Britain's Rule-Breaking: Global Law And Uk's Future

The UK government has admitted that its plan to reinterpret the special Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland will break international law. The Internal Market Bill breaches the Withdrawal Agreement brokered by Boris Johnson and Theresa May. Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland secretary, told the House of Commons: Yes, this does break international law in a very specific and limited way. This statement has sparked criticism and concerns about the UK's international reputation and ability to uphold deals with partners. While there may be no immediate consequences for breaking international law, it damages the UK's standing and makes it harder to enforce international norms and do deals with partners.

UK's reputation as an upholder of international law

The UK has historically been known for upholding international law. However, in recent years, the country has found itself in a bit of a tight spot regarding its commitment to international law, especially in the context of its departure from the European Union (EU).

In September 2020, the UK government admitted that its plan to reinterpret the special Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland would "break international law in a very specific and limited way," according to Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland Secretary. This admission sparked a torrent of criticism, including from former Prime Minister Theresa May, who questioned the UK's international reputation as a trustworthy nation.

The controversy centred around the Internal Market Bill, which breached the Withdrawal Agreement negotiated by Boris Johnson and Theresa May. This bill gave UK ministers powers to decide when EU rules apply to Northern Ireland, particularly regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol, which aimed to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

Senior Conservatives expressed dismay, warning that the UK's move risked undermining its standing and reputation as an upholder of international law. Tobias Ellwood, chair of the Commons Defence Committee, emphasised that the decision went against the rule of law and the country's commitment to uphold it.

The breach of international law by the UK has potential consequences for its reputation and future dealings with other nations. Firstly, it could make it harder for the UK to enforce international norms on other countries. Secondly, it may create challenges in negotiating deals with partners, including the EU, if the UK is seen as a country that reneges on its promises.

While the UK has justified its actions as necessary to protect the Northern Ireland peace process and create a ""safety net" in the event of failed Brexit talks, the move has undoubtedly raised questions about its commitment to international law and the potential impact on its global standing.

Sanctions and trade tariffs

The imposition of sanctions or trade tariffs on the UK would be a significant development, with potential economic and political consequences. Sanctions are typically imposed to pressure a country to change its behaviour or policies and can involve a range of measures such as travel bans, asset freezes, and restrictions on trade or financial transactions. Trade tariffs, on the other hand, are taxes or duties imposed on goods imported from a specific country, making those goods more expensive and potentially less competitive in the market.

The impact of sanctions or trade tariffs on the UK would depend on the specific measures imposed and the scope of their application. They could affect UK businesses and individuals by increasing costs, limiting access to certain markets, or disrupting supply chains. The impact would also depend on the UK's response and whether it chooses to retaliate with its own sanctions or trade measures.

It is important to note that the imposition of sanctions or trade tariffs is not inevitable and that the EU may choose to pursue other avenues to address the breach. Additionally, the UK's departure from the EU is a complex and unique situation, and the specific consequences of any breach of international law in this context are difficult to predict.

The UK's standing in the world and its ability to enforce international norms on other countries may also be impacted by its breach of international law. The UK has historically advocated for a rules-based international order and condemned other countries for their breaches of international law. By breaking international law itself, the UK risks undermining its credibility and making it harder to hold other countries accountable.

UK's ability to enforce international norms

The UK's ability to enforce international norms will be significantly weakened if it breaks international law. This is because, by breaking international law, the UK undermines its credibility and reputation as an upholder of international law and a trustworthy nation. This was a concern raised by former Prime Minister Theresa May in response to the UK government's admission that its plan to reinterpret the special Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland would break international law.

The UK has long been a strong advocate for international law on the world stage, condemning various breaches by other nations. By breaking international law itself, the UK risks losing its moral high ground and making it harder for its diplomats to enforce international norms on other countries. For example, British diplomats may face pushback from other countries when trying to address breaches of international law, with those countries potentially arguing that the UK's stance is hypocritical.

Furthermore, a breach of international law by the UK could damage its relationships with international partners and make it more difficult to negotiate deals. This is because partners may be less inclined to trust a country that has demonstrated a willingness to renege on its promises and break its commitments. This could have significant implications for the UK's ability to enforce international norms, as effective enforcement often relies on cooperation and collaboration between nations.

The specific breach of international law in question relates to the UK's plan to override key portions of the Brexit deal it signed with the European Union, particularly the Northern Ireland Protocol. This Protocol was designed to ensure that border checks would not be imposed between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, an EU member state, even in the event of a no-deal Brexit. By attempting to unilaterally change the terms of this agreement, the UK is not only breaking international law but also undermining the integrity of the single market and fair competition.

While the UK government has argued that its breach of international law is "specific and limited," legal experts and international actors have pushed back on this notion. Dr Holger Hestermeyer from the Dickson Poon School of Law at King's College London stated that "so-called 'partial' breaches of international law do not exist." Additionally, the European Union warned Britain that keeping agreements is an "age-old diplomatic cornerstone."

In conclusion, the UK's ability to enforce international norms will be weakened if it breaks international law. This is due to the potential damage to its credibility, reputation, and relationships with international partners. While the UK may argue that its breach is limited in scope, such a move could still have far-reaching implications for its global standing and influence in enforcing international norms.

The possibility of a border on the island of Ireland

The Irish Sea border, as it is informally known, was chosen as a solution to the "Brexit Trilemma," which involves three competing objectives: no hard border on the island, no Irish Sea border, and no British participation in the European Single Market and Customs Union. By establishing the Irish Sea border, Prime Minister Boris Johnson avoided a hard border on the island of Ireland but created a trade border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. This decision was not without opposition, with some Unionists arguing that it "cut NI adrift from the rest of the UK" and pushed for the collapse of the devolved administration.

The impact of Brexit on the Irish border has significant implications for trade, customs, immigration checks, local economies, services, recognition of qualifications, and medical cooperation. The Northern Ireland Protocol of the Brexit withdrawal agreement commits both the UK and the EU to maintaining an open border in Ireland. This means that Northern Ireland remains aligned with the European Single Market for goods while remaining part of the UK customs territory and internal market. As a result, there is a need for customs checks on goods moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but not on the island of Ireland itself.

The Brexit withdrawal agreement also includes provisions for addressing concerns about the movement of people and goods between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. For example, people carrying more than €10,000 in cash when crossing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are subject to the same laws as when travelling from Great Britain to the EU. Additionally, the agreement outlines how goods entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain should be handled, with trusted traders' goods clearly marked as "not for EU" being transferred with minimal controls.

The UK's commitment to the rules-based international order

The UK has a long history of upholding the rules-based international order and has been a vocal advocate for international law on the world stage. However, in recent years, the country has found itself in a contentious position regarding its commitment to international law, particularly in the context of its departure from the European Union (EU), or Brexit.

In September 2020, the UK government admitted that its plan to reinterpret the special Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland would "break international law in a very specific and limited way," according to Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland Secretary at the time. This admission sparked widespread criticism and concerns about the UK's trustworthiness and commitment to international law.

The Internal Market Bill, which was at the centre of this controversy, was seen as an attempt by the UK government to unilaterally change parts of the Withdrawal Agreement, specifically the Northern Ireland Protocol. This protocol was designed to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and ensure that Northern Ireland traders had unfettered access to Great British markets. However, critics argued that the bill gave UK ministers the power to decide when EU rules apply to Northern Ireland, undermining the agreement.

The UK's departure from the EU was laid down in international law through the Withdrawal Agreement, which included the Northern Ireland Protocol. By proposing to change this agreement, the UK government faced accusations of breaking international law and risking the country's international reputation. This move also raised concerns about the UK's ability to enforce international norms on other countries and the potential impact on future deals with partners, including the EU.

Despite the controversy, the UK government defended its position by arguing that the changes were necessary to protect the Northern Ireland peace process and create a "`safety net` in case Brexit talks collapsed. However, legal experts and politicians, including former Prime Minister Theresa May, questioned the government's approach and its potential consequences.

In conclusion, while the UK has traditionally been a strong advocate for international law, the Brexit process has brought into question the country's commitment to the rules-based international order. The UK's actions during this period have had implications for its international standing and may have set a precedent that could impact its ability to uphold and enforce international law in the future.

Frequently asked questions