In addition to the number of signatories[Note 1], Stefan Wolff identifies the following similarities and differences between the themes discussed in the two agreements: All because two governments have left it to two local parties to renegotiate a binding international agreement excluding all others – an entirely different anabolic subject of the Good Friday Agreement, which is at the heart of its essence. And it`s not just local inclusion – the national and international stewardship of the GFA has implications far beyond our local imagination. It was only to put the icing on the cake that the British and Irish governments broke their commitments in this so-called binding agreement, the British suspended Stormont and the Irish abolished the promise of citizenship to all citizens born on the island of Ireland. This was not only a revolutionary international agreement, but only the conclusion of the Darlington Declaration of 1971. In the context of political violence during the riots, the agreement forced participants to find “exclusively democratic and peaceful means to resolve political differences.” These were two aspects: while the role of the United States in mediating the agreement was rightly acknowledged, EU participation was probably underestimated and perhaps underestimated. However, the Brexit negotiations have placed the provisions of the Good Friday agreement at the heart of the EU`s priorities. This is not only because the EU is the guarantor of the treaty, but because it reflects the same principles and processes as the EU itself. The rule of law, cross-border cooperation and post-conflict reconciliation and peace. To understand the current litigation, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the 1998 agreement was created. The agreement, signed on 10 April 1998, has two components: a political agreement between the political parties in Northern Ireland (“the multi-party agreement”) and an international treaty between the governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland (the “Anglo-Irish Agreement”, which serve as “guarantors” of the content of the multi-party agreement.
Although the terms of the agreement are well known on the day it was signed, the agreement did not enter into force under British law until 2 December 1999, following a series of appeals in the multi-party agreement (validation, implementation and verification s11). British law defines the “Belfast Agreement” as “the agreement reached in multi-party negotiations on Northern Ireland, as defined in Command Paper 3883” (Northern Ireland Act, 1998: s98); the earlier version of the political agreement, which is more important than the Anglo-Irish agreement, which has not been ratified, has been annexed. The definition of the 1998 agreement in the UK-EU withdrawal agreement is consistent with that which was later confirmed and ratified, but it also contains a minimum of ambiguity. The preamble to the protocol states that the multi-party agreement required the parties to “use all the influence they could have” to obtain the dismantling of all paramilitary weapons by referendum within two years of the adoption of the agreement.