Case discussions amongst the EU and the UK,

Case study: Sources of International Law
– Applicability of successive treaties on the same matter – Unilateral Acts of
States: UK’s Accountability for Economic Obligations
emergent from Brexit to the European Union (EU)

 

Introduction

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Amongst
each and every sensitive matter in the constant discussions amongst the EU and
the UK, the authorization of the outstanding British economic obligation owing
to the EU (which is commonly cited as being Britain’s “divorce bill”) is
immensely constitutionally challenging. Regrettably, in respect to the provided
provisions of the European Commission (EC) discoursing group’s directive, it
similarly must be approved prior to discussions that can advance on any
extensive issues. The directive specifies the “divorce bill” is amongst three
matters, along with the other two matters being a strategy in relation to the
Irish frontier, and the queries of joint residency rights, that entail adequate
development so as to progress to discoursing the change and the enduring future
association. This directive is provided to the assembly of the Commission by
the European Council of state leaders and the EU-27’s administration. As it
gradually became visible from a negotiation between an effective team of
members owning an extensive variety of sentiments and outlooks, what may at an
initial view seem to be a limited and practical legal issue swiftly exposes
itself as being related to wider political, monetary, and social questions. This
essay is comprehensively ordered amongst the given three subjects (political,
financial, and legal) and attempts to bond the themes together that are brought
into the communication, and analyze some of those themes further.

Provisions
of Legality and Matters Beyond the Background of the EU

The legitimate stance of the UK’s
economic obligations is a combination of global legal regulations and terms
provided in the European agreements, and is subject to the lawful consequences
of diverse Brexit circumstances. In relation to international law, the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) emerges into the spotlight, through
which Article 70 specifies the outcomes of a treaty’s termination. Nevertheless,
though majority of the European Union’s affiliated nations are a participant of
the Convention, there are not any examples in Europe in relation to the
implementation of Article 70. There are further uncertainties regarding whether
EU’s affiliated nations could undertake any alternative to the provision for
the benefit of the EU in its entirety (all elements considered, that is a
distinct legal element). Article 70 itself indicates these results do not
become an integral factor if the treaty generally delivers, or the members
generally approve, which appears to raise the EU’s individual provisions
regarding the association’s termination; for example, the Treaty on European
Union’s (TEU) intermittently-cited Article 50. Nonetheless, whereas Article 50
could permit for resigning from the VCLT’s technical directions regarding a
treaty’s termination, it does not essentially allow for the opposing members to
resign from all diverse terms provided by the Convention, which is also
inclusive of Article 70’s further sections (Waibel, 2017 : pp. 2-5). The
Convention can therefore not be absent from the platform altogether.

Article 50, past this, comprises of
no straightforward citation to any privilege, liability, or legal context of
the member states incorporated (in distinction to the VCLT) – not to mention
that it makes particular reference of economic liabilities, that might be
accepted to infer that there is not any UK’s specific liability to make an
imbursement. Though, the so-called ‘villain’ could be present in the
informative detail, to such an extent seems to rely upon the various
circumstances beneath that Brexit could possibly implement, most crucially the
subject of whether an agreement is possible to be achieved or not. Any possible
no-agreement situation; for example, whichever contracting party is unable to
mutually concur on legal separation, political evolution, and any imminent
partnership by Friday, March 29th, 2019, or else Britain exiting
from diplomatic communications prior to that day of 2019 would conclusively not
involve a single bill to be made an imbursement. Article 50 basically consists
of no provisional terms for this situation. Comparatively, both the possible
forms of a Brexit treaty – for example, one Article 50 agreement equipped with
or deprived of legal-political progress – allow space for diplomatic
negotiations. Specifically, the most imperative article’s clause 2 stipulates
that “… the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that
State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal”, that may
conceivably be construed as being officially corresponding to the specification
of a privilege, accountability, or legal scenario, therefore similarly
demarcating possible economic liabilities to be respectfully fulfilled by
Britain.

Evidently
if Britain merely declined to make an imbursement, whatsoever legal
accountability it may possess, there is not a single instrument for
authorization, especially when the Court of Justice of the European Union’s
(CJEU) authority above Britain arrives to a conclusion. According to Begg
(2017a), On an alternate stage, nonetheless, the matter of ‘respectfully
fulfilling own’s obligations’ is vital for signifying decent trust – both in
regards of escaping an ‘intimidating Brexit’ and in discussing with potential
opposing member parties; for example, with respects to potential finance and
trade contracts. This drives one’s distinct perception into the territory of
legal-political policymaking and global diplomatic negotiations.

x

Hi!
I'm Morris!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out