The problem with this is: it is demonstrably wrong. /1
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1303594708485185542
First up: specific treaty content. This is from Art. 5 of the NI Protocol. It specifically states that it is the Joint Committee that determines goods not at risk. /2 
Second: general international law. And in fact the same holds true for contracts: they are not conclusively interpreted by one side however it wants. For treaties, the mode of interpretation is in the VCLT. Is it different for the WA?
Of course not. If the UK could interpret the WA however it wanted there would not be dispute settlement procedures. In fact, there would not be a WA. What about sovereignty?
Sovereignty means you are free to ratify treaties or not. But not that you can then pretend they mean something different from what they mean.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
