The Legality of Brexit: Examining the Vienna Convention

This paper provides a detailed analysis of the legality of Brexit, focusing on the applicability of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). It examines the context of Brexit, highlighting the shock and concerns surrounding the UK's decision to leave the European Union. The paper explores the impact of Brexit on various stakeholders, including the EU member states, citizens, and businesses. The study evaluates the Vienna Convention's principles in determining the legality of Brexit, considering the implications of the Withdrawal Agreement and the Joint Report. It addresses critical issues like immigration, economic impacts, and the absence of exit mechanisms within the agreement. The analysis also discusses the potential for legal challenges based on the VCLT, and concludes by emphasizing the complex legal landscape surrounding Brexit and the implications of international law.

P a g e | 0
LLM
Brexit Legality

P a g e | 1
Abstract
Brexit is used as an abbreviation of “British exit”, and it is referred to the United Kingdom’s
plan to depart the European Union. The official referendum of Brexit was approved on June
23rd 2016, and the reaction was a mixture of shock, fear, dismay and even anger. There were
many concerns regarding whether the decision of Brexit is legal or not and how will it
impact key stakeholders such as Member States of EU, citizens, businesses and others.1
While determining the legality of Brexit, it is important to evaluate the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). This is a treaty which focuses on evaluating the applicability
of international law on treaties which are formed between states. This treaty was adopted
on June 23rd 1969, and it was forced on January 27th 1980.2 Brexit is an international treaty
between the UK and the EU and treaties are legally binding on states based on the
provisions given under the VCLT. The legality of Brexit has been in the controversy since its
introduction based on which it is important to understand its impact on key stakeholders
who are affected by this decision. This paper will evaluate the decision of Brexit and its
impact on different parties who are affected by this decision. The legality of Brexit will be
evaluated in this paper by evaluating the principles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties.
In order to determine the legality of Brexit, it is important to understand the impact of this
decision on different parties. One of the biggest risks with Brexit is that no other country has
ever departed from the European Union before. There are various pros and cons of this
decision which affects many parties. One of the key issues is highlighted by Brexit
campaigners told the voters that the United Kingdom would no longer be held responsible
for paying into the budget of the European Union.3 Although this statement is true;
however, they probably would not be saving as much of the capital as told. For example, the
United Kingdom was liable to pay for £18 million in contributions in 2015. However, this
amount was reduced due to the rebate program which was set up by Prime Minister
1 Harold D Clarke et al., Brexit (Cambridge University Press 2017).
2 August Reinisch, ‘Articles 30 and 59 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties in action: the decisions
on jurisdiction in the Eastern Sugar and Eureko investment arbitrations’ (2012) 39 Legal Issues of Econ.
Integration 157.
3 Sara B Hobolt, ‘The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent’ (2016) 23 (9) Journal of European Public
Policy 1259-1277.

P a g e | 2
Margaret Thatcher. As per this program, a rebate of £5 million was given to the United
Kingdom. Additionally, the EU spends £4.5 billion in the UK in 2015 that brings the net
contribution of the country to £8.5 billion.4 A major crisis triggered by Brexit is related to
immigration that swept across Europe in the last couple of years. Many argue that the
wealthier nations such as the United Kingdom must aid immigrants by providing them
opportunities for placements and jobs.
After the decision announcement of Brexit, the number of immigrants increased from
285,000 to 330,000 from which 184,000 were from the EU.5 It shows that the decision of
Brexit is changing the economic landscape due to the nationalistic attitude of the people
who support the decision of Brexit. Many argue that the decision of Brexit is racist and the
objective of the UK is to reduce the number of immigrants in the country from the EU. Many
argue that the decision of Brexit is a wakeup call for rising inequality and low growth in
countries which is adversely affecting the citizens.6 Immediately after the announcement of
Brexit, the pound fell to its lowest value in decades. However, people who were involved in
this decision were ready for a similar backlash that was not surprised by this response. After
the loss of Brexit referendum, the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, quickly stepped
towed from this post which left, Theresa May, former home secretary to take the position of
the Prime Minister and continue with the referendum of Brexit. Although the UK has re-
established itself as a truly independent nation after Brexit; however, there are many
limitations relating to travel, leisure and work which are enjoyed by citizens within EU
borders.7 This decision will affect the economy and trading practices of the country since it
will be difficult for the country to maintain trading ties with EU nations.
The House of Lords reached two legal conclusions in relation to the legality of Brexit. It was
held that Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) recognises the right of UK to
leave the European Union without facing any financial obligations under the EU budget and
related financial instruments unless the parties have concluded a withdrawal agreement to
4 Gianluigi Vernasca, ‘The UK’s EU rebate – explained’ (2016) <https://theconversation.com/the-uks-eu-rebate-
explained-58019> accessed 18 February 2019.
5 BBC, ‘Net migration to UK rises to 333,000 - second highest on record’ (2016) <
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36382199> accessed 18 February 2019.
6 Italo Colantone and Piero Stanig, ‘Global competition and Brexit’ (2018) 112 (2) American Political Science
Review 201-218.
7 Matthew J Goodwin and Oliver Heath, ‘The 2016 referendum, Brexit and the left behind: An aggregate level‐
analysis of the result’ (2016) 87 (3) The Political Quarterly 323-332.

P a g e | 3
resolve the issue.8 Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union
(CJEU) will no longer be imposed over the UK, and it will also result in ceasing the effect of
EU Treaties on the UK. Due to this change in position, any outstanding payments against the
UK cannot be enforced through CJEU. In order to avoid the legal binding of the Withdrawal
Agreement of the UK, the principles of VCLT can be applied. This agreement is considered as
a treaty which is formed between the EU (an international organisation) and the UK (a
state). This treaty is defined as an agreement between these two parties as per the VCLT.
However, the Vienna Convention in relation to international organisations is not yet in force
based on which the Leigh amendment does not have the right to claim that the Vienna
Conventions applies, but still it applies.9 The VCLT provides a very strong guide in relation to
the rules of international law. Many argue that this Withdrawal Agreement can be
constituted as a ‘material breach’ of the provisions given under Article 60 or it can be
considered as a ‘fundamental change of circumstances’ given under Article 62 in the VCLT
through which the UK might by unilaterally denounce to terminate the agreement.
However, proving material breach is extremely difficult, and a fundamental change of
circumstances will lead to backstopping the meaning of the VCLT.10
One of the key issues with the Withdrawal agreement is the legal system of the UK and the
EU27 citizens who have moved. In order to address these issues, talks can begin between
the UK and EU after Brexit. The Joint Report is not a treaty itself based on which it cannot
create legally binding obligations until and unless the second phase of talks began and
concluded between the UK and the EU. The ‘Joint Report’ is referred to the agreement that
included the negotiations made between the UK and 27 Member States of the EU. This
agreement comes into force after the signatures of the parties. However, this agreement did
not fulfil the formal requirements in order to define it as a “treaty”. As per the provisions of
the Vienna Conventions, the key issue with this agreement is the lack of “consent to be
bound” by the parties.11 Based on the lack of this element, it can be concluded that the
8 Michael Waibel, ‘The Brexit Bill and the Law of Treaties’ (2017) < https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-brexit-bill-and-
the-law-of-treaties/> accessed 18 February 2019.
9 E Sinclair, S Stagnell and S Shah, ‘Brexit and dentistry’ (2016) 220 (10) British Dental Journal 509.
10 Gavin Barrett, ‘How Article 127 of the EEA Agreement could keep the UK in the
single market’ (2017) < http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/69408/1/blogs.lse.ac.uk-How%20Article%20127%20of%20the
%20EEA%20Agreement%20could%20keep%20the%20UK%20in%20the%20single%20market.pdf> accessed 18
February 2019.
11 Steve Peers, ‘The Brexit deal is not legally binding – but politically, it's a different story altogether’ (2017) <
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-deal-european-union-eu27-withdrawal-bill-8-december-is-it-

P a g e | 4
agreement of Brexit is not legally binding on the parties. This argument also raises the
question regarding whether this joint report is “politically” binding on the parties. In this
case, the joint report is not binding on the parties until everything is agreed by the parties.
This report cannot be considered as a ‘default’ which transformed into a legally binding text
that binds the parties into a legal relationship. The Joint Report is referred to “joint
commitments” which are formed between the parties in relation to reflect on the details of
the Withdrawal Agreement. This commitment is considered as a promise which is not legally
enforceable; however, non-compliance with this promise has its own consequences.12 Many
experts call it a ‘deal or no deal’ scenario which makes it difficult to define the legality of
Brexit.
Moving forward with Brexit mean tearing up the global agreement by the UK with the EU
and walking away; however, there is international legal protection available to challenge
this action which is set out in the Vienna Convention. The objective of the Vienna
Convention is setting out terms which cannot be abandoned by states if there is no
provision is included by the parties in the agreement. This provision is given under Article 56
of the Vienna Convention which provides that if a treaty which did not contain provisions
regarding its termination and no provisions are included in relation to withdrawal or
denunciation, then such treaty cannot be subject to withdrawal or denunciation.13 Based on
the guidelines given by the Vienna Convention, there are two ways out of a treaty which did
not establish an exit mechanism. The first option is that the treaty “intended” to have an
exit mechanism by the parties who signed the treaty. The second option is if the exit
mechanism in the treaty was “implied” by the parties within the treaty. In the case of
Brexit, neither of these options exists. Moreover, a major problem with the Withdrawal
Agreement is that not only there are no provisions given for the leave; however, the Irish
backstop clause explicitly sets out that it cannot be left.14 Thus, the backstop provision and
the lack of leave policies create a double lock on the application of the Withdrawal
Agreement which creates challenge which cannot be legally enforced until they are
binding-a8105936.html> accessed 18 February 2019.
12 Jed Odermatt, ‘Brexit and International law: disentangling legal orders’ (2017) 31 Emory International Law
Review 1051-1075.
13 Katharina Behrend, ‘The legal nature of the withdrawal agreement’ (2018) <
https://www.europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk/article-7392> accessed 18 February 2019.
14 Peter Walker, ‘What is the Brexit backstop’ (2018) <
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/15/what-is-the-brexit-backstop> accessed 18 February 2019.

P a g e | 5
superseded by a subsequent agreement. Thus, the major problem with Brexit is that the UK
is not only binding itself into a treaty which did not have an exit provision, but it is also
actively breaking the provisions of international law.
The backstop clause can be considered as a lock without a key; however, it did not mean
that it cannot be picked. Despite the fact that the provision of ‘unless and until’ clause is
present in the case of Brexit, leading international law experts to believe that there are
different ways through which the UK has the right to free itself from the backstop and leave
the EU.15 Although the backstop did not contain an exit clause, it results in imposing an
obligation on the EU in order to find a permanent arrangement to replace the same. This
right is recognised by the Vienna Conventions under Article 60 which provides that the party
of a treaty has the right to walk away from the treaty in case another side has not kept up
its side of the bargain. This article provides that a material breach of a bilateral treaty given
the right to the parties of the treaty to invoke the treaty and free themselves from its
obligations. The parties have the right to terminate the treaty or suspend its operations in
whole or in part. The UK can make a claim that the EU is keeping it in locked in a backstop
unreasonably based on which it can claim a material breach of the Withdrawal Agreement,
and it has the right to withdraw itself from parts or all of the deal. 16 In case the negotiations
between the parties did not make in good faith, then the UK has the right to repeal the
Withdrawal Agreement based on the provisions of the Vienna Convention.
Another key challenge relating to the legality of Brexit is that the UK has declined to pay
€100 billion upon leaving the EU. The UK’s Brexit Secretary David Davis provided in an
interview on 3rd May 2017 that the UK will meet its international obligations while leaving
the EU.17 He emphasised on the difference between the international obligations which the
commission wanted to impose on the UK and the ones which are legally binding. He
indicated that the UK would not pay €100 billion to the EU when it leaves the membership.
Many argue that there is a need for a ‘single financial settlement’ between the UK and the
15 Peter Foster, ‘What is the Brexit backstop, and why is the Irish border so important to the deal?’ (2019) <
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/brexit-backstop-irish-border-important-deal1/> accessed 18 February
2019.
16 Niamh Moloney, ‘Brexit and EU financial governance: business as usual or institutional change?’ (2017) 42 (1)
European Law Review 112-128.
17 Matthew Weaver and Heather Stewart, ‘David Davis rejects claim of €100bn Brexit divorce bill’ (2017) <
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/03/david-davis-rejects-claim-of-100bn-brexit-divorce-bill>
accessed 18 February 2019.

P a g e | 6
EU in which the financial obligations of the UK should be made ‘in full’. It is considered as a
settling of accounts between the parties rather than imposing a ‘punishment’ on the UK for
terminating its membership with the EU.18 The EU Commission made a claim that the UK
owes the commission around €60 billion for the membership which was formed in 1973.
Since then the amount has been revised around €100 billion. In this matter, the House of
Lords noted that considerable uncertainty regarding the financial obligation of the UK which
arises when it leaves the EU. Just like other past and future matters, the financial obligation
of the UK is subject to negotiation between the parties. The EU27 is likely to impose the
financial obligations on the UK in the shadow of legal obligations which are imposed on the
country.19 However, both the parties have failed to reach a common agreement when it
comes to determining the legal position of the UK in relation to this financial obligation.
The House of Lords relies on the provisions given Article 50 of Treaties of EU in order to
reach its conclusion that the UK is not liable for financial obligations which arise out of the
UK’s membership in the EU.20 As per this article, the provisions of Article 50 provide that a
Member State that wanted to withdraw from the Union has to do it in accordance with its
constitutional requirements. The Member State must notify the European Council regarding
its intention to withdraw from the Union. Based on the guidelines provided by the European
Council, it is the duty of the Union to negotiate and conclude an agreement with the State in
which arrangements regarding the withdrawal should be given.21 These guidelines should be
given after taking into consideration the framework for the future relationship of the State
with the Union. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides key
provisions under Article 218 (3) based on which the terms must be negotiated between
parties. The negotiations are made and accepted based on majority votes of the parties
18 The Irish Times, ‘Brexit: UK ‘will not be paying’ €100bn to leave EU’ (2017) <
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-uk-will-not-be-paying-100bn-to-leave-eu-1.3069757>
accessed 18 February 2019.
19 Richard Humphreys, Beyond the border: The Good Friday agreement and irish unity after Brexit (Marrion
Press 2018).
20 Jim Pickard, ‘EU cannot enforce €60bn divorce bill, say Lords’ (2017) <
https://www.ft.com/content/aa850d22-0030-11e7-8d8e-a5e3738f9ae4> accessed 18 February 2019.
21 Daniel Boffey and Jennifer Rankin, ‘UK could pay £50bn Brexit divorce bill after bowing to EU pressure’
(2017) < https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/28/uk-and-eu-agree-brexit-divorce-bill-that-could-
reach-57bn> accessed 18 February 2019.

P a g e | 7
after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.22 After this process, the treaties
cease to apply on the State on the date when the Withdrawal Agreement comes into force.
The provisions of withdrawal of a treaty are given under Article 70 of the VCLT on which the
House of Lords provided that customary international laws are given under Article 50.
Subsection 1 of Article 70 provides that in case the termination policies are not included in a
treaty, then it is made based on the provisions of the present convention through which the
parties of the treaty will be released from their obligations which arise from the rights and
liabilities given in the treaty.23 Although these provisions are not fulfilled in the case of
Brexit; however, the House of Lords provided that the Article 50 is lex specialis or an
exception for the provisions given under Article 70 (1). The court provided that since the
TEU contains specific provisions in relation to withdrawal, the provisions of Article 70 are
irrelevant in relation to imposing financial obligations on the UK which arise based on the EU
membership.24 However, in reality, the Article 50 recognises various relevant customary
internal laws in which a specific procedure is given for a state to withdraw, and it also
confirms the default rule of Article 70 which provides that the EU treaties cease to apply
from the critical date. However, these provisions only show a partial picture since there are
three provisions that deal with the withdrawal of states rather than one which includes
Article 70, 56 (2) and 65-68 VCLT.
The provisions relating to the possibility of withdrawal when the withdrawal provisions are
not given are provided under Article 56 (1). A default notice period of 12 months is given
under Article 56 (2). Moreover, Article 65-68 provides default procedural steps in relation to
the withdrawal of a treaty. Contrary to the report given by the House of Lords, Article 50 is
not an exception to Article 70 (1) (b) VCLT.25 Based on the provisions given under Article 50,
the states cannot depart from the procedure given under Article 56 (2) and Articles 65-68.
The report given by the House of Lords errs when it comes to recognising the provisions
22 Piet Eeckout and Eleni Frantziou, ‘Brexit and Article 50 TEU: a constitutionalist reading’ (2017) 54 (3)
Common Market Law Review 695-733.
23 Parliament, ‘Brexit: acquired rights’ (2016) <
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/82/8209.htm> accessed 18 February 2019.
24 Jed Odermatt, ‘Lex Specialis and the Interpretation of Article 50 TEU’ (2017) <
https://www.e-ir.info/2017/12/21/lex-specialis-and-the-interpretation-of-article-50-teu/> accessed 18
February 2019.
25 Sara Masters and Belinda McRae, ‘What Does Brexit Mean for the Brussels Regime?’ (2016) 33 (7) Journal of
International Arbitration 483-499.

P a g e | 8
given under Article 50 TEU. The financial obligations of the UK which arise out of withdrawal
of the EU membership are recognised by Article 70 (1) since its provisions expressly provide
that it did not affect these rights and obligations. In sum, the provisions of Article 50 are
only lex specialis in relation to the procedure for withdrawal of a state; however, it
preserves the customary international laws which are given under Article 70 (1) (b) VCLT
based on which the rights and obligations of the treaties prior to withdrawal are not
affected.26 Thus, the financial obligations of the UK are recognised by these provisions and
non-fulfilment of these obligations can negatively affect the Brexit legality.
Conclusively, although the Withdrawal Agreement is not entirely negotiated between the
parties, there is certainty that this decision will have great significance for the UK and the EU
on both national and international level. Brexit is likely to trigger many crises such as growth
in the number of obligations, lack of enforcement of financial obligations through CJEU,
reducing the value of currency and others. The legality of the Brexit can be challenged based
on its negative implications; however, there are various legal and political factors which also
create challenges for legality of Brexit based on the provisions given under the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties. The UK had denied the payment of financial obligations
of €100 billion to the EU which it owed when it became a member of the EU. The legality of
the Brexit can be challenges based on the provisions of the VCLT which provides that
treaties which did not contain the provisions of withdrawal cannot be terminated. The
political implications of the legally binding nature of the Joint Report are also identified
which provides that unless everything is negotiated and agreed between the UK and the EU,
the legality of Brexit will remain in ambiguity. The report given by the House of Lords
contradicts with the provisions of the Article 50 which cannot be considered as an exception
of Article 70 (1) based on which it becomes difficult for the UK to rely solely on the Article 50
to withdraw from the EU. Thus, in the upcoming future, the legality of the Brexit is likely to
be challenged on various grounds which will make it difficult for the government to go
forward with the Withdrawal Agreement.
26 Michael Waibel, ‘Brexit and Acquired Rights’ (2017) 111 AJIL Unbound 440-444.

P a g e | 9
Research Diary
The objective of preparing a research diary is to keep a details history of the research
process as it unfolds. It assists in keeping track of the development in the research skills and
understanding and enables the researcher to reflect on the research process and the
problems it throws up. Before starting my research, I created a mind map and wrote it on a
paper in order to keep track of my ideas. I wanted to start by learning more about Brexit by
collecting relevant data and evaluate different articles on the topic to determine whether
my hypothesis is similar to the research conducted by experts in the area. The divided my
research into different sections to keep myself on track to ensure that I cover all the
relevant topics. I began by writing an introduction on the topic to give readers an idea about
the research. The objective of this introduction was to outline the key element which will be
discussed in the report and give an idea to the readers regarding the structure of the report.
Since my topic was ‘the Brexit Bill and the Vienna Convention (Law of Treaties)’, I included
an introduction about Brexit and the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties in the
introduction. During this process, I started collecting secondary data for the research from
different scholarly sources to gather an idea about the topic.
In the data collection process, I collected secondary data from different sources which
include books, journals, websites and news. I used online platforms such as Google Scholar
in order to collect articles on the topic; I checked these articles on the library to ensure that
they are scholarly. I used different books to collect relevant data in order to maintain a
balance between my sources. I also visited many news websites to keep track of the major
incidents in the timeline of this decision and how it is unfolding. By maintaining diversity in
the data collection process, I ensured that my resources are relevant to the topic and I
gather accurate information. In order to ensure that I am collecting relevant data regarding
the topic, I always check their resources to ensure that they are scholarly. The data
collection process is one of the most important steps of an effective research; therefore, I
spent three days just to collect relevant data on the topic and read them to get a general
sense about the topic. Although I dedicated specific time for the data collection process, I
make sure to evaluate other relevant sources which I found while evaluating these
materials. I wanted to make sure that I keep a balance between these sources to avoid

P a g e | 10
creating a particular perception about the topic which could make it difficult for me to
evaluate these sources critically. Thus, effective data collection process enabled me to
ensure that I collect relevant data on the topic from a wide range of diverse sources to use
them in the research.
After collecting relevant materials on the topic, I started to critically evaluate them in order
to determine whether they are relevant for the research or not. During this process, I
started to gain knowledge about the topic which shaped my view about it as well. I found
contradictions between different experts who argued for and against the benefits and
negative implications of Brexit. In the second section of the research, I wanted to include
details regarding the implications of Brexit on the United Kingdom and the European Union
and evaluate how it will affect different factors such as citizens’ rights, immigration, financial
obligations and others. I found that the research conducted by BBC on the topic of Brexit
highlighted how the issue of immigration has become prominent and how it is likely to
affect a large number of people after the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. The benefits of
Brexit highlighted by Sara B Hobolt in relation to reducing the contribution of the UK is
contradicting with the study of Gianluigi Vernasca who argued that there might not be
substantial implications of the Brexit for the benefit of the UK. Both the studies helped me
in understanding the difference between the opinions and their impact on the UK. I focused
on critically evaluating different augments to understand each point of view and evaluate
the data of the research to form my own options regarding the topic.
After evaluating the implications of Brexit, I moved on to determine its legality based on
regulatory and political factors. I read the report given by the House of Lords on the topic to
determine its legality and evaluate whether the financial implications imposed on the UK
are justified or not. I analysed articles of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties (VCLT) to
determine how they influence the decision of the UK. Article 50 provides the key provisions
in relation to the implication of the Withdrawal Agreement provided by the UK. Different
elements of the international law evaluated in the research to understand the implications
of the articles of VCLT. The arguments made by Gavin Barrett helps me understand the role
of article 60 and 62 on the legality of Brexit. From the legal perspectives, I shifted my focus
to political factors in order to maintain a balance in the key areas of the research. I

P a g e | 11
evaluated news articles to determine how political figures are handling this issue. The
challenges faced by the UK government to bring everyone on the same page in relation to
the ‘Joint Report’ are highlighted in this section. I realised that no party wanted to show that
they are weak in the negotiation; therefore, they are finding it difficult to meet on common
grounds. Until these political problems are resolved and both the parties agreed on similar
terms, it will be difficult to go forward with Brexit. This political struggle is highlighted by Jed
Odermatt which shows that from a legal and political perspective it is difficult to implement
the provisions of Brexit on the parties. I also supported these arguments through scholarly
researchers of other experts to maintain the accuracy of the statement. I took me two days
to evaluate these sources and write my opinions in the research which shifted my
perception regarding the legality of Brexit and how challenging it is for the UK government
to ensure that they smoothly go forward with this decision due to the provisions given in
the international laws.
One of the key areas of my research was the evaluation of international laws which apply on
the Withdrawal Agreement to determine which it is legal to go forward with this decision.
The provisions of VCLT are the key international law regulations which apply to this research
since the provisions of Brexit are governed by these provisions. Based on the evaluation of
the resources up until this point, I realised that key complications which the government will
face while implementing the provisions of Brexit. The main legal problem with Brexit was
highlighted by Katharina Behrend based on the provisions of the VCLT. It was held that the
treaties which are governed by the VCLT could only be terminated if the provisions
regarding the termination are given in the treaty or if the provisions regarding termination
are implied. However, neither is the case with Brexit which makes me realised that the
government of the UK might breach many international laws in order to move forward with
the decision of Brexit. However, many researchers depicted that there are different ways
through which the UK can free itself from the backstop in order to leave the EU. Niamh
Moloney provided that Article 60 provides key provisions through which the UK government
can set aside the bilateral treaty in case a material breach is made by another party of the
treaty. I further researched into this article to understand its applicability on Brexit, and I
realised that it could be used as a political tool by the UK to justify Brexit.

P a g e | 12
Niamh Moloney provided that the government can make a claim by stating that the EU is
keeping it in the lock to get out of the treaty by relying on the provisions of Article 60.
However, I also found other studies in which it was argued that relying on this Article will be
difficult for the UK since the EU can introduce new policies in order to remove the backstop
by imposing financial obligations on the UK. I found relevant data regarding the financial
obligations of the UK toward the EU after evaluating the study of Matthew Weaver and
Heather Stewart. The government is declining this payment which is likely to create
obligations in relation to the legality of the Withdrawal Agreement. During this stage of the
research, I was focused on critically evaluating different options to find differences between.
Many experts argue against the opinion of the House of Lords in which it was held that
Article 50 is an exception to Article 70 (1). I was also evaluating other studies which I had
used at the beginning of the research to implement relevant data on the topic. I wanted to
make sure that I use diverse research materials during this process in order to improve the
quality of the research. I realised that the VCLT plays a crucial role in relation to determining
the legality of Brexit. The EU can rely on its provisions in order to stop the UK from moving
forward with the Withdrawal Agreement. The Vienna Convention is the key to challenging
the legality of Brexit in relation to international laws.
During the research process, I learned many things which helped me develop new skills and
knowledge. I learned how to sort different sources while preparing the research and find the
most relevant sources for preparing the research. The data collection and analysis process
assisted me in developing the skill to choose relevant materials from different sources. I
maintained diversity in my data collection process to ensure that I avoid forming an opinion
which is bias or which can conflict with the outcomes of the research. I maintain ethical
considerations while conducting the research to ensure that I did not violate anyone’s
privacy through my research. I cited all the resources which I used in the research to provide
them appropriate credit. I also paraphrased their work in order to avoid plagiarism in the
assignment. I make sure that my conclusion is not biased and I evaluate different opinions
while preparing the research to make a thorough analysis of this topic. I learned that divided
the research into smaller sections assisted me in ensuring that I cover all the relevant topics
without being too pressured. I stuck to a particular timeline which assisted me in completing
the research with the given deadline. Preparing this research was a great experience for me

P a g e | 13
that helped me develop new skills and expand my learning horizon to learn new topics from
which I was no familiar before. Overall it is a great learning experience, and I look forward to
use my skills in my academic career.

P a g e | 14
Bibliography
Books
Clarke HD, Goodwin MJ, Goodwin M and Whiteley P, Brexit (Cambridge University Press
2017)
Humphreys R, Beyond the border: The Good Friday agreement and irish unity after Brexit
(Marrion Press 2018)
Articles
Colantone I and Stanig P, ‘Global competition and Brexit’ (2018) 112 (2) American Political
Science Review 201-218
Eeckout P and Frantziou E, ‘Brexit and Article 50 TEU: a constitutionalist reading’ (2017) 54
(3) Common Market Law Review 695-733
Goodwin MJ and Heath O, ‘The 2016 referendum, Brexit and the left behind: An aggregate ‐
level analysis of the result’ (2016) 87 (3) The Political Quarterly 323-332
Hobolt SB, ‘The Brexit vote: a divided nation, a divided continent’ (2016) 23 (9) Journal of
European Public Policy 1259-1277
Masters S and McRae B, ‘What Does Brexit Mean for the Brussels Regime?’ (2016) 33 (7)
Journal of International Arbitration 483-499
Moloney N, ‘Brexit and EU financial governance: business as usual or institutional change?’
(2017) 42 (1) European Law Review 112-128
Odermatt J, ‘Brexit and International law: disentangling legal orders’ (2017) 31 Emory
International Law Review 1051-1075
Reinisch A, ‘Articles 30 and 59 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties in action: the
decisions on jurisdiction in the Eastern Sugar and Eureko investment arbitrations’ (2012) 39
Legal Issues of Econ. Integration 157

P a g e | 15
Sinclair E, Stagnell S and Shah S, ‘Brexit and dentistry’ (2016) 220 (10) British Dental Journal
509
Waibel M, ‘Brexit and Acquired Rights’ (2017) 111 AJIL Unbound 440-444
Electronic Resources
Barrett G, ‘How Article 127 of the EEA Agreement could keep the UK in the single market’
(2017) < http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/69408/1/blogs.lse.ac.uk-How%20Article%20127%20of
%20the%20EEA%20Agreement%20could%20keep%20the%20UK%20in%20the%20single
%20market.pdf> accessed 18 February 2019
BBC, ‘Net migration to UK rises to 333,000 - second highest on record’ (2016) <
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36382199> accessed 18 February
2019
Behrend K, ‘The legal nature of the withdrawal agreement’ (2018) <
https://www.europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk/article-7392> accessed 18 February 2019
Boffey D and Rankin J, ‘UK could pay £50bn Brexit divorce bill after bowing to EU pressure’
(2017) < https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/28/uk-and-eu-agree-brexit-
divorce-bill-that-could-reach-57bn> accessed 18 February 2019
Foster P, ‘What is the Brexit backstop, and why is the Irish border so important to the deal?’
(2019) < https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/brexit-backstop-irish-border-important-
deal1/> accessed 18 February 2019
Odermatt J, ‘Lex Specialis and the Interpretation of Article 50 TEU’ (2017) < https://www.e-
ir.info/2017/12/21/lex-specialis-and-the-interpretation-of-article-50-teu/> accessed 18
February 2019
Parliament, ‘Brexit: acquired rights’ (2016) <
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldeucom/82/8209.htm> accessed
18 February 2019

P a g e | 16
Peers S, ‘The Brexit deal is not legally binding – but politically, it's a different story
altogether’ (2017) < https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-deal-european-union-
eu27-withdrawal-bill-8-december-is-it-binding-a8105936.html> accessed 18 February 2019
Pickard J, ‘EU cannot enforce €60bn divorce bill, say Lords’ (2017) <
https://www.ft.com/content/aa850d22-0030-11e7-8d8e-a5e3738f9ae4> accessed 18
February 2019
The Irish Times, ‘Brexit: UK ‘will not be paying’ €100bn to leave EU’ (2017) <
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-uk-will-not-be-paying-100bn-to-leave-
eu-1.3069757> accessed 18 February 2019
Vernasca G, ‘The UK’s EU rebate – explained’ (2016) <https://theconversation.com/the-uks-
eu-rebate-explained-58019> accessed 18 February 2019
Waibel M, ‘The Brexit Bill and the Law of Treaties’ (2017) < https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-
brexit-bill-and-the-law-of-treaties/> accessed 18 February 2019
Walker P, ‘What is the Brexit backstop’ (2018) <
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/15/what-is-the-brexit-backstop> accessed
18 February 2019
Weaver M and Stewart H, ‘David Davis rejects claim of €100bn Brexit divorce bill’ (2017) <
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/03/david-davis-rejects-claim-of-100bn-
brexit-divorce-bill> accessed 18 February 2019