,
13 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This letter is clearly, absolutely clearly and without a doubt wrong about public international law. Let me explain (thread)
1) Let’s begin by clarifying what I understand the letter to say. It is not fully in the tweet - so @faisalislam will (hopefully) correct me if my understanding is wrong.
I read the letter to say that because of the current situation of the ECA 1972 repeal parliament’s intent is to leave the EU on 29 March, that the PM obviously disregarded that intent and that this disregard fulfills the requirements of Art. 46 VCLT and voids the extension.
2) So why is it wrong? Here’s Art. 46 VCLT. Read it. 
The principle is this: another State does NOT have to care about your internal law. A State may NOT invoke the fact that its consent to be bound violated internal law.
That is a fundamental principle. Read it together with Art. 7 VCLT that says that Heads of States and Heads of Governments are automatically considered to represent their State and what does it mean?
It means another State can fundamentally rely on the PM representing the UK. If there are complex internal rules limiting her competence, another state does not have to care.
Now as that principle might reach limits at times, Art. 46 also contains an exception:where the consent was expressed in violation of a provision of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties which was manifest and concerned an internal rule of fundamental importance.
Art. 46 VCLT leaves no doubt that this is a tough test to fulfill: para 2 states that a violation is manifest (only) if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in accordance with normal practice and in good faith. That’s tough.
How tough? PMs are supposed to be able to represent their state. In fact, in the UK this is part of the prerogative power. The story already ends here. But if you want you can go further...
This motion passed the House 412 to 202. See parliament.uk/business/news/…
No more doubts. The House expressly voted for an extension. You cannot expect a foreign state to get out the Erskine May and delve into the intrecacies of ECA withdrawal. In fact, that is a textbook example of the opposite of evident.
The goal of Art. 46 VCLT is precisely to protect foreign states from having to come to terms with internal complexities. (And as my learned friend @Prof_Phillipson points out: it does not help the argument that it is apparently also wrong on UK law).
