Thread by @WomaninHavana

This statement by AG @SuellaBraverman contains fundamental omissions, misunderstandings or misrepresentations.

Crucially, it waves a populist flag for parliamentary sovereignty as if that was an answer to the international law problem created by govt in its Bill.

It is not. /1

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1304066214596153345

She argues that because Parliamentary sovereignty forms part of our domestic constitutional arrangements, Plmnt can enact whatever it wants, irrespective of international law & treaty obligations freely entered into.

That isn't an answer to the q of breach, but a flag wave. /2

In common with the many countries whom Britain has called upon to respect & adhere to its int'l law obligations, Britain is required to act in accordance with its treaty obligations. Bandying about the language of parliamentary sovereignty does not sidestep that obligation. /3

Art. 27 Vienna Convention clearly states that a party may not invoke its national law to justify its failure to perform its treaty obligations. This is a sound principle of international law. /4

Her interpretation on the 'dualist' system is wrong, confusing the meaning of 'binding'. Once a treaty is in force, the state is •bound• by it in int'l law.

(Sidenote - probably why you should take time to read what you sign).

Dualism relates to enforceability in the UK. /5

Just think about the logic inherent in the govt argument, quite apart from legal technicalities.

What purpose the international rules-based order if countries signed & said, 'yeah but no but yeah but national law"?

This is a retrograde & embarrassing position for Britain. /ends