Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
How Damaging Could This Be To Britain’s International Reputation?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ichkeria. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's pretty clear that signing a treaty and then breaking it is a show of bad faith, and it's also clear that International Convention also only exceptional circumstances to override that, which these are not.
My worry is that this simply won't be taken seriously until it actually comes back to bite us.
My worry is that this simply won't be taken seriously until it actually comes back to bite us.
I did wonder how long it would take the collaborators to pick this one up. Broadly I agree that we should not break international treaties but I think it may be necessary in this case. Essentially we are fighting the VBQC and we must do what is necessary as they have demonstrated they are willing to do, to thwart democracy. Anyway I expect this post will be removed soon so my congrats to those that read it in the mean time.
Article 50 of the Geneva convention guarantees the right of a party to walk away from a treaty if the other side has not kept up their side of the bargain. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part
// Article 50 of the Geneva convention ... //
No it doesn't: wrong Convention, it's Vienna not Geneva, and Wrong Article. Presumably you mean Articles 60-62, but:
Article 62 requires a "fundamental change of circumstances" which was "not foreseen", so isn't relevant here, as the Treaty we're planning to break was signed with the knowledge that negotiations may not conclude by the end of this year -- and, indeed, with the express purpose of providing a contingency for this case;
Article 60 requires a "material breach", ie a deliberate violation of some sort. I am not sure that anyone is accusing the EU of a material breach. They are just sticking to their red lines, as are we, and we knew that this negotiation would be difficult.
Put simply, the Government is acting in bad faith in attempting to pass this law, and to confess to breaking international law is an astonishing point. Or are we supposed to understand that we can pick and choose which laws to obey?
Not to mention, of course, the damage to the future reputation of the UK. What is the point, other countries will be entitled to wonder, of entering an agreement with the UK if they will just break it whenever it suits them?
No it doesn't: wrong Convention, it's Vienna not Geneva, and Wrong Article. Presumably you mean Articles 60-62, but:
Article 62 requires a "fundamental change of circumstances" which was "not foreseen", so isn't relevant here, as the Treaty we're planning to break was signed with the knowledge that negotiations may not conclude by the end of this year -- and, indeed, with the express purpose of providing a contingency for this case;
Article 60 requires a "material breach", ie a deliberate violation of some sort. I am not sure that anyone is accusing the EU of a material breach. They are just sticking to their red lines, as are we, and we knew that this negotiation would be difficult.
Put simply, the Government is acting in bad faith in attempting to pass this law, and to confess to breaking international law is an astonishing point. Or are we supposed to understand that we can pick and choose which laws to obey?
Not to mention, of course, the damage to the future reputation of the UK. What is the point, other countries will be entitled to wonder, of entering an agreement with the UK if they will just break it whenever it suits them?
""“Mr Lewis [NI Secretary] told the Commons: “Yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way.” He added that the powers the Government was taking would enable ministers to “disapply” the legal concept of “direct effect” – which requires the enforcement of EU law – in “certain, very tightly defined circumstances.There are clear precedents for the UK, and indeed other countries, needing to consider their international obligations as circumstances change,” he added.” ""
Do take the advice of the wonderfully named Ms Braverman Boris. :))
Do take the advice of the wonderfully named Ms Braverman Boris. :))
I also wonder at TTT sometimes. It isn't a question of supporting Brexit or not. It's a question of supporting the principle of international law or not. It's a bad sign if the UK treats treaties as optional rather than binding, both for our future relations and for our ability to persuade others to abide by them.
It's the same with the situation in Belarus, for example. A better example of corrupt and rigged election you could not find. It is therefore saddening to see that the US has said little about the situation, and not difficult to see that maybe this is related to their President going on about how "corrupt" and "rigged" their own upcoming election will be.
I'm not meaning to target Trump here particularly, but the point is that when countries like the US and UK destroy their own moral authority, the World suffers. We should respect International Law even if it's inconvenient to do so; we shouldn't disparage our own processes; and we should continue to pressure other countries, as far as possible, to do the same. Failing to do the first two makes us hypocrites, and leave the door open for others to claim a moral high ground they do not deserve.
It's the same with the situation in Belarus, for example. A better example of corrupt and rigged election you could not find. It is therefore saddening to see that the US has said little about the situation, and not difficult to see that maybe this is related to their President going on about how "corrupt" and "rigged" their own upcoming election will be.
I'm not meaning to target Trump here particularly, but the point is that when countries like the US and UK destroy their own moral authority, the World suffers. We should respect International Law even if it's inconvenient to do so; we shouldn't disparage our own processes; and we should continue to pressure other countries, as far as possible, to do the same. Failing to do the first two makes us hypocrites, and leave the door open for others to claim a moral high ground they do not deserve.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.