Amy international law experts around?

[andrewducker]

I am confused by some of the reporting around Independence, so hopefully someone can clear things up for me*.

My understanding is that if Scotland becomes independent, then that ends the United Kingdom (which is named after the uniting of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland into one Kingdom). We are not left with The United Kingdom, and "that bit which used to be part of it, but isn't any more". We have two new countries.

So why is it that I keep reading stories about how Scotland will have to renegotiate X and Y with Europe, NATO, the UN, etc. - which also assume that England+Wales+NI won't have to negotiate anything at all. Surely either both new nations will have to negotiate their relationship with various organisations, or both will inherit the relationship from the nation they are successors to.

Anyone care to put me right? Or at least tell me that everyone disagrees?



*Although the experts also seem to be confused, so probably not.

Comments

[cheekbones3]

As far as I understand it, the standard procedure would be for Scotland to secede from the union, and the union therefore still exists as a legal entity. Scotland would probably have to start afresh, join the UN etc, but I don't see why the UK would be affected.

As for the situation where, say, mainland Australia seceded from Tasmania, or the USA seceded from Florida, I think it would be the same, where the secessionists are creating a new country, even if that new country contains the rump of the old one.

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

Scotland would become a brand new country that has not existed since well before the EU came about and would not be obligated to follow any treaties that the country they used to belong to signed off on.

Conceptually, the "England and the rest of the bits" would be a new country as well, but from a legal standpoint they'd still be obligated to follow existing treaties because their government would still exist as is and unless a government is dissolved completely treaties still stand.

In other words under international law "United Kingdom" is just a name. If I was to legally change my name I'd still be obligated to honor contracts signed off on under my old name.

[iainjcoleman.livejournal.com]

It's all a bit of a grey area. There was a recent House of Commons report that considered the issues, and the summary conclusion was as follows:

If Scotland became independent, would it automatically remain a member of the European Union (EU) – or would it have to go through the whole accession process for new Member States, either alone or alongside the rest of the UK?

This is a major question in the independence debate, and one to which there is no clear answer. There is no precedent for a devolved part of an EU Member State becoming independent and having to determine its membership of the EU as a separate entity, and the question has given rise to widely different views.

There are at least three different possibilities under international law for a newly-independent Scotland: continuation and secession (the rest of the UK would retain its treaty obligations and membership of international organisations, but Scotland would not); separation (both entities would retain them); and dissolution (both would lose them).

Whatever the position under general international law, a decision on Scotland’s status within the European Union is likely to be a political one. If all the EU Member States agreed, then Scotland could continue automatically as a Member State (pending negotiations with the other member states on details of membership, including the number of MEPs to represent Scotland). On the other hand, Member States with their own domestic concerns about separatist movements might argue that Scotland should lose its membership on independence, and hold up or even veto its accession.

EU Member States, with the exception of Denmark and the UK, are expected to join the single currency if and when they meet the criteria. Five of the twelve states joining the EU since 2004 have gone on to join the euro. Whether Scotland joined the euro would have implications for its post-independence monetary policy, and the size of its liability for loans provided to countries facing sovereign debt problems. Finally, Scotland is likely to be a net contributor to the EU Budget (in other words it will pay out more than it receives in structural funding and payments under the Common Agricultural Policy), but the size of this contribution will depend critically on whether it benefits from an abatement (rebate) on the same terms as does the UK currently.

The full report is available here - it's not too long, and surprisingly readable.

State of the Union

[chaos-monkey.livejournal.com]

Question:
I thought the United Kingdom was 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.
So it's the Great Britain bit that's changing - not the United Kingdom bit... Yesno?

Which would maybe mean the UK would still exist after the redefinition of Great Britain, and therefore have the same treaties etc... Or that could be rubbish.

Hmm. Let me know if you get anywhere with it - it's interesting!

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I assume this is just "it'll work the way everyone thinks". Presumably if, say, one constituency was granted independence, everyone would assume the UK would continue acting as the UK. If the UK split into individual counties and equivalents, there wouldn't be any continuity, and everyone would know they'd have to renegotiate stuff they'd arranged with the UK. So I guess... everyone just assumes the "non-scotland bits of the UK" is a lot more like the UK than not like the UK, so expect to treat it as such, and the government is happy to expect and accept that. *shrug*

[drplokta]

When Scotland joined England & Wales in the first Act of Union, it became Great Britain. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was only created when Ireland joined a century later, and if it survived losing most of Ireland I expect it can survive losing a bit of Great Britain with another name change to the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The legal position is doubtless murkier.

[drplokta]

Consider, however, the reductio ad absurdam cases. If one UK citizen renounces their citizenship and claims sovereignty, that does not constitute the breakup of the UK into two parts neither of which counts legally as the UK. Nor does it if Rockall is given to Ireland. So by itself, the loss of citizens and/or territory does not discontinue the UK. So we must ask ourselves at what point does the loss become large enough that the UK has ceased to exist for legal purposes, being replaced by two successor states. The loss of a bit less than 10% of the population may or may not constitute such an event -- I would say it's in the grey area. If it was 1% it definitely wouldn't, if it was 40% it definitely would.

[steer.livejournal.com]

Hmm... surely it is pretty clear that the England/Wales/Ireland bit remains bound as the parliament, head of state and head of government which signed those parts of the treaty remain within that sovereign entity. I would assume that the remaining UK part will not grant itself a different government or governmental procedures but maintain a continuity of prime-minister and head of state. That is, it's legally more like Scotland becoming independent from the United Kingdom, rather than two new countries being formed. (Scotland will grant its parliament new powers, gain new legal mechanisms etc etc).

[lpetrazickis.livejournal.com]

If Quebec were to secede from Canada, I would expect it to have to renegotiate things like the North American Free Trade Agreement while Rest of Canada would stick with the status quo for the treaties.

Of course, I can't imagine Quebec not wanting to renegotiate, the primary motive for secession being the perception that Anglos in government are too incompetent and misguided to negotiate a favourable treaty.

[charleysjob.livejournal.com]

The best parallel is probably the break-up of the USSR or, on a smaller scale, Kosovo and/or Montenegro declaring their independence from Serbia. In both cases, there was a widely-recognized successor (Russia and Serbia respectively) who retained the position of the predecessor. In Russia's case, the name changed as it was no longer a Union of Soviet republics, but that didn't actually matter.

I don't think that realistically anyone would deny that London and Her Majesty Betty are the successors to London and Glasgow and Her Majesty Betty, if you see what I mean. Doesn't matter what the place calls itself. Here we are dealing much more with the odd and inconsistent politics of international recognition than any actual written law that anyone could actually be held to.

The fact that some of the people who voted for the parliament of the ex-UK are no longer there is, unfortunately, entirely moot. Neither Democracy nor a democratic consideration of the validity of laws mean anything from an international perspective. (See: China vs. Taiwan, "Which one is the real China?" debate)

[luckylove.livejournal.com]

More importantly, what would our internet suffix/domain/thingy be?