Good Friday Agreement Law

As part of the agreement, the British and Irish governments committed to holding referendums in Northern Ireland and the Republic on 22 May 1998. The referendum on Northern Ireland is expected to approve the deal reached at the multi-party talks. The Republic of Ireland`s referendum should approve the Anglo-Irish agreement and facilitate the modification of the Irish constitution in accordance with the agreement. In the context of political violence during the riots, the agreement forced participants to find „exclusively democratic and peaceful means to resolve political differences.“ This required two aspects: the overall result of these problems was to damage the confidence of trade unionists in the agreement operated by the anti-agreement DUP, which eventually overtook the Pro-Agreement Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) in the 2003 general elections. UUP had already resigned from the executive in 2002 following the Stormontgate scandal, in which three men were indicted for intelligence gathering. These charges were eventually dropped in 2005 because persecution was not „in the public interest.“ Immediately afterwards, one of Sinn Féin`s members, Denis Donaldson, was unmasked as a British agent. The multi-party agreement is an agreement between the Uk government, the Irish government and most political parties in Northern Ireland. It defines the support of the signatory parties under the Anglo-Irish agreement and provides the framework for various political institutions. It is broken into three strands:… the Good Friday or Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 between the Government of the United Kingdom, the Government of Ireland and other participants in the multi-party negotiations (the 1998 agreement) attached to the Anglo-Irish Agreement of the same date (the „British-Irish Agreement“), including its subsequent agreements and implementation agreements. and would remain so until a majority of the population of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland want something different. If this happens, the British and Irish governments will be „obliged“ to implement this decision. Such a language of „constitutional laws“ is unusual in British law, which serves only to demonstrate the extent of Northern Ireland`s national constitutional character.

To emphasize the point, in Robinson v. The 1998 Act was recognised as „in force“ for Northern Ireland [11], which should be interpreted in accordance with the principles of the 1998 Convention. Robinson reinforced the distinctiveness of Northern Ireland as a region of the United Kingdom, with most of its „constitutional laws“ codified in a single legal act arising from an international agreement; Miller`s approach seemed to withdraw from such an understanding of the 1998 Act as constitutional, but in its own words the opinion expressed was not „definitive“ [Miller, 132].