Effectiveness and Interpretation of International Agreements in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The legal status of international law agreements in national legal systems is usually determined by the general clauses of the Constitution, by the constitutional practice and by court jurisprudence. However, it may be the case that the constitutional practice and court jurisprudence has a decisive say. Such situation, as discussed in this article, exists in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Important treaties to which the UK wishes to be the party, are brought before both houses of Parliament. The text of a treaty subject to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession should be laid before to Parliament at least 21 days before ratification (or its equivalent) is effected. This is called the Ponsonby Rule, considered by the British constitutional practice as a convention. The established and accepted principle of application of English law is that international agreements (subject or not subject to ratification) will become part of the system of domestic law in Great Britain and Northern Ireland only after they take the form of an act of Parliament. The article is focused on legislative procedures aimed at giving binding force to treaties under the British law and the principles applied by the courts to interpret such agreements. Interpretation techniques are also discussed. In the authors view, any potential conflict between norms of domestic and international law should be resolved by reference to an axiological criterion and to systemic interpretation which integrates both legal systems, i.e. the interpretation of norms of domestic law in compliance with international law.