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

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

Because it's the British parliament that signed off on the obligations and that parliament would still exist.

[andrewducker]

A British parliament that was elected by citizens including all of the ones in Scotland, and which covered the Scottish lands.

The fact that one part of the country continues to use one building, while the other part now uses a different building doesn't change anything.

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

It does.

A historical example: When the South seceded from the Union kicking off the Civil War the North still had to honor its treaties with England and France, while the newly created Confederate States Of America did not. Even though those treaties were ratified by a Congress that had included citizens from those southern states.

[andrewducker]

I bet that they _chose_ not to honor them. The North could also have chosen to break them, if they'd chosen to. International treaties are like that- if you don't care about good relations with the other side then you can happily decide you're not interested in honoring treaties.

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

Sure you can choose to blow off treaties, but in absence of actively blowing them off they stand.

The South didn't choose to blow off any treaties, because they were a new country they didn't have any treaties.

What you are missing is the that UK as a legal entity will still continue to exist, while Scotland will become a brand new legal entity.

It's basic contract law. Say I own Megacompany. Megacompany has contracts with many, many vendors. I decide Megacompany would be better off as two companies. I sell half the company to a third party. There are now two companies "Smallermegacompany" and "Smallnewcompany."

Smallermegacompany which I still own still has to honor its obligations with vendors while Smallnewcompany does not.

[andrewducker]

What you are missing is the that UK as a legal entity will still continue to exist, while Scotland will become a brand new legal entity.

I'm not missing that. I'm disagreeing with it.

And you cannot blow off legal obligations by selling chunks of the company - that would be a massive loophole in contract law.

[errolwi.livejournal.com]

It is standard with contracts in my industry (which are typically expected to last multiple years, with built-in annual rate reviews) that a change in the ownership of one of the parties requires sign-off from the other party. So if you want to sell of part of your business, you have to convince your major customers/suppliers that you aren't doing anything to disadvantage them.
Note the difference between paying for goods and services already carried out, and continuing to supply them at agreed rates and service standards.

[andrewducker]

Exactly. Trying to change your contracts by splitting yourself into multiple companies is just asking for massive lawsuits and attendant problems.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Pretty standard practise in industries in which I have worked also.