In the spring of 1998 a huge step was taken in the Northern Ireland peace process as the Good Friday Agreement was signed by the governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland as well a number of political parties based in Northern Ireland.

In fact the only major party to oppose the Agreement was the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) who are now in the Westminster driving seat ahead of a coalition with Theresa May and the Conservatives in order to deliver a parliamentary majority following the recent general election.

For an international agreement such as this to have legal force in the UK it has to be incorporated into domestic law and this was done later on that year by way of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; an Act that also establishes the basis for devolution in the North.

Article 1 of the Agreement contains the following words:

the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction [in Northern Ireland] shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people

and this is where the problems start.

Since the start of this year there has been no ruling administration in Belfast because of disagreements between the DUP and the republican opposition, Sinn Féin. This has mostly centred around the leader of the DUP, Arlene Foster, and her involvement in the ‘cash for ash’ scandal.

Even if an agreement could be reached and the Northern Ireland Assembly returns to work there would still be questions over the “rigorous impartiality” of a central government in London that is propped up by the unionists.

With this in mind an expert team of constitutional lawyers is planning to launch a judicial review of the coalition agreement once it is announced (presumably later this week). They will argue that the pact represents a breach of the Good Friday Agreement, an international treaty that is given legal effect in the UK by way of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

In truth the prospects for success in such a case seem minimal even if it does make its way to the Supreme Court.

The first hurdle would be whether the coalition agreement itself could be challenged by way of judicial review. This is nothing like the usual challenge to an item of secondary legislation that is commonly seen in judicial review cases and whether the pact could be recognised a decision by the government when the agreement itself forms the government feels like a game of ‘the chicken and the egg’ that any claimant would surely lose.

A more practical point is that the courts would potentially end up reviewing what is essentially a political decision. Whatever interpretation of “rigorous impartiality” they came up with (and there are a broad range of answers to that alone) the court would be making a judgment call as to the impartiality of the executive branch. It is hard to imagine that this would fall under any of the grounds for judicial review even if one squints and gives a liberal reading of those grounds.

This is not to say that a case should not be brought. It is important that decisions taken by those in power are subject to the appropriate level of scrutiny and the case will attract much warranted press coverage for an important political issue that may still have ramifications in Northern Ireland.

The reality is that this is an international issue and therefore one that could probably only be ruled upon by the International Court of Justice if the Republic of Ireland brought a case forward. That would, however, be an extreme form of recourse given the sensitivity involved and the potential jeopardy to the peace process.

The UK government will be mindful of the Good Friday Agreement themselves and so it is highly unlikely that anything threatening “rigorous impartiality” will even make it into discussions between the Tories and the DUP.