9 ms·
In practice this is untrue.
by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
In practice this is untrue.
- wazoox 7y agoSure, but it seems hard to dismiss in court.
- telotortium 7y agoI don't know how it is in the UK, but in the US most "treaties" are actually executive agreements, which set a policy of the US executive branch but do not have the force of law. Treaties must be approved by 2/3 of the US Senate to have the force of law, by the US Constitution, and even then a treaty can't violate the US Constitution. You left out the full text of Article 26, which is pretty important: "A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46." Article 46 states: """ 1. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance. 2. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal practice and in good faith. """ I would consider the US Constitution a "rule of its internal law of fundamental importance". I'm sure the UK government would have no problem finding a similar argument that makes Article 26 a dead letter.