Legislation Watch - The UK-Ukraine 100-Year Partnership Agreement

The UK-Ukraine 100-Year Partnership Agreement was signed on January 16, 2025 – see the explanatory memorandum here assets.publishing.service.gov.uk and the full signed agreement here One Hundred Year Partnership Agreement between the United Kingdom and Ukraine. Note the word Agreement is used rather than Treaty, which I point out now as I am going to explain the legal significance of the difference later in this article.

Please note that you will hear this Partnership Agreement called a Treaty by legacy media, ministers, and outraged social media commentators. However, is it a Treaty if it’s called an ‘Agreement’? Just what is going on is discussed in more detail below, but in advance you should be aware, (and motivated to respond to the same), that the House of Lords International Agreements Committee has initiated an inquiry to assess the tangible benefits of The Agreement, particularly regarding defence and maritime cooperation, and to understand its alignment with Ukraine's aspirations for NATO membership. Anyone can partake and if you would like to do so please read the call for evidence here before doing so - Call for Evidence - Committees - UK Parliament. The deadline for submissions is 10^th March 2025, so there is only a very short time frame to respond on this. Perhaps, after reading this article, one of the responses to make to the Inquiry could be to state that we are concerned that there is obfuscation as to whether this Agreement is going to be regarded as such, or whether it is actually a Treaty with all the weight of international law that would apply to the same.

Now on to further discussion about whether this document is an Agreement or a Treaty based on what we can see at the moment, and why the difference matters. Firstly, I should point out that the HOL inquiry itself confusingly refers to The Agreement as both a Treaty and a Partnership Agreement. It states, and I quote “The inquiry will focus on the details of the new Treaty, including what material changes it is expected to bring about, how it supports the UK’s national interest, and how it relates to the wider issue of security guarantees for Ukraine”.

The Committee is seeking evidence on questions including:

• What will materially change as a result of this Treaty?

• What is the respective role of the Treaty and the Political Declaration within the Partnership?

• How the maritime partnership contained in the Agreement is expected to operate in practice?

• How likely Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations are in the current climate, and what more the Government could do to ensure this outcome?

• How does this Agreement relate to the wider issues of security guarantees for Ukraine?

Lord Goldsmith, Chair of the International Agreements Committee, said:

“On 16 January 2025 the UK and Ukraine signed the One Hundred Year Partnership Agreement, which aims to strengthen defence, economic and cultural ties. The committee will now be scrutinising this Agreement and I encourage anyone with experience or expertise on this topic to share their views with the full knowledge that they will have value and are welcome.”

A search on the internet leads to the same confusion. Note the results below, and I would draw your particular attention to the first result:

The first result states that The Partnership Agreement contains a legally binding Treaty and accompanying political declaration, (the latter of which you can find here UK-Ukraine 100 Year Partnership Declaration - GOV.UK), yet in many places these documents are simply referred to only as ‘a Partnership Agreement’.

The confusion is likely not by chance. I feel sure that those pulling the levers of the UK government do not want the UK Public to have any clue about whether this Partnership Agreement has legally binding international obligations giving it the effect and weight of a Treaty, or whether it really is just a memorandum of understanding of ‘strategic political importance’. Keeping us confused is, of course, part of the plan, and do bear in mind that such confusion could allow something like this document to be interpreted as seen fit at any given time. At the end of the day, it could be very beneficial for the political class and the legacy media to use the terms Treaty and Agreement interchangeably, to confuse the British Public about what is actually going on.

What this document actually is matters because there is a legal difference between a Treaty and a Partnership Agreement. It all comes down to formality, legally binding nature, and the process involved in creation and ratification. Treaties are formal, legally binding international agreements between states or international organisations, typically addressing serious obligations, such as changes to trade relations, defence cooperation, or territorial boundaries. They are international law instruments and have legal effects both on the parties involved and, in many cases, on domestic law if the treaty necessitates changes to the same, or requires its implementation within the domestic legal system. In the UK, treaties are usually subject to ratification procedures under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG Act) and must be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days before they can be ratified.

On the other hand, a Partnership Agreement typically refers to a less formal or less legally binding arrangement between two parties, often used to define the terms of cooperation or joint efforts in specific areas, such as trade, defence, or cultural exchange. A Partnership Agreement does not carry the same legal weight as a Treaty in terms of international obligations and is often just a memorandum of understanding or a framework agreement, which sets out broad principles and goals for cooperation rather than legally binding terms. Partnership agreements do not require the same formal ratification procedures that a treaty does, and are usually non-binding, although they still have political or economic weight as they establish a framework for cooperation, collaboration, or mutual goals without creating specific obligations enforceable under international law.

As noted above, The CRAG Act governs the process for ratification of international Treaties in the UK. Under this Act, Treaties must be laid before Parliament for a 21-day scrutiny period. During this period, Parliament can object to the Treaty, although it cannot amend it. If no objections are raised, the Treaty is ratified. Thereafter, a Treaty’s legal force in the UK will depend on whether it requires any changes to domestic law to be implemented, or if it is already self-executing under international law. Confusingly, (again), Partnership Agreements may or may not be subject to the same process of parliamentary scrutiny, depending on their classification and the nature of the agreement. If the agreement is non-binding or does not involve any significant changes to UK law, it generally does not need to be formally ratified. However, in practice, high-profile agreements like this UK-Ukraine 100-Year Partnership might still be laid before Parliament for informational purposes or for parliamentary awareness, even if they are not Treaties in the strict legal sense.

This particular agreement was laid before Parliament in accordance with the CRAG Act on February 24, 2025 – see here treaties.parliament.uk. Therefore, the 21-day period during which Parliament can object to the Agreement seems to be expiring on March 17, 2025.

Confusingly the Agreement is located on Parliaments Treaties website. It refers to “The Treaty” being signed in its timeline, and in its published ministerial statement of 20^th January 2025 you will note that David Lammy states “With permission, Mr Speaker, I will now make a statement on Ukraine. Last week, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister visited Kyiv. It was his seventh meeting with President Zelensky, but this visit had a special purpose: to sign a historic 100-year partnership with Ukraine. The partnership enshrines both sides’ commitment to a relationship benefiting the whole of our nations: businesses as well as the Government, communities as well as our military. It consists of a legally binding treaty and a political agreement outlining our co-operation in greater detail. We will lay the treaty before this House for scrutiny in the usual way”.

Given Lammy’s comments and the fact that the Agreement has been laid in accordance with The CRAG Act, lends weight to this document being a Treaty, with all the legal implications of the same, rather than just a political partnership agreement. However, I really cannot be absolutely sure whether this Partnership document constitutes a Treaty or just an Agreement, (like a memorandum of understanding), despite reading all of the documents and commentary around the same. Given that both a Treaty and Agreement can be subjected to the procedure under the CRAG Act, the fact the Agreement has been laid before Parliament does not definitively answer the question as to what this document actually is. One has to look to the language of the Agreement to gain further clarity and see if there are any binding legal obligations and enforcement mechanisms in the document itself. The preamble in such a document often outlines the intention of the agreement and if a legally binding Treaty, the language will typically include terms like "shall," "must," or "agree to be bound," which indicates obligations. Dispute resolution is another important area as Treaties usually include provisions on how disputes between the parties should be resolved (through international courts, arbitration, or negotiation). Treaties also include articles that lay out specific actions the parties are required to undertake (such as security cooperation, trade agreements, etc.) and these are often legally binding clauses.

After reading the documents for the Partnership Agreement I have personally concluded, (and I may well be wrong), that the agreement includes binding commitments in areas such as defence, trade, migration, and justice cooperation. However, enforcement mechanisms are relatively soft. Disputes are to be resolved through consultations rather than judicial action, and there are no penalties explicitly mentioned for non-compliance. So, while this agreement does include binding obligations around areas like defence, security, and economic cooperation—its enforcement mechanisms are less stringent when compared to formal Treaties that might rely on international courts or tribunals, and the use of consultations for dispute resolution suggests that the agreement relies on diplomatic cooperation rather than formal legal enforcement.

Clear as mud and lends itself to being a hybrid of both an Agreement and a Treaty!

Pausing now on just what hell this document actually is, I do want to briefly turn to some provisions of the Agreement itself, as there are some worrying parts to it. Firstly, and as is obvious, it commits the UK to a 100-year deal with the money laundering capital of the world and additionally binds the UK to provide Ukraine with annual military assistance of no less than £3 billion a year until 2030/31, and thereafter for as long as needed to support Ukraine. Hopefully you are as speechless as I am about this.

It also places specific obligations on the UK to co-operate with Ukraine in areas such as defence collaboration and joint development of defence industrial bases with Ukraine, as well as supporting Ukraine’s future NATO membership -a massive Russian red line that will lead to World War 3. We are also to co-operate in specific sectors of economic and commercial activity ‘in support of mutual prosperity’ and I suspect that this might be the UK getting a mineral deal, ahead of and behind the back of Trump. There are other provisions, but the one that I find to be particularly nefarious is Article 7: “collaborating at institutional level to improve our national capabilities in combatting foreign information manipulation and interference”. The exact wording of this article is as follows:

"The Parties shall deepen institutional links on foreign information manipulation and interference, build resilience to information threats and enable effective disruptive actions to respond to threats."

While the language in Article 7 doesn't specifically mention domestic populations (like the UK public), the phrase "disruptive actions" does suggest that measures could be taken to counter information deemed harmful or manipulative to the Ukraine agenda in the UK. This could therefore translate into actions from social media companies banning posts following pressure to censor content more aggressively, such as we saw during the Covid era, or actions from the Nudge Unit, the behavioural science loons who work on policies aimed at influencing public behaviour and attitudes in subtle ways at a subconscious level, for example by shaping narratives or promoting certain messages.

We do know that we are going to see The British Council flex its muscles. An establishment soft power tool that plays a role in promoting positive UK media soundbites, right think, and faux independent journalism in both the UK and Ukraine, the UK government uses the British Council in many a mission. The British Council is merely an arm of British foreign policy, set on promoting ‘Western values’ – whatever they are at any given time. Sadly, however, wherever you see conflict, instability and regime change, you also seem to find The British Council – they have worked in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, to support ‘educational reform’ to ‘counter extremist ideologies’, amongst other places…..

The British Council is publicly funded by the UK government, but laughably claims it is an independent organisation. However, it aligns with government objectives and works closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO), particularly in foreign policy, international development, and diplomatic initiatives. So whilst The British Council likes to view itself as a ‘cultural and educational entity’, critics have scrutinised its activities for potential links to broader geopolitical agendas.

Although the language of the above mentioned Article 7 is not specific enough to definitively state whether it will involve direct actions against the UK public from the bodies mentioned above, based on the text provided it is possible to conclude that such efforts could target individuals. The phrase "disruptive actions" is vague, so could refer to a range of responses, from cybersecurity measures to policy actions against ‘misinformation’, and ‘malinformation’, both of which seem likely to become actual terrorist offences in the UK very soon. You may recall that there has been significant discussion about the potential for misinformation and malinformation to be addressed directly under terrorism legislation, by proposed reforms to the Terrorism Act 2000 and other related laws, to further extend the criminalisation of certain types of speech and information dissemination.

If the UK were to officially expand terrorism laws as a direct result of Article 7 of this partnership agreement, it will have several significant implications such as criminalising what is deemed by the levers of power as false information harmful to national security. Or it could become criminal to post what is deemed ‘misinformation used to disrupt public order’, in the context of UK/Ukrainian policy – so think protests here and how they would be dealt with.

There is a significant risk of vagueness in the definitions of misinformation and malinformation, leading to potential overreach in the creation of and enforcement of new laws regarding the same, which will lead to infringements on freedom of speech, personal liberty and will only add to the chilling effects on free speech, particularly if information that challenges the government’s position on Ukraine and this 100 year Partnership is mischaracterised as harmful or extremist. And let’s not forget that we already have The Online Safety Act, which whilst not directly part of terrorism legislation, tackles ‘harmful online behaviour’, including what is termed as disinformation related to national security issues, terrorism, and ‘other threats’.

Notwithstanding the confusion surrounding whether this 100-year partnership is a Treaty or merely an Agreement, I suggest we proceed as if it is indeed the former. That being the case, we could very well see new domestic laws curbing free speech under the guise of adhering to the terms of Article 7 of the same - so do look out for that. Moreover, other provisions in the Agreement could lead to further changes in domestic law, so it’s important that we closely monitor developments. Ultimately, our parliamentarians are not asking the right questions about this Agreement - they are not thoroughly exploring what it could mean for us over the next 100 years. And we are not being given enough information about how this Agreement could impact us, and how it may affect future generations. Of particular concern is that this document may well serve as a vehicle not only for expanding support to Ukraine—support that has not been subject to our approval—but also as a tool to further erode our rights to free speech and protest, under the pretext of protecting Ukraine and silencing negative commentary about UK/Ukraine policy. We rarely see the political power structure act with a single motive, so be alert as to how this Partnership Agreement may have wide reaching effects on speech, protest and freedom of expression laws.

About Legislation Watch: I created Legislation Watch to raise awareness of the Bills (and other legal instruments) currently under consideration in the UK. You can access this link here, which will direct you to a CSV file listing all Bills going through the Commons and Lords. The file indicates the current reading stage of each Bill. While I won't be covering every Bill and legal instrument— as that would be impractical—my focus will be on those that appear to be state surveillance tools, power grabs, or pose a significant and immediate threat to the UK public. If there's a specific Bill or legal instrument you'd like me to cover, please feel free to get in touch and let me know.