Does the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill breach international law?

Подписаться 470 тыс.

Просмотров 13 тыс.

50% 1

On Monday 13 June, the UK Government published the text of the proposed Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.
The Northern Ireland Protocol forms part of the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The Protocol creates a special legal position for Northern Ireland in the light of its particular political circumstances, effectively enabling Northern Ireland to remain within the EU’s Single Market for goods. The UK Government argues that it is necessary to ‘fix’ certain practical problems that it perceives in relation to this arrangement, including ‘disruption and diversion of trade and significant costs and bureaucracy for business’. It therefore proposes the enactment of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.
In this video, Professor Mark Elliott considers the extent to which the Bill could be considered to be proposing a breach of international law.
Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law and Chair of the Faculty of Law at the University of Cambridge, and a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge. From 2015 to 2019, he 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. Mark co-founded the international biennial Public Law Conference series and co-convened the first two conferences. He is the recipient of a University of Cambridge Pilkington Prize for excellence in teaching and is the author of a widely read blog publiclawforeveryone.com/ that is aimed at public law scholars, current and prospective law students, policy-makers, and others who are interested in the subject.
For more information about Professor Elliott, you can also refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/acad...
Law in Focus is a collection of short videos created by Daniel Bates featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

Опубликовано:

16 июн 2022

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 33

@brachiator1 2 года назад

A very clear commentary

@keacoq 2 года назад

Thank you for this clear explanation. It intrigues me that both UK and Russia have decided to act in important ways contrary to the rules based order. Both: - Say that what they are doing is being done to protect a territory they control or have controlled in the past. - Say that they are acting out of necessity. - are acting contrary to the expressed views of the majority of peopple in the subservient territory. - are pursuing their aims disregarding the reality or risk of military conflict. The UK says it supports Ukraine. But the UK's actions in disregarding the rules based order (re NI protocol bill), have perhaps emboldended Putin to expand his attacks against Ukraine. Methinks Boris is grandstanding on both issues. He won't want to find the money to keep supprting Ukraine (he has Brexit costs to pay after all). He says he won't pass the NIP bill until after the DUP return to power sharing. And once the DUP have returned to power sharing. he will have no need to pass the NIP bill - better to just keep the can kicking down the road....

@shannonaldridge6746 2 года назад

Well done .... You're a keeper for sure. I appreciate your simple, clear explanation. Thank you.

@stefanjoergens1693 2 года назад

Yes, very clear and concise. I would like to add that even if the UK was in their right to invoke the defense of necessity, this would only excuse the failure to perform a treaty for as long as and only to the extent a state of necessity exists and is remedied by such failure of performance. It does not allow the UK to terminate or selectively abrogate whole sections of the protocol.

@davidodonovan2885 2 года назад

Great video. Very clear.

@amcusack 2 года назад

Excellent analysis.. Thanks Mark.

@garyt.8745 2 года назад

Thanks for that, a very clear and concise explanation. Pity Mrs. Liz Truss doesn't seem to have such a grasp on the issue.

@johnmckie6563 2 года назад

Really excellent ..cool clear calm and collected …and the words of a scholar. Send it to Liz Truss.

@maryummeerafsar8056 2 года назад

My dream to study in Cambrige💕💕💕

@fritsgerms3565 2 года назад

And the government has not used the safeguard mechanism (as agreed) to handle these disputes. That alone means the bill violates international law with respect to Goodwill.

@frogandspanner 2 года назад

What about the suggestion in Miller & de Mars [1] that VCLT does not hold as EU is not a state? [1] _Could the Withdrawal Agreement be terminated under International Law_ , V Miller & S de Mars, House of Commons Library Brifeing Paper 8463, 26th March 2019

@seandonaghy2473 2 года назад

To paraphrase Boris Johnson: "I will use the rule of law to destroy the rule of law, even if that law is based on international rules which, logically, allows me to do that very thing." And there was poor me thinking ALICE IN WONDERLAND was a mind-bender!

@timoneill1490 2 года назад

Error in the first sentence. The NI protocol is a part of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, not the (now defunct) Withdrawal Agreement.

@vandor1976 2 года назад

I have question. Does it mean the MPs who are vote for this bill commited a crime?

@rajupodiyan3147 2 года назад

🌞

@philmus1 2 года назад

This will be a short video: yes

@lVideoWatcherl 2 года назад

This should reach far more people, especially those hardcore Brexit supporters who seem to have an issue with factual evidence.

@lorcanfeely6371 2 года назад

Experts eh? What do they know compared to Liz Truss.? Especially since her voice broke.

@Mute040404 2 года назад

It's an Agreement - it's not unusual or wrong to have them rewritten.. Unless you believe MSM

@JorgeG121 2 года назад

With all due respect to Prof Elliot, Article 16 of the NIP is irrelevant to whether the UK gov. is breaching its obligations under international law, because for Art. 16 to apply, the UK gov. would need to INVOKE Art. 16, as it was constantly attempting to do, while both Frosty and BJ were ignorant of what Art. 16 meant. It obviously took many many months to get through Frosty and BJ's hard skulls that Art. 16 was not the panacea that they had been constantly parroting about in their media briefings, so now Truss the ignoramus and BJ the ignoramus in chief are directly breaking their international obligations to give red meat to their ERG and DUP dogs but, as I say, Art. 16 is irrelevant to it because it has not been invoked. The 2nd part of the argument is obviously correct, but there is another angle to it: How could anyone with half a brain invoke the doctrine of necessity when the NIP has majority support in the elected members of NI Assembly? The only explanation is around the corner of Cambridge: BJ studied at Oxford, hence I would blame them for creating such a Frankenstein brain.

@peadarocolmain4850 2 года назад

Hello from Dublin. It certainly seems to me that it is going to cause a lot of damage to Britain's credibility internationally but as an Irishman that is not my primary concern. It just seems incredible to me that in all the reporting and discussing the issue has not really been elucidated - especially to the population of Britain. This is so sectarian and abusive to the Nationalist people of all Ireland. Most the the politicians who were elected support the protocol. Most of the voters support the protocol. The Unionist MLAs who disagree with the Protocol are a MINORITY but they are being given a veto because the issue needs "Cross Community Support". When the British Government come up with their "amended" Protocol (Their broken Protocol) then the MAJORITY of MLAs will be unhappy with it. They're on the nationalist side. There will be no requirement for "Cross Community Support". It will be rammed down their necks.