On 18/08/2019 19:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/08/2019 17:22, Max Demian wrote:

There's no such thing as international law. Just treaties by
sovereign nations.

There is.

Google it

I'm not convinced. I recall that Clive Anderson saying as much on his
Unreliable Evidence programme, where he started by describing
International Law as the collections of Treaties and norms[*] that
countries abide by. Or agree to be bound by.


Treaties are bound by the Vienna convention.

Whether you call it law or not is moot.

But treaties are not commonly breached unilaterally by teh givernment of
ine party deciding to. And certainly not without thee issue being raised
at the the UN.

Tratries are slippery things,.

Consider this extract from Wiki

"A party's consent to a treaty is invalid if it had been given by an
agent or body *without power to do so under that state's domestic laws*".

There is considerable precedent that ceding soverignty to the EU was
/ulta vires/ for HM government, and constituted an act of treason
against HM. And in fact we are teherore not, and never have been, a
member of the EU.


....

"According to the preamble in The Law of Treaties, treaties are a source
of international law. If an act or lack thereof is condemned under
international law, the act will not assume international legality even
if approved by internal law. This means that in case of a conflict with
domestic law, *international law will always prevail*".

e.g. that clearly states why the action to make the extension illegal
under UK law is pointless. The treaty we signed trumps UK law,


There's in any case no body with the required competence to "pass" such
laws.


The UN, and those who framed the Vienna conventions on international
traties.

[*] Or some such verbiage.


The more intersting part of te Vienna conmvention concerns this

"One significant part of treaty-making is that signing a treaty implies
recognition that the other side is a /sovereign state/ and that the
agreement being considered is enforceable under international law".

If a treaty cedes sovereignty, there is an argument that it is ipso
facto null and void the moment it is signed.

If the entity that is a counterparty - the EU - is NOT a sovereign
state, (and the EU is not), there is equally a legal question as to
whether its signature on a treaty is valid at all.

I can't remember whether or not Masstricht and Lisbon are a treaty
between the 28 members or between each member and the EU...

If it is an agreement betwen 28 sovereign states then any member can in
theory leave without invoking article 50, since their sovereignty to do
so unilaterally is preserved.

Another relevant point is that te GFA is frajmed as an international
treaty IIRC and is also subject to 'force majeure'

That is: should the EU insist on a stance that forces the ROI to violate
its terms, that would be /force majeure/ and the GFA would no longer apply.

Or possubly te EU would be in breach of the GFA and Lisbon would no
longer apply, and the ROI could leave the EU immediately.

Whaytever. The point is if the GFA and Lisbon are two pieces of
intertnational law laid down by treaty and they are incompatible, then
one or the other must be deemed to be inapplicable.


--
Of what good are dead warriors? €¦ Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory €¦ The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.