International law, Sixth edition
Download 7.77 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
International Law MALCOLM N. SHAW
Attorney-General for Ontario [1937] AC 326, 347; 8 AD, p. 41; Walker v. Baird [1892] AC
491; Republic of Italy v. Hambro’s Bank [1950] 1 All ER 430; Cheney v. Conn [1968] 1 WLR 242; 41 ILR, p. 421; Porter v. Freudenberg [1915] 1 KB 857, 874–80, and McNair, Law of Treaties, pp. 89–91. 107 See the evidence presented by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Royal Com- mission on the Reform of the House of Lords, UKMIL, 70 BYIL, 1999, p. 405, citing the examples of extradition and double-taxation treaties. 152 i n t e r nat i o na l l aw be required where a treaty for its application in the UK requires a modi- fication of, or addition to, existing common law or statute, affects private rights, creates financial obligations for the UK, provides for an increase in the powers of the European Parliament, involves the cession of British territory or increases the powers of the Crown. 108 There is no rule specifying the precise legislative method of incorpo- ration of a treaty 109 and a variety of means are available in practice. 110 For example, a treaty may be incorporated into domestic law by being given the force of law in a statute with or without being scheduled to the relevant act; by being referred to in a statute otherwise than in an incorporating statute; by tangential reference in a statute; 111 and by statutory referral to definitions contained in a treaty. 112 It is the practice in the UK to lay before both Houses of Parliament all treaties which the UK has either signed or to which it intends to accede. 113 The text of any agreement requiring ratification, acceptance, approval or accession has to be laid before Parliament at least twenty-one sitting days before any of these actions is taken. 114 This is termed the ‘Ponsonby Rule’. 115 All treaties signed after 1 January 1997 and laid before Parliament 108 Sinclair and Dickson, ‘National Treaty Law’, p. 230. 109 See Regina (European Roma Rights Centre) v. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and Another [2004] UKHL 55, para. 42; 131 ILR, p. 683 (per Lord Steyn). 110 See e.g. Fatima, Using International Law, pp. 57 ff. 111 For example, section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 provides that nothing in the immigration rules within the Immigration Act 1971 shall lay down any practice contrary to the Refugee Convention. 112 See e.g the International Criminal Court Act 2001. 113 It is also the practice to put before Parliament Orders in Council made under the United Nations Act 1946 in order, for example, to implement United Nations sanctions internally: see s. 1(4) of the Act and H. Fox and C. Wickremasinghe, ‘UK Implementation of UN Economic Sanctions’, 42 ICLQ, 1993, pp. 945, 959. See also R v. HM Treasury and the Bank of England, ex parte Centro-Com, Times Law Report, 7 October 1993. 114 Since 1998, it has been the FCO’s practice to apply the Ponsonby Rule also to treaties subject simply to the mutual notification of the completion of constitutional or other internal procedures by each party: see the evidence presented by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, UKMIL, 70 BYIL, 1999, p. 408. 115 See 171 HC Deb., col. 2001, 1 April 1924. This is regarded not as a binding rule but as a constitutional usage: see Wade and Phillips, Constitutional and Administrative Law, p. 304. See also the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Nationality, Treaty and Claims Depart- ment’s handbook entitled International Agreements: Practice and Procedure – Guidance Download 7.77 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling