's laughing at you.


no just that circumstances have changed. remember the withdrawal deal had to precede the trade talks ( not what Davies under May had wanted) so couldnt have forseen that the later trade deal would likely flounder. Now had both discussions had been at the same time then your accusations would be right. It aint

roubaixtuesday
Posts: 3288
Joined: 18 Aug 2015, 7:05pm

Re: Breaking International Law

Postby roubaixtuesday » 15 Sep 2020, 3:01pm

mercalia wrote:
roubaixtuesday wrote:
mercalia wrote:
answered in the edit


No, you've not answered it at all, if this is your answer

You are presenting what Boris has done as mischievous where really he ( and Mrs May etc ) were just hopeful ( maybe over optimistic )that things could be sorted out without damaging this country.

Is that it?

Johnson won an election on the basis of having a great deal, and now he's changed his mind and decided the deal was terrible, you still support him??

Why? What would he have to do to lose your support


He's laughing at you.


no just that circumstances have changed. remember the withdrawal deal had to precede the trade talks ( not what Davies under May had wanted) so couldnt have forseen that the later trade deal would likely flounder. Now had both discussions had been at the same time then your accusations would be right. It aint


None of these circumstances have changed.

Johnson signed up to, and won an election on a deal with that phasing.

The WA has provisions in it if the other side is acting in bad faith. Again Johnson signed up to those provisions.

The reality is that the deal does not deliver what Johnson has been promising, and there is no circumstance that will do that. And having been caught out he now provokes this new confrontation as a smokescreen to hide behind, judging, rightly, that he can fool enough people into blaming the EU for his own lies and incompetence.

All of which drags the country into the international gutter and endangers millions of people's livelihoods, all for the vanity of one man and the ideology of his backers.