How unconventional or precedented was Judge Baraitser&#39;s claim that UK-signed international treaties are unbinding or even irrelevant to UK courts?
<p>How unconventional or precedented was Judge Baraitser's claim that UK-signed international treaties are unbinding or even irrelevant to UK courts?</p>
<p>In ruling on Julian Assange's extradition, she dismissed the defenses contention that extradition for political offences was prohibited under the extradition treaty on the grounds that this provision was not included in the parliament-passed domestic UK legislation that implemented the treaty.</p>
<p>It seems contrived that it shouldn't at least be heavily considered in gathering the context and spirit in which the extradition act was passed, even while on the face her legal reasoning that it shouldn't be <em>binding</em> on UK courts as their principal function is to interpret/apply the body of UK law.</p>
<p>If it wasn't binding but only admissible as perspective for deducing parliamentary intent, then to dismiss it out of hand anyway suggests a biased political  impetus to extradite Assange.</p>
<p>Regardless, what is the validity and or precedent for the various components and degrees of this reasoning by Judge Baraitser?</p>

<h2>The precedent is very clear and was accurately applied by the judge</h2>
<p>A treaty does not create domestic law and is only applicable to the extent that it is incorporated into domestic law. She extensively quotes the relevant precedents in the <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/USA-v-Assange-judgment-040121.pdf" rel="noreferrer">judgement</a> at [42-49].</p>

united-kingdom treaty