Multilevel polities do not typically facilitate secession, so why did the European Union adopt Article 50? Revisiting formative debates from the 2003 Convention on the Future of Europe, we combine archival research with an original dataset of delegate debates over two levels: the existence and procedural operation of an exit article. This reveals essential new detail on the genealogy of Article 50. We locate this institutional innovation within a Rokkanian–Hirschmanian theoretical framework which treats exit closure as necessary for loyalty and resilience. Further refining this ‘polity’ perspective, we find many participants showed awareness of the potentially disruptive implications of an exit article. Yet, given extant tensions around ‘ever closer union’, a Eurocentric procedural design prevailed as a safety valve, granting EU authorities default control over any exit process. This European logic of ‘controlled opening' offers a potential blueprint for other integrating compound polities and international organizations facing backlashes from member states.

This Article highlights the legal and procedural restrictions a Member States faces during its withdrawal from the EU and subsequent talks on a future trade relationship by analyzing the unprecedented case of the UK. One such restriction consists of an obligation to negotiate withdrawal as a result of the principle of sincere cooperation. Other limits derive from the withdrawal process itself, designed as it was by the European institutions on the basis of a very scant Article 50 TEU. By then comparing the three substantive pillars of the EU-UK WA—citizens’ rights, the financial settlement, and the Irish border— with the UK’s initial negotiating red lines, I offer two conclusions: That the aforementioned constraints on the withdrawing state can significantly weaken the defense of its interests during its withdrawal process and that having to agree to important issues in a first and separate stage of “orderly withdrawal” talks also diminishes the state’s bargaining power with regards to the next stage of negotiating a future partnership with the EU.

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For breaches of treaty obligations — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Interference with prisoners’ mail — Whether a breach of right to respect for correspondence — Right to an effective remedy before a national court — Internal channels of complaint — Petitions to Home Secretary and court proceedings — Whether an effective remedy — Refusal of petitions for permission to seek legal advice — Whether a violation of right of access to courts — Subsequent modifications to law and practice — Whether remedying previously existing breaches of Convention — Just satisfaction in respect of breach established

State responsibility — Damages (Measure of damages) — Grounds for awarding damages — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950-Article 50 — Just satisfaction in respect of breaches established — General non-pecuniary damages — Whether finding of breach adequate just satisfaction — Special non-pecuniary damages — Legal costs and expenses referable to proceedings before Convention institutions

Disputes — Other international courts — European Court of Human Rights — Scope of review — Subsequent modifications of State party’s law and practice — Whether remedying previously existing breaches of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — Interference with prisoners’ correspondence — Whether a breach of right to respect for correspondence — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 8 — Whether interferences justifiable — Whether in accordance with the law — Whether law adequately accessible and reasonably foreseeable — Ministerial directives — Whether to be taken into account — Need for safeguards against abuse of executive discretion — Legitimate aim of interferences with correspondence — Whether necessary in a democratic society

Freedom of expression — Article 10 — Whether necessary to examine issue — Right to an effective remedy before a national court — Article 13 — Whether necessary to examine issue in conjunction with Article 6(1) or Article 10 — Internal channels of complaint — Petitions to Home Secretary and court proceedings — Whether effective remedies — Scope of jurisdiction and enforceability of decisions — Refusal of petition for permission to seek legal advice — Whether a violation of right of access to courts — Article 6(1) — Subsequent modifications to law and practice — Whether remedying previously existing breaches of Convention — Whether within scope of review of Court

Article 50 — Just satisfaction in respect of breaches established — General non-pecuniary damages — Whether finding of breach provides adequate just satisfaction — Special non-pecuniary damages — Assessment in light of particular circumstances — Legal costs and expenses referable to proceedings before Convention institutions

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For breaches of treaty obligations — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Right to a fair and public trial in proceedings relating to the determination of civil rights or of a criminal charge — Article 6(1) — Proceedings before disciplinary bodies of professional association — Imposition of sanctions — Whether within ambit of Article 6(1) — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading punishment — Object of sanctions — Whether State party in breach of guarantees of fair trial and freedom of association — Article 50 — Just satisfaction

State responsibility — Damages (Measure of damages) — Grounds for awarding damages — Non — pecuniary damages — Causal links between established violation and alleged damage — Legal fees — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Disputes — Other international courts — European Court of Human Rights — Relinquishment of jurisdiction of Chamber in favour of plenary Court — Whether case raises serious questions affecting interpretation of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 6(1) — Right to a fair and public trial in proceedings relating to determination of civil rights or of a criminal charge — Proceedings before disciplinary bodies of professional association — Imposition of sanctions — Whether within ambit of Article 6(1) — Existence of a dispute (contestation) — Direct relationship between dispute and a right — Nature of the right — Whether a civil right — Impartiality of tribunal — Whether providing for public hearings and public pronouncements of decisions — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading punishment — Article 3 — Object of sanctions — Guarantees of fair trial — Article 6(2) and (3) (a), (b) and (d) — Freedom of association — Article 11 — European Court of Human Rights — Relinquishment of jurisdiction of Chamber in favour of plenary Court — Whether case raises serious questions affecting interpretation of Convention

Article 50 — Breach of right to public trial established — Just satisfaction — Non-pecuniary damage — Whether earlier judgment furnished reparation — Competence to direct State party to annul disciplinary sanctions and criminal sentences — Causal links between established violation and alleged damage — Reimbursement of legal costs

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For breaches of treaty obligations — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6(1) — Right to a hearing within a reasonable time — Preliminary objection of non — exhaustion of domestic remedies — Estoppel — Reasonableness of length of proceedings — Assessment according to particular circumstances — Article 50 — Just satisfaction in respect of established breach

State responsibility — Damages (Measure of damages) — Award of damages in general — Grounds for awarding damages — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 50 — Just satisfaction in respect of established breach — Agreements between State party and applicants — Whether of an equitable nature — Claim for lawyer’s fees and expenses — Compensation for loss of employment

Disputes — Other international courts — European Commission of Human Rights — Ex officio examination of issue not specifically raised by applicants — Whether exceeding jurisdiction — Preliminary objections concerning complaints declared inadmissible by Commission — Whether within compass of case referred to European Court of Human Rights

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 6(1) — Right to a hearing within a reasonable time — Preliminary objections by State party — Ex officio examination of issue by European Commission of Human Rights — Whether exceeding jurisdiction — Exhaustion of domestic remedies — Estoppel — Objections concerning complaints declared inadmissible by Commission — Whether within compass of case referred to European Court of Human Rights — Length of proceedings — Commencement and end of periods to be taken into account — Reasonableness of length of proceedings — Assessment according to particular circumstances — Complexity of case — Conduct of applicants — Conduct of authorities — Important characteristics of case to be taken into account

Article 50 — Breach of right to a hearing within a reasonable time established — Just satisfaction — Agreements between State party and two applicants — Whether of an equitable nature — Claim for lawyer’s fees and expenses — Compensation for loss of employment

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of State responsibility — For wrongs unconnected with contractual obligations — Acts and omissions of State organs and officials — Connected with legislation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 8 — Whether mere existence of legislation affected right to respect for private life — Whether absence of prosecutions meant law was a dead letter

State responsibility — Damages — Award of damages in general — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 50 — Just satisfaction in respect of established breach — Whether change in law in itself adequate satisfaction without financial compensation

Disputes — Other international courts — European Court of Human Rights — Whether applicant a victim within meaning of Article 25 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Margin of appreciation — Article 50 — Just satisfaction — Order for declaration by respondent Government requested — Whether admissible

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 8 — Right to respect for private life — Whether including sexual life — Prohibition of homosexual acts between consenting adults in private — Law of Northern Ireland — Absence of similar prohibition in rest of United Kingdom — Whether mere existence of legislation affected private life — Absence of prosecutions — Whether law no longer enforced — Whether applicant a victim within meaning of Article 25 of Convention — Justifications for interference under Article 8(2) — Whether necessary in a democratic society — Margin of appreciation of national authorities — Whether more extensive for issues involving morals — European standard — Pressing social need — Requirement of proportionality — Whether necessary to examine complaint under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8

Article 50 — Breach of right to respect for private life established — Just satisfaction — Whether change in law of Northern Ireland in itself adequate satisfaction — Need for financial compensation — Order for declaration by respondent Government requested — Whether admissible — Legal costs and other expenses referable to proceedings before Convention institutions — Whether actually, necessarily and reasonably incurred

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — Right to public hearing by independent and impartial tribunal established by law — European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950, Article 6 (1) — Notion of determination of civil rights and obligations — Right to continue to exercise medical profession — Whether public or private right — Disciplinary proceedings concerning allegations of professional misconduct — Whether determination of private or civil rights — Notion of dispute (contestation) — Whether civil right the object of dispute — Disciplinary organs of medical association — Whether independent and impartial tribunals established by law — Whether guaranteeing public hearing

Article 11 — Right to freedom of association, to form and join trade unions — Legal obligation to join medical association and be subject to its disciplinary organs — Whether limiting guaranteed rights — ‘Association’ — Definition of — Freedom not to associate — Whether recognized by Convention

Article 10 — Right to disseminate information and ideas — Whether sanctions imposed by disciplinary body impinge upon right — Admissibility of complaint — Whether complaint separate or adduced in support of other claims — Ambit of case referred to Court — Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Article 50 — Request for just satisfaction — Effect of possibility of compensation under domestic law

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention on Human Rights — Article 6(1) — Imposition of a fine by way of settlement under threat of provisional closure of business establishment — Compatibility of combined use of sanctions with Article 6.

Article 6(2) — Whether violated by provisional closure of business establishment — Whether First Protocol to the Convention, Article 1 similarly violated

Article 6(3) — Whether violated by use of both or either of the sanctions ordered

Article 26 — Admissibility of application — Burden of proof upon Contracting State to establish availability of domestic remedies and non-utilisation — Limits upon the requirements of Article 26

Article 50 — Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage — Reasonableness of claim

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of State responsibility — For wrongs unconnected with contractual obligations — Acts and omissions of State organs and officials — Exhaustion of domestic remedies — European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, Article 26 — Whether Article of Convention to be relied on expressly before domestic courts — Whether complaints before domestic courts relating to conduct in breach of Convention provisions relied on before Convention institutions

State responsibility — Damages — Award of damages in general — European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, Article 50 — Just satisfaction — Request for compensation for prejudice suffered through unjust deprivation of liberty — Equitable determination of — Restitutio in integrum

Disputes — Other international courts — European Court of Human Rights — Admissibility of complaint — European Convention on Human Rights 1950, Article 25 — Extent of jurisdiction of EuropeanCommission of Human Rights — Whether complaints raised on applicant's own initiative — Date of decision of admissibility — Whether application has object and purpose — Whether application to be struck off the list

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, Article 5(1) — Unjust deprivation of liberty — Order of Italian court obliging alleged mafioso to reside in restricted area under police supervision — Whether conditions and implementation of residence amounting to deprivation of liberty — Whether justified under Article 5(1) paras. (a)-(f)

Article 8 — Respect for private and family life — Compatibility of compulsory residence order — Article 9 — Freedom of religion — Article 3 — Whether compulsory residence amounting to inhuman or degrading treatment — First Protocol to Convention, Article 2 — Right to education

Fourth Protocol to Convention — Non-ratification by State party to Convention — Article 2 — Restriction of movement and place of residence — Comparison between this provision and Article 5 of the Convention

Article 25 — Admissibility of application — Extent of jurisdiction of European Commission of Human Rights — Whether complaints before Commission raised on applicant's own initiative — Date of decision on admissibility — Whether application having object or purpose — Whether application should be struck off the list

Article 26 — Exhaustion of domestic remedies — Whether provisions of Convention to be relied on expressly before domestic courts — Whether complaints raised before domestic courts relating to conduct in breach of Convention may be relied on before Convention institutions

Article 50 — Just satisfaction — Request for compensation for prejudice suffered — Equitable determination of — Restitutio in integrum

Disputes — Other international courts — Procedure — European Court of Human Rights — Burden of proof — Party estopped from raising preliminary objection not argued before Commission — Compensation

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Right to legal assistance — Article 6 (3)(c) — Whether nomination of lawyer under legal aid system effective legal assistance

Article 50 — Just satisfaction — Equitable basis — Compensation for non-pecuniary injury — Compensation in respect of breach of Article 6(3)(c) — Restitutio in integrum — Claim for professional fees of lawyer representing Applicant before Convention institutions — Legal aid — Whether loss suffered under Article 50

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — Article 26 (the domestic remedies rule) — Jurisdiction of the Court to examine submissions of non-exhaustion — Question of estoppel — Questions of availability and sufficiency of a supposed remedy — Significance of the condition of settled legal opinion

Article 4(2) — (prohibition against forced or compulsory labour) — Whether a breach of Article 5(4) in itself removes justification for imposition of such labour upon detained person

Article 5(1)(e) (detention of vagrants) — Meaning of the terms “vagrant” and “lawful” in the context of Article 5(1) — Article 5(3) (right of person deprived of liberty to judicial examination) — Article 5(4) (right of person deprived of liberty to have lawfulness of deprivation decided by a court) — Compliance with Article 5(4) where deprivation is ordered by a court — Meaning of the term “court” in the context of Article 5(4) — Procedural guarantees necessitated by gravity of possible consequences — Administrative nature of magisterial decision — Failure to provide judicial remedy — Requests for release addressed to administrative authorities — Possibility of appeal to Counseil d’Etat in event of unlawful refusal to release — Absence of judicial review of exercise of such discretion outside the ambit of Article 5(4)

Article 7 (“nulla poena sine lege”) — Inapplicability to noncriminal matter

Article 8 (respect for correspondence) — Whether a breach of Article 5(4) in itself removes justification for supervising detained person’s correspondence — Whether otherwise justifiable — Power of appreciation left to Contracting States in determining what is “necessary” for the avoidance of certain contingencies

Article 13 (right of effective remedy before a national tribunal) — Whether necessary to determine the question

Article 50 — Just satisfaction — Damages for unlawful detention — Whether Article 26 is applicable to proceedings in regard to Article 50 — Elements to be taken into consideration by the Court in respect of such proceedings — Absence of damage on the particular facts having regard to the Court’s former findings

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6(1) — Right to a fair hearing in the determination of civil rights and duties — Decree of judicial separation — Only available in High Court — Legal aid not available — Complexity of High Court procedure making it difficult for person to represent herself — Whether a breach of Article 6 (1) resulting from combination of absence of legal aid and complexity of legal procedure

Article 8 — Right to respect for family life — Whether sometimes involving right to relief from duty of cohabitation — Applicant frequently beaten by husband — Divorce not available — Applicant unable to obtain decree of judicial separation because of cost and complexity of only legal procedure available — Whether State in breach of Article 8 by failing to provide accessible procedure for relieving Applicant of duty to cohabit with husband

Article 14 — Discrimination — Position of this provision in scheme of Convention

Article 50 — Compensation — When question ready for decision

Article 26 — Exhaustion of domestic remedies — Availability of other procedures for securing separation from spouse — Voluntary agreement between parties — Order barring molestation of wife — Whether failure to seek such agreement or order a failure to exhaust local remedies — Relevance of alternative procedures — Whether failure to appear in person before High Court a failure to exhaust local remedies — Whether possibility that Applicant would not in fact benefit from decree of judicial separation relevant in considering question of exhaustion of local remedies

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention on — Article 50 — Whether applicable on finding of breach of Article 6(1) — Effect of settlement between Applicant and Respondent Government

Article 50 — Power of Court to award just satisfaction — Whether domestic remedies provide complete or partial reparation — restitutio in integrum

Article 50 — Just satisfaction — Whether obligation to plead exact amount in claim — Pecuniary damage consisting of costs incurred in exercising domestic remedies and before Convention institutions — Whether relevant item — Non-pecuniary damage caused through established breach of Convention — Damage to professional and personal reputation and financial situation — Assessment of — Equitable basis under Article 50

The individual in international law — In general — Human rights and freedoms — Foreigners ordered to pay interpretation costs in criminal proceedings taken against them in German courts — Violation of European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Article 6(3)e — Whether Article 50 applicable — Award of just satisfaction — Effect of settlement between Applicant and Respondent Government — “Equitable nature” of settlement

Article 50 — Entitlement to status of “injured party” — Whether Applicant's lawyer could rely on Article 50 to seek just satisfaction on own account — Remuneration of lawyers — Legal aid scheme

Article 14 — Position of non-German speaking foreigner before German courts — Order to pay costs of interpretation — Whether discrimination