Brexit, Democracy, and Human Rights: The Law Between Secession and Treaty Withdrawal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Kingdom (UK) has triggered the mechanism to exit the European Union (EU). Such a decision was taken at a referendum held in 2016. The referendum was, however, not legally binding, and only England and Wales, but not Scotland or Northern Ireland, endorsed the option to exit the EU. UK’s EU exit can be seen as the UK’s withdrawal from the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of European Union (TFEU) pursuant to Article 50 TEU. But the TEU and TFEU are not ordinary treaties of public international law. They are constitutional instruments of a complex supra-national polity—the EU. Brexit is thus in many respects more than just an ordinary treaty withdrawal; it can be seen as the UK’s functional secession from the EU. This creates tensions between the rules of treaty withdrawal and tenets of democratic decision-making on territorial matters in a constitutional democracy. This article analyzes such tensions and contrasts Brexit with the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec case, holding that democracy was not a simple majority rule. Yet, it is questionable whether the treaty-law logic of Article 50 allows for accommodation of the Quebec principles. The article also demonstrates how the European Convention of Human Rights could step in to protect certain already-acquired rights of EU citizens after Brexit. Given the complexity and diversity of rights stemming from EU citizenship, however, there is no complete legal certainty without either an agreement between the EU and the UK to this effect, or further development of the existing case law on the matter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".