,
7 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
The great minds of international law @philippesands @PietEeckhout @Lorand_Bartels @usualcaveat have already weighed in on the law of treaties on fundamental change of circumstances. I have nothing more to contribute on substance but do want to add a historical wrinkle. 1/n
For the last 150 years, the UK has been a great – greatest? -- opponent of the doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances. Three examples: 2/n
(1) 1871 (a very different world where Crimea and Russia arouse great passions): Great Britain is the main mover for a declaration explicitly directed against a claim/instance of broad application of the doctrine, in a sense originating the modern law on the issue. 
(2) 1969 (Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties): Sir Francis Vallat, FCO Legal Advisor, is explicit about the UK's preference for as narrow and conditioned a reading of the doctrine as possible.
(3) 1972 (Icelandic Fisheries Jurisdiction case in the ICJ): the UK argues against fundamental change of circumstances and wins, with many delicious bits in pleadings, e.g.
I don’t have a particular punchline here, just to say that opposition to any/broad form of fundamental change of circumstances has been UK’s policy since Gladstone. Good realpolitik reasons for Great Powers to insist upon formal rule of law in treaty matters. Right AND smart. FIN
PS. Just to bring out one particularly on the nose sentence from the UK's written pleadings in the Icelandic Fisheries Jurisdiction case.
