I have to say, Clifford, that that is the feeblest pair of arguments imaginable. On the first point, "Treaty is a generic term embracing all instruments binding under international law, regardless of their formal designation, concluded between two or more international juridical persons.Thus, treaties may be concluded between: States; International organizations with treaty-making capacity and States; or International organizations with treaty-making capacity.The application of the term treaty, in the generic sense, signifies that the parties intend to create rights and obligations enforceable under international law.The Vienna Convention 1969 defines a treaty as “an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation” (article 2(1)(a))."https://www.treatylaw.org/what-is-a-treaty/And on the second, the fact that other governments break international law does not justify ours doing so. Not only does it make it impossible to argue that, say, China is wrong to impose mainland law on Hong Kong (so much for "Global Britain") but you might as well say, at a domestic level, that because many people are shoplifters, it would be fine for you to steal (in a limited and specific way, of course) a bottle of whisky from your offlicence. Try that one on a judge!
Richard Carter ● 1288d