Docsity
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Docsity AI
Docsity AI
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search for your university

Find the specific documents for your university's exams

Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

The Revocability of a Notification under Article 50 of the TEU: A Legal Analysis, Exams of Negotiation

Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU)Negotiation

A legal analysis on the revocability of a notification given under Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) by a Member State to withdraw from the EU. the provisions of Article 50 and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) in relation to this issue. The authors argue that a Member State can withdraw its notification at any time before it takes effect, based on the principles of consent and conferral, and the provisions of Article 68 VCLT.

Typology: Exams

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/27/2022

kitriotak
kitriotak 🇮🇳

4.5

(13)

220 documents

1 / 6

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
1
IN THE MATTER OF THE UNILATERAL REVOCABILITY OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE
TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION
_______________________
OPINION
________________________
1. This Opinion considers whether the Prime Minister could before 29 March 2019 revoke
her letter of 29 March 2017 notifying the European Council of the United Kingdom’s
intention to leave the European Union, with the consequence that the United Kingdom
would remain in the European Union and maintain its current privileges, including its
opt-outs, its rebate, and its non-membership of Schengen and the Euro. For the
reasons set out below we conclude that the United Kingdom could do so but that after
29 March 2019 that possibility would be lost. Were the United Kingdom to change its
mind about membership of the EU after that date, it would have to re-apply for
membership under Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union (“TEU”). At that
point, to re-enter it would require the agreement of all the other Member States. It
would then be a matter for negotiation whether the United Kingdom could re-obtain
any of its current terms of membership.
2. There is no direct precedent to assist in the determination of whether a notification
under Article 50 of the TEU is unilaterally revocable, that is, whether it could be
withdrawn by the United Kingdom without the agreement of the remaining 27
Member States.
3. Article 50 provides:
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance
with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European
Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European
Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State,
setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the
framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be
negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download The Revocability of a Notification under Article 50 of the TEU: A Legal Analysis and more Exams Negotiation in PDF only on Docsity!

IN THE MATTER OF THE UNILATERAL REVOCABILITY OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

_______________________

OPINION

________________________

  1. This Opinion considers whether the Prime Minister could before 29 March 2019 revoke her letter of 29 March 2017 notifying the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to leave the European Union, with the consequence that the United Kingdom would remain in the European Union and maintain its current privileges, including its opt-outs, its rebate, and its non-membership of Schengen and the Euro. For the reasons set out below we conclude that the United Kingdom could do so but that after 29 March 2019 that possibility would be lost. Were the United Kingdom to change its mind about membership of the EU after that date, it would have to re-apply for membership under Article 49 of the Treaty on the European Union (“TEU”). At that point, to re-enter it would require the agreement of all the other Member States. It would then be a matter for negotiation whether the United Kingdom could re-obtain any of its current terms of membership.
  2. There is no direct precedent to assist in the determination of whether a notification under Article 50 of the TEU is unilaterally revocable, that is, whether it could be withdrawn by the United Kingdom without the agreement of the remaining 27 Member States.
  3. Article 50 provides:
    1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
    2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning

of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

  1. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
  2. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
  3. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to re-join, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”
  4. Accordingly, if a Member State either reaches an agreement, or does not reach an agreement within two years of its notification, its membership of the EU ends. After that point, a Member State can apply to re-join pursuant to Article 50(5). The provision is wholly silent as to what happens during the two year interim period, that is, before the Member State becomes a third country and in particular, whether revocation of a notification given under Article 50(1) is permitted during that period. For the reasons set out below, our view is that a notification can be withdrawn by a Member State acting in good faith^1 within that period and that there is no need for other Member States to grant their consent in that regard.

The wording, object and purpose of Article 50

  1. Article 50 refers to a decision to notify an ‘intention’ to withdraw. That wording was used by the Prime Minister in her letter of notification, in which she stated:

“I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union.”

(^1) In accordance with the principle of sincere cooperation.

not bind either the European Union or all its Member States, that convention reflects the rules of customary international law which, as such, are binding upon the EU institutions and form part of the legal order of the European Union ”.^2 In the present case, the VCLT lends support to the interpretation we have advanced.

  1. Articles 65-68 concern the procedure for the withdrawal of a party from a treaty. Article 67(2) reads, materially: “ Any act declaring invalid, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty pursuant to the provisions of the treaty or of paragraphs 2 or 3 of article 65 shall be carried out through an instrument communicated to the other parties. ” (Emphasis added.)
  2. Article 67(2) thus applies both to withdrawal instruments made pursuant to the provisions of the treaty (in this case Article 50 TEU) or those made in accordance with the default rules set out in Article 65.
  3. The critical provision is then Article 68 which reads: “ A notification or instrument provided for in article 65 or 67 may be revoked at any time before it takes effect. ”
  4. The Prime Minister’s letter of 29 March 2017 to the President of the Council communicating the UK’s decision to leave the European Union constitutes an instrument for withdrawing from a treaty for the purposes of Article 67. Article 68 provides in the clearest terms that this instrument may be revoked at any time before its takes effect, which, in accordance with Article 50(3) TEU, will be either the date of entry into force of a withdrawal agreement concluded between the UK and the European Union or, failing that, two years from the date of the Prime Minister’s letter (i.e. 29 March 2019).
  5. There is no language in Article 50 TEU that could serve to displace the principle contained in Article 68 VCLT. The question of whether a notice of withdrawal communicated to the European Council pursuant to Article 50(2) can be revoked before it takes effect is not addressed in the text of Article 50. The International Law Commission, which was responsible for drafting Article 68 VCLT, provided the following commentary on the rule:

(^2) Case C-410/11, Pedro Espada Sánchez et al. v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA , Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) 22 November 2012.

[T]he considerations militating in favour of encouraging the revocation of notices and instruments of denunciation, termination, etc. are so strong that the general rule should admit a general freedom to do so prior to the taking effect of the notice or instrument. The Commission also felt that the right to revoke the notice is really implicit in the fact that it is not to become effective until a certain date…^3

Counter-arguments

  1. As regards the arguments against revocability, two essential points arise. First, it is said that the provision in Article 50(3) for automatic termination of membership two years after the notification (in the absence of agreement) is inconsistent with the right to revoke. That is in our view unpersuasive. The two year time period puts a deadline on the period during which a Member State can change its mind and the period by which negotiations must be concluded.
  2. Secondly, it is said that if a notification was revocable, Member States could avoid the requirement that all the other EU member states agree any extension of time for negotiations by withdrawing its notification and then re-notifying. Effectively, Member States could use the right to withdraw as a mechanism to extend time for negotiation. Again, this argument is not a good one. Article 50(3) deals with whether a Member State can unilaterally prolong the period of notification, not whether it can unilaterally change its mind as to whether to leave altogether. Where a Member State withdrew its notification in good faith, the state having changed its mind regarding continued membership of the EU, that withdrawal would in our view be legally valid. To hold otherwise would be to afford Member States a power of expulsion in respect of an existing Member State as soon as that Member State notified an intention to withdraw under Article 50. Moreover, such an interpretation would be contrary to the principles of sincere cooperation,^4 the Union’s values,^5 and its commitment to respect the Member States’ constitutional identities.^6

(^3) ILC, “Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries”, Yearbook of the International Law

4 Commission, 1966 , vol. II, p. 264. Article 4(3) TEU (^5) Article 2 TEU (^6) Article 4(2) TEU