We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2019
This paper examines the role to be played by the devolved administrations in the negotiation, conclusion and implementation of trade agreements concluded by the UK post-Brexit. By examining, from a comparative perspective, examples of collaborative frameworks between sub-national entities and central governments established in federal jurisdictions, it proposes a significant reform of existing inter-governmental cooperation mechanisms to ensure that the devolved administrations are given a meaningful voice in the shaping of future trade agreements.
I would like to thank Gordon Anthony, John Morison and Ohio Omiunu for comments on previous drafts. Any errors and omissions remain my own.
1 Theresa May, ‘The government's negotiating objectives for exiting the EU’ 17 January 2017, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech.
2 See for example E Lydgate et al ‘The UK trade landscape after Brexit’ UK Trade Policy Observatory, October 2016; Holmes, R et al. ‘Negotiating the UK's post-Brexit trade arrangements’ (2016) 238(1) National Institute Economic Review R22–R3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; H Hestermeyer and F Ortino ‘Towards a UK trade policy post-Brexit: the beginning of a complex journey’, King's College London Law School Research Paper No 2017-04.
3 Memorandum of Understanding and Supplementary Agreements between the UK Government, the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee (October 2013), available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/devolution-memorandum-of-understanding-and-supplementary-agreement.
4 O'Connor, SD ‘Altered states: federalism and devolution at the real turn of the millennium’ (2011) 60(3) Cambridge Law Journal 503Google Scholar.
5 Bogdanor, V ‘Constitutional reform in Britain: the quiet revolution’ (2005) 8(73) Annual Review of Political Sciences 84Google Scholar.
6 Leyland, P ‘The multifaceted constitutional dynamics of UK devolution’ (2011) 9(1) International Journal of Constitutional Law 253CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, as endorsed by leaders at a special meeting of the European Council on 25 November 2018. Text available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/withdrawal-agreement-and-political-declaration.
8 Ibid, Art 3, Annex 2.
9 Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code OJ L 269, 10.10.2013.
10 Ibid, Art 6(2) Protocol.
11 Commons votes to reject Government's EU Withdrawal Agreement, 29 March 2019 https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2019/march/mps-debate-and-vote-on-the-withdrawal-agreement-with-the-european-union/.
12 R Baldwin ‘21st century regionalism: filling the gap between 21st century trade and 20th century trade rules’, Staff Working Paper ERSD-2011-08, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1869845.
13 Dymond, W and Hart, M ‘Post-modern trade policy, reflections on the challenges to multilateral trade negotiations after Seattle’ (2000) 34(2) Journal of World Trade 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Horn, H et al. ‘Beyond the WTO? An anatomy of EU and US preferential trade agreements’ (2010) 33(1) The World Economy 1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Baldwin, R ‘WTO 2.0: governance of 21st century trade’ (2014) 9(2) Review of International Organizations 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Laursen, F and Roederer-Rynning, C ‘Introduction: the new EU FTAs as contentious market regulation’ (2017) 39(7) Journal of European Integration 763CrossRefGoogle Scholar; B Hoekman and C Sabel ‘Trade agreements, regulatory sovereignty and democratic legitimacy’ EUI Working Papers RSCAS 2017/36, available at http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/47225/RSCAS_2017_36.pdf?sequence=1.
15 For the EU's textual proposals released during the negotiation of the TTIP see http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/index_en.htm.
16 De Ville, F and Siles-Brugge, G The Truth Behind the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (Polity, 2016)Google Scholar; Siles-Brugge, G ‘Transatlantic investor protection as a threat to democracy: the potency and limits of an emotive frame’ (2017) 30 Cambridge Review of International Affairs 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 E Bienvenisti ‘Democracy captured: the mega-regional agreements and the future of global public law’ (2016) Constellations 58.
18 P Goff ‘Canadian trade negotiation in an era of deep integration’ CIGI papers No 88, February 2016, available at https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/cigi_paper_no.88_web_0.pdf; Mumford, P ‘Regulatory coherence – blending trade and regulatory policy’ (2015) 10(4) Policy Quarterly 11Google Scholar; Omiunu, O ‘The evolving role of sub-national actors in international economic law: lessons from the Canada-European Union CETA’ in Amtembrink, F et al. (eds) Netherlands Yearbook of International Economic Law (Springer, 2017) p 198Google Scholar.
19 See for example the list of powers devolved to Scotland published by the Scottish Parliament, available at http://www.parliament.scot/images/Parliament%20Publications/ListDevolvedPowers_1999-2016.pdf.
20 Arevalo, G ‘Free trade agreements and the Lacey Act: a carrot and stick approach to prevent and deter trade in IUU fisheries’ (2015) 10 Florida A&M University Law Review 349Google Scholar; Tsangalis, A Rologas ‘Fisheries subsidies under the trans-Pacific partnership: towards positive outcomes for global fisheries sustainability and regime interaction under international law’ (2017) 16(2) Melbourne Journal of International Law 2Google Scholar.
21 A Biondi ‘The first on the flight home: the sad story of state aid control in the Brexit age’ (2016) King's Law Journal 442; Telles, P and Sanchez-Graells, A ‘Examining Brexit through the GPA's lens: what next for UK public procurement reform?’ (2017) 47(1) Public Contract Law Journal 1Google Scholar.
22 Krajeski, M National Regulation and Trade Liberalization in Services: The Legal Impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) on National Regulatory Autonomy (Kluwer Law International, 2013)Google Scholar; Adlung, R ‘Public services and the GATS’ (2016) 9(2) Journal of International Economic Law 455CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 European Union Withdrawal Bill 2017–19, available at https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/europeanunionwithdrawal.html.
24 Intergovernmental Agreement on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the Establishment of Common Frameworks, 24 April 2018, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/702623/2018-04-24_UKG-DA_IGA_and_Memorandum.pdf.
25 For an analysis of the EU Withdrawal Bill and its impact on devolved competences see S Tierney ‘The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: legal implications for devolution’ UCL The Constitution Unit, 2 September 2017, available at https://constitution-unit.com/2017/09/07/the-european-union-withdrawal-bill-legal-implications-for-devolution; Douglas-Scott, S ‘Short cuts’ (2017) 39(16) London Review of Books 16–17Google Scholar; N McEwen ‘Trust in a time of Brexit’ The UK in a Changing Europe, 28 November 2017, available at http://ukandeu.ac.uk/trust-in-a-time-of-brexit.
26 The Good Friday Agreement (or Belfast Agreement) signed on 10 April 1998. Text available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf.
27 A Gordon ‘Brexit and the Irish border: legal and political questions’ Royal Irish Academy – British Academy Brexit Policy Discussion Paper October 2017, available at https://www.britac.ac.uk/sites/default/files/BrexitandtheIrishBorderLegalandPoliticalQuestions_0.pdf.
28 HM Government ‘Northern Ireland and Ireland’ Position Paper 16 August 2017; European Commission ‘Guiding principles transmitted to EU27 for the Dialogue on Ireland/Northern Ireland’ 6 September 2017; European Commission ‘Joint report from the negotiators of the European Union and the UK Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 TEU on the UK's orderly withdrawal from the European Union’ 8 December 2017, text available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/joint_report.pdf; https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/guiding-principles-dialogue-ei-ni_en.pdf.
29 Above n 27.
30 Protocol, Art 6(2).
31 Baldwin, R ‘Measurable dynamic gains from trade’ (1992) 100(1) Journal of Political Economy 162CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kose, M and Riezman, R ‘Understanding the welfare implications of preferential trade agreements’ in Riezman, R (ed) International Trade Agreements and Political Economy (World Scientific, 2012) p 85Google Scholar.
32 Rodrik, D Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for A Sane Wold Economy (Princeton University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 Harrison, G et al. ‘Trade liberalization, poverty and efficient equity’ (2003) 71(1) Journal of Development Economics 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lewis, M Kolsky ‘WTO winners and losers: the trade and development disconnect’(2007) 39(1) Georgetown Journal of International Law 165Google Scholar; Genna, G ‘Economic size and the changing international political economy of trade: the development of western hemispheric FTAs’ (2010) 47 International Politics 640CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dixon, P ‘Australia's recent FTAs: insights from theory and modelling on rationale, welfare gains and political heat’ (2015) 34 Econ Pap 208CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34 Mansfield, E Votes, Vetoes, and the Political Economy of International Trade Agreements (Princeton University Press, 2012)Google Scholar; E Lydgate and R Amos ‘Integrating sustainable development objectives into UK trade policy’ UKTPO Briefing Paper 19, May 2018, p 4, available at http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/76209/1/Briefing-paper-19-ESD-Web.pdf.
35 Tongue, J ‘The impact of withdrawal from the European Union upon Northern Ireland’ (2016) 87(3) The Political Quarterly 341Google Scholar.
36 P Mac Flyn ‘The economic implications of BREXIT for Northern Ireland’, NERI Working Paper Series, April 2016, NERI WP 2016/No 35, available at http://www.nerinstitute.net/download/pdf/brexit_wp_250416.pdf.
37 Ibid.
38 HM Revenue and Customs ‘Regional trade in goods statistics’, 7 June 2018, p 19, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/686571/RTS_Q4_2017.pdf.
39 Ibid, pp 10–17.
40 R Rawlings ‘Brexit and the territorial constitution’ The Constitution Society, November 2017, p 20, available at https://consoc.org.uk/publications/brexit-territorial-constitution-devolution-reregulation-inter-governmental-relations/.
41 Yu, P ‘The political economy of data protection’ (2010) 84 Chi Kent L Rev 786–788Google Scholar.
42 House of Commons Library, ‘Parliament's role in ratifying treaties’, Briefing Paper No 5855, 17 February 2017, available at https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05855; Lydgate and Amos, above n 34.
43 Cremona, M ‘International regulatory policy and democratic accountability’ in Cremona, M et al. (eds) Reflections on the Constitutionalisation of International Economic Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2014) p 166Google Scholar.
44 ‘Brexit and devolution – securing Wales’ future’, January 2017, p 15, available at https://beta.gov.wales/sites/default/files/2017-06/170615-brexit%20and%20devolution%20%28en%29.pdf.
45 ‘Scotland's place in Europe’ (2016) para 187, available at http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0051/00512073.pdf.
46 ‘Scotland's role in the development of future UK trade arrangements – a discussion paper’, Scottish Government, August 2018, available at https://www.gov.scot/Resource/0053/00539758.pdf.
47 Department for International Trade ‘Preparing for our future UK trade policy’ October 2017, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/654714/Preparing_for_our_future_UK_trade_policy_Report_Web_Accessible.pdf at p 22.
48 HM Government The UK's Exit from and New Partnership with the European Union Cm 9417, 2017, p 17.
49 A Greer ‘Brexit and devolution’ (2017) The Political Quarterly 2.
50 S Coates ‘Liam Fox tries to bypass Scots and Welsh in bid for Brexit trade deals’ The Times, 19 April 2017; ‘Brexit: trade deals need UK-wide consensus, Carwyn Jones says’ BBC, 19 August 2017, available at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-40985845.
51 Trade Bill 2017–19, 122-EN.
52 House of Commons, Public Bill Committee: 23 January 2018, 34.
53 House of Commons, Notice of Amendments given up to and including Tuesday 30 January 2018, NC11.
54 Trade Bill, Sch 1, para 1(1).
55 Trade Bill, Sch 1, para 3(2) and (3).
56 P Fafard and P Leblond ‘Twenty-first century trade agreements: challenges for Canadian federalism’ The Federal Idea, September 2012, p 13, available at https://ideefederale.ca/documents/challenges.pdf; M Gehring ‘Subnational participation in international trade law options for the European Union’ CIGI Papers No 167 – April 2018, available at https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/Paper%20no.167_web.pdf.
57 Trench, A ‘Intergovernmental relations: in search of a theory’ in Greer, S (eds) Territory, Democracy and Justice (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006) p 224CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 Belgian Constitution, Art 167. See Paquin, S ‘Federalism and compliance with international agreements: Belgium and Canada compared’ (2010) 5 The Hague Journal of Diplomacy 185CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
59 Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1; see Chiam, M ‘Tasmanian dams and Australia's relationship with international law’ (2015) 24(1) Griffith Law Review 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
60 Cowin, E ‘The passing of dual federalism’ (1950) 36(1) VA Law Review 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kincaid, J ‘From cooperative to coercive federalism’ (1990) 509(1) The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 139CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zimmerman, JF ‘Preemption in the US federal system’ (1993) 23 Publius: The Journal of Federalism 1Google Scholar; Young, EA ‘Dual federalism, concurrent jurisdiction and the foreign affairs exception’ (2001) 97 Michigan Law Review 139Google Scholar.
61 Young, above n 60; Williams, N ‘The commerce clause and the myth of dual federalism’ (2006) 54 UCLA L Rev 1816Google Scholar.
62 Ibid.
63 Baasch, R and Bangalore, SB ‘Congress and the reconstruction of foreign affairs federalism’ (2016) 115(1) Michigan Law Review 47Google Scholar.
64 Schaeffer, M ‘Federal states in the broader world’ (2011) 27 Canada-United States Law Journal 2Google Scholar.
65 US Constitution, Art II, § 3.
66 Ibid, Art II § 2.
67 Ibid, Art I §10.
68 Ibid, Art I §10.
69 Matsushita, M et al. The World Trade Organization – Law, Practice and Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017) p 44Google Scholar.
70 D Hollins and CM Vasquez ‘Treaty self-execution as “foreign” foreign relations law?’ in C Bradley (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Foreign Relations Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming), available at https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2077/.
71 Aust, A Modern Treaty Law and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017) p 177Google Scholar.
72 FM Abbott ‘Intellectual property provisions of bilateral and regional trade agreements in light of US federal law’ UNCTAD ICTSD Project on IPRS and Sustainable Development, 2011, Issue Paper No 2.
73 Friesen, JL ‘The distribution of treaty-implementing powers in constitutional federations: thoughts on the American and Canadian models’ (1994) 94(4) Columbia Law Review 1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bradley, CA ‘Federalism, treaty implementation, and political process: Bond v United States’ (2014) 108(3) American Journal of International Law 408Google Scholar; Verellen, T ‘Federalism and foreign affairs in Canada and the European Union: the search for equal autonomy’ (2016) Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 307Google Scholar.
74 GW Bowman ‘US and Canadian federalism: implications for international trade regulation’ (2012) VA l Rev 1029.
75 T Meyer and G Sitamaran ‘Trade and the separation of powers’ (2018) Vanderbilt University Law School Legal Studies Research Paper no 18–19, pp 73–74.
76 Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Pub L 103-465.
77 19 USC § 3512(b)(2)(A). Also note that a similar limitation is typically included in US FTAs (see Sheffler, S ‘A balancing ACT: state participation in free trade agreements with sub-central procurement obligations’ (2015) 44 Pub. Cont LJ 733Google Scholar.
78 Meyer and Sitamaran, above n 75, p 74.
79 Ibid.
80 Sheffler, above n 77, at 740–743.
81 See, for example, Appellate Body Report United States-Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and betting Services WTO Doc WT/DS285/AB/R. For a more detailed analysis of US liability for state-level violations of international trade law see Meyer, T ‘Local liability in international economic law (2017) 95 NCL Rev 261Google Scholar.
82 Freudlsperger, C ‘More voice, less exit: sub-federal resistance to international procurement liberalization in the European Union, the United States and Canada’ (2018) 25(11) Journal of European Public Policy 1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
83 Office of the United States Trade representative ‘Charter of the Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee on Trade’, available at https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/040414%20IGPAC%20Charter%20MF%20signed.pdf.
84 Kukucha, C ‘Federalism matters: evaluating the impact of sub-federal governments in Canadian and American foreign trade policy’ (2015) 21(3) Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 230CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
85 On 17 November 2017, the IGPAC counted only 19 members.
86 See above n 84.
87 Meyer and Sitamaran claim that the tensions between the federal and state governments with respect to trade agreements have caused US trade federalism to be ‘at best in disarray and at worst at risk of collapsing into trade nationalism’: see Meyer and Sitamaran, above n 75, p 65.
88 Meyer, above n 81, at 270.
89 German Constitution, Art 32(1).
90 German Constitution, Art 32(2). See Panara, C ‘In the name of cooperation: the external relations of the German Länder and their participation in EU decision-making’ (2010) 6 European Constitutional Law Review 64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
91 German Constitution, Art 32(3).
92 See Niedobnitek, M ‘The German Bundesrat and executive federalism’ (2018) 10(2) Perspectives on Federalism 201Google Scholar.
93 Opeskin, BR ‘Constitutional modelling: the domestic effect of international law in commonwealth countries’ (2001) 27(2) Commonwealth Law Bulletin 1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
94 Brohmer, J ‘The external affairs power in Australia and in Germany: different solutions, similar outcome’ (2012) 24 Giornale di Storia Costituzionale 49 at 58Google Scholar; Schutze, R Foreign Affairs and the EU Constitution (Cambridge University Press, 2014) p 187 at p 189CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
95 Halberstam, D ‘The foreign affairs of federal systems: a national perspective on the benefits of state participation’ (2001) 46(5) Villanova Law Review 36Google Scholar.
96 For an overview of the Lindau Accord see Schutze, above n 94.
97 Hrbek, R ‘The Federal Republic of Germany’ in Michelmann, H (ed) Foreign Relations and Federalism (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2009) p 151Google Scholar.
98 Ibid.
99 Ibid.
100 Lhotta, R and von Blummenthal, J ‘Intergovernmental relations in the Federal Republic of Germany’ in Poirier, J et al. (eds) Intergovernmental Relations in Federal Systems (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) pp 220–223Google Scholar.
101 Panara, above n 90, at 80–81.
102 Hrbek, above n 97.
103 Ibid.
104 See section 2(b).
105 Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s 92. See Field, MA ‘The differing federalisms of Canada and the United States’ (1992) 55(1) Law and Contemporary Problems 108CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosenn, K ‘Federalism in the Americas in comparative perspective’ (1994) 26 Inter-American Law Review 11Google Scholar.
106 Lenaerts, K ‘Constitutionalism and the many faces of federalism’ (1990) 28(2) The American Journal of Comparative Law 206Google Scholar.
107 See Brouillet, E ‘The federal principle and the 2005 balance of powers in Canada’ (2006) 34 Supreme Court Law Review 330Google Scholar.
108 M-A Adam et al ‘Inter-governmental relations in Canada: competing visions and diverse dynamics’ in Poirier et al, above n 100, p 138.
109 AG Canada v AG Ontario (Labour Conventions case) [1937] App Cas 326 (CAN PC).
110 See Van Duzer, A and Mallett, M ‘Compliance with Canada's trade and investment obligations: addressing the gap between provincial action and federal responsibility’ (2017) 54(1) Alberta Law Review 84Google Scholar.
111 Van Duzer, A ‘Could an intergovernmental agreement increase the credibility of Canadian Treaty commitments in areas with provincial jurisdiction’ (2013) 68(4) International Journal 538Google Scholar.
112 Van Duzer and Mallett, above n 110, at 102–104.
113 Ibid.
114 Tejpar, A ‘The challenges of federalism to Canada's international trade relations: the Canada-European Union comprehensive economic trade agreement’ (2017) 72(1) International Journal 115–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
115 A Weston ‘The Canadian “model” for public participation in trade policy formulation’ The North-South Institute, August 2005, p 4; Morissette, F ‘Provincial involvement in international treaty making: the European Union as a possible model’ (2012) 37(2) Queen's LJ 587Google Scholar.
116 Paquin, S ‘Federalism and the governance of international trade negotiations in Canada: comparing CUSFTA with CETA’ (2013) 68(4) International Journal 545 at 547, 550CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
117 Kukucha, C The Provinces and Canadian Foreign Trade Policy (UBC Press, 2008) p 54Google Scholar.
118 Van Duzer and Mallett, above n 110, at 92.
119 Ominuno, O ‘The evolving role of sub-national actors in the mechanisms for international trade interactions: A comparative analysis of Belgium and Canada’ (2017) 6(2) Global Journal of Comparative Law 136Google Scholar.
120 Kukucha, above n 17, p 54.
121 Ibid.
122 Inwood, G et al. Intergovernmental Policy Capacity in Canada: Inside the Worlds of Finance, Environment, Trade, and Health (McGill-Queen's University Press, 2011) p 250Google Scholar.
123 Kukucha, above n 117, p 54.
124 Paquin, above n 116.
125 The CPTPP is currently in the process of being ratified in Canada. The text of the agreement is available at http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/tpp-ptp/text-texte/toc-tdm.aspx?lang=eng.
126 Freudlsperger, above n 82, at 1697.
127 C Kukucha, ‘Provincial/territorial governments and the negotiation of international trade agreements’ (2016) 10 IRPP Insight 12, available at http://irpp.org/research-studies/insight-no10/.
128 Freudlsperger, above n 82, at 1697.
129 Kukucha, above n 84, at 225–226.
130 Kukucha, above n 84, at 225.
131 Kukucha, C ‘International relations theory and Canadian foreign trade policy’ (2014) 69(20) International Journal 223CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
132 Ibid.
133 A McHarg ‘The future of the UK's territorial constitution: can the union survive?’ (31 March 2016), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2771614; Keating, M ‘Brexit and the territorial constitution of the UK’ (2018) 98 Droit et société 54–56Google Scholar.
134 McEwen, N et al. ‘Intergovernmental relations in the UK: continuity in a time of change?’ (2012) 14 The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 332–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
135 Scotland Act 1998, Sch 5; Government of Wales Act 1998, Sch 2.
136 Northern Ireland Act 1998, Sch 2.
137 R (on the application of Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Birnie and Others intervening) [2017] UKSC 5, [2017] 2 WLR 583, para 54.
138 See Young, A ‘Brexit, Miller and the regulation of treaty withdrawal: one step forward, two steps back?’ (2017) 111 AJIL 434Google Scholar.
139 There are exceptions where unincorporated international treaties can have an impact on UK domestic law, notably interpretative obligations to interpret domestic laws in a manner that ensures consistency with international law. See Hunt, M Using Human Rights Law in English Courts (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 1997) pp 297–324Google Scholar.
140 Aust, above n 71, p 170.
141 P Bowers and C Sear ‘The Sewel convention’, House of Commons Briefing paper SN02084, 25 November 2005, available at https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN02084.
142 McHarg, A ‘Reforming the United Kingdom constitution: law, convention, soft law’ (2008) 71 Modern Law Review 853CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feldman, D ‘Case note and comment: pulling a trigger or starting a journey? Brexit in the Supreme Court’ (2017) 76(2) Cambridge Law Journal 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
143 R (on the application of Miller), above n 137.
144 Ibid, para 148.
145 Ibid, para 151. For a critical appraisal of the Miller judgment and its approach to the Sewel Convention see Elliott, M ‘The Supreme Court's judgment in Miller: in search of constitutional principle’ (2017) 76(2) Cambridge Law Journal 275CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wing, K ‘Brexit and parliamentary sovereignty’ (2017) 80(4) The Modern Law Review 721Google Scholar; C McCrudden and D Halberstam ‘Miller and Northern Ireland: a critical constitutional response’ (2017) University of Michigan Public Law Research Paper No 575, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3062964; Eeckhout, P ‘The emperor has no clothes: Brexit and the UK constitution’ in Martill, B and Steiger, U (eds) Rethinking the Futures of Europe (UCL Press, 2018) p 169Google Scholar.
146 S Douglas-Scott ‘Treaties, devolution and Brexit: Briefing Paper’ Scottish Parliament – EU and External Relations Committee http://www.parliament.scot/S5_European/General%20Documents/Treaties_Devolution_Brexit_briefing.pdf; Aust, above n 71, pp 171–72.
147 Northern Ireland Act 1998, ss 21 and 26; Scotland Act 1998, s 58; Government of Wales Act 2006, s 82.
148 Scott, A ‘The role of concordats in the new governance of Britain: taking subsidiarity seriously?’ (2010) 5(1) Edinburgh Law Review 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
149 MoU, above n 3.
150 Ibid, pp 12–21.
151 Ibid, pp 12–16.
152 Ibid, p 52.
153 Ibid, p 53.
154 Ibid, p 54.
155 Ibid, p 55.
156 Ibid, p 56.
157 Ibid.
158 Ibid.
159 Ibid, p 57.
160 Ibid.
161 House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution ‘Inter-governmental relations in the UK’ 11th Report of Session 2014–15, p 18, available at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldconst/146/146.pdf.
162 Ibid, p 18.
163 Ibid.
164 Ibid, p 19.
165 Ibid, p 14.
166 Kenealy, D ‘Concordats and international relations: binding in honour only’ (2012) 221(1) Regional and Federal Studies 69Google Scholar.
167 McEwen et al, above n 134.
168 House of Lords Select Committee, above n 161; Scottish Parliament ‘Changing Relationships: Parliamentary Scrutiny of Intergovernmental Relations’, 8th Report, 2015, 6 October 2015.
169 Ibid.
170 O Ilott ‘Four uncomfortable truths about a quick deal on UK-US trade’, Institute for Government, 16 January 2017; M Busch et al ‘The future of US-UK trade – what case for a bilateral agreement? UKTPO Briefing Paper July 2018, p 6.
171 Kenealy, above n 166.
172 See section 2(b).
173 Kukucha, above n 117.
174 Omiunu, above n 18.
175 See section 1(a).
176 Paquin, above n 116, at 548.
177 Epps, T ‘Regulatory cooperation in trade agreements’ in Frankel, S and Lewis, M Kolsky (eds) Trade Agreements at the Crossroads (Routledge, 2014) p 141Google Scholar.
178 Canada-EU CETA, Arts 21.1–21.9, [2016] OJ L 11, 23.
179 EU ‘TTIP-EU proposal for Chapter: Regulatory Cooperation’, 21 March 2016, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/march/tradoc_154377.pdf. For an analysis of the proposals see Alemanno, A and Wiener, J ‘The future of international regulatory cooperation: TTIP as a learning process toward a global policy laboratory’ (2015) 78 Law and Contemporary Problems 103Google Scholar; Parker, R ‘Four challenges for TTIP regulatory cooperation’ (2015) 22 Columbia Journal of European Law 1Google Scholar.
180 K De Gucht ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – solving the regulatory puzzle’ The Aspen Institute Prague Annual Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, 10 October 2013, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-801_en.htm; Cremona, M ‘Negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – context and scope of TTIP’ (2015) 52 Common Market Law Review 352Google Scholar; Jancic, D ‘TTIP and legislative-executive relations in EU trade policy’ (2017) 40(1) West European Politics 208CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
181 Above n 125.
182 CPTPP, Art 25.6. See also Bollyky, T ‘Regulatory coherence in TPP talks’ in Lim, C et al. (eds) The Trans-Pacific Partnership (Cambridge University Press, 2012) p 171CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gantz, D ‘The TPP and RCEP: mega-trade agreements for the Pacific rim’ (2016) 22 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law 57Google Scholar.
183 See for example Royles, E ‘Small, smart, successful: a nation influencing the twenty-first-century world? The emerging Welsh paradiplomacy’ (2010) 23(1) Contemporary Wales 142Google Scholar; Ouimet, H Rioux ‘From sub-state nationalism to subnational competition states: the development and institutionalization of commercial paradiplomacy in Scotland and Quebec’ (2015) 25(2) Regional and Federal Studies 109CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Royles, E ‘Substate diplomacy, culture, and Wales: investigating a historical institutionalist approach’ (2016) 46(2) Publius 224CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
184 Fafard and Leblond, above n 56, p 13.
185 Henderson, A et al. ‘How Brexit was made in England’ (2017) 19(4) The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 631CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
186 Greer, above n 49, at 4.
187 Rawlings, above n 40, p 5.
