How can President Trump unilaterally withdraw the USA from the Paris Accord?

[Ravenman]

@Corry_El

And it’s a reasonable discussion to a point, but at some point it becomes IMO overly legalistic to base a judgement that the second president’s withdrawal from an agreement unilaterally adopted by the first (without Congress) is ‘illegal’ if the first president really didn’t need Congress. …

IMO, Obama went into a gray area committing the US to an international agreement that far reaching without Congress. I don’t see how Trump could be clearly over the line just basically reversing that decision. It’s in the realm of politics, that’s all, as I see it.

As Little Nemo perfectly said, if an international agreement is lawfully concluded, then the terms of withdrawal are often spelled out in the agreement. International agreements manage relations between countries, not Presidents, and Presidents are generally bound to act within the constraints that the United States places on them, even in dealing with foreign powers.

I don’t know hardly anything about the Paris Agreement but if it was legally concluded by President Obama, then the United States has formed an obligation to comply with the agreement. I offer no opinion at all as to whether this agreement constitutes a treaty requiring Senate advice and consent, or if it is an executive agreement.

[adaher]

It doesn’t really matter, since there is nothing in the treaty to comply with. It’s Kellogg-Briand level symbolism.

As for what treaties Presidents can withdraw from, if it’s not ratified or otherwise approved by the Senate, a President can get out the same way he got in. Just do it. However, if it is ratified or otherwise approved, the conditions for leaving it will be set out in the treaty. I don’t believe a President can just unilaterally revoke a ratified treaty.

[Little_Nemo]

@Okrahoma

It’s not a treaty.

The same principle applies to any international agreement.

[adaher]

Except nothing about the agreement is non-binding, so the only “violation” would be not being a party to it.

Isn’t international diplomacy just wonderfully illogical?

[Tim_R.Mortiss]

Thanks for all the replies. But now my head hurts.

[Drunky_Smurf]

It’s simple. Obama said, “We are doing this thing because I said so.”
Trump said, “We’re not doing the thing anymore because I said so.”

[John_Mace]

@Little_Nemo

I doubt anyone’s planning on declaring war. But if the United States decides to just start ignoring treaties whenever we feel like it, we have to expect other countries will do the same and cite us as precedent.

Well, this is GQ so I’m not going get all GD on the subject, but if even half the countries who signed up for this meet the goals, I’ll eat my hat.

Also, it’s not a treaty. It’s a “voluntary agreement”.

[UDS]

@John_Mace

Also, it’s not a treaty. It’s a “voluntary agreement”.

Aren’t all treaties voluntary, or at least ostensibly voluntary, agreements?

[JKellyMap]

@UDS

Aren’t all treaties voluntary, or at least ostensibly voluntary, agreements?

Yes. Treaties are voluntary agreements, but there are other voluntary agreements that aren’t treaties, and this is one.

[Little_Nemo]

I’ll agree this is a pretty soft agreement. From what I can see, the only thing a country is committing to by signing on is to produce a public record of how much greenhouse gases it produces; to lower that amount by 2050 (although how much it will be lowered isn’t specified); to assist developing countries in lowering their production of greenhouse gases (although assistance is voluntary); and to show up for the annual meetings in Paris. So there’s not a lot a signatory can do to violate the agreement. President Obama essentially promised we’d lower our greenhouse gas production in thirty-three years and now President Trump has taken that burden off us.

[constanze]

@Little_Nemo

I’ll agree this is a pretty soft agreement. From what I can see, the only thing a country is committing to by signing on is to produce a public record of how much greenhouse gases it produces; to lower that amount by 2050 (although how much it will be lowered isn’t specified); to assist developing countries in lowering their production of greenhouse gases (although assistance is voluntary); and to show up for the annual meetings in Paris. So there’s not a lot a signatory can do to violate the agreement. President Obama essentially promised we’d lower our greenhouse gas production in thirty-three years and now President Trump has taken that burden off us.

While the text of the Agreement is very soft - the only way to get the heads of govt. to agree in the first place - the practical effects have been a bit stronger.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/trump-unclear-on-details-of-pull-out-method-1795736213

U.S. Has 'Resigned' As Leader Of Free World, Says Fareed Zakaria

Zakaria went on to say that the “irresponsibility” of Trump withdrawing from the pact is “breathtaking because the Paris Climate Accords are extraordinarily flexible.”

“They do not dilute American sovereignty,” he said. “They allow every country to make its own plans. That’s why countries that jealously guarded their sovereignty like China, like India, like Russia have all signed on.”

Donald Trump Pulls U.S. Out Of Paris Accord In Crushing Blow To Climate Fight

The move is a particularly egregious repudiation of the international community because the Trump administration could have negotiated for lower emissions targets under the Paris Agreement, officials and the pact’s advocates said. Because of that, the diplomatic fallout will likely be harsher than when President George W. Bush rejected the 1997 Kyoto climate agreement.

The United Nations estimates that the U.S. stands to lose jobs in the rapidly growing clean energy industry ― estimated to be worth $6 trillion by 2030 ― to Europe, India and China. Countries that tax emissions may put tariffs on American-made imports. And big companies that expect the U.S. to eventually regulate carbon are likely to see Trump’s decision as only delaying the inevitable, while also sowing the sort of instability investors don’t like.

So less Jobs in the growing sector of renewable energy; probably some empty gestures for dying coal (which is cheaper from China, which is currently switching to renewables). Also less Money to help developing countries with renewable energy, which means less Goodwill and more influence of China (which has been building infrastructure and Long-term development in Africa for Goodwill and resources).

[constanze]

@adaher

Except nothing about the agreement is non-binding, so the only “violation” would be not being a party to it.

Isn’t international diplomacy just wonderfully illogical?

Not quite: The Agreement itself is binding, once it has been signed. There is however no Penalty clause spelled out, so not obeying it would not cause any tangible harm (besides loss of credibility, but that’s not really a Problem anymore for the US with Trump).

However, leaving the Agreement means (similar to Brexit for the UK): no longer sitting at the table during negiotiations.

Staying and extending the Goals, or neglecting or whatever else excuse would have meant a Chance to Keep negotiating for trade deals: not only cap-and-trade, but building solar or wind in developing countries. These deals will now go to China and other countries instead of the US.

[adaher]

Recognizing that “binding” and “not binding” can sometimes depend on how you interpret the legalese, most liberal sites I’ve seen comment on this say that it’s definitely non-binding and thus there was no reason to withdraw. Is that just a political argument?

[constanze]

@Little_Nemo

I doubt anyone’s planning on declaring war. But if the United States decides to just start ignoring treaties whenever we feel like it, we have to expect other countries will do the same and cite us as precedent.

The US govt. has a Long, Long record of breaking (or ignoring) treaties. That’s hardly a precedent.

And Trump has a Long Long record of being utterly unpredictable, which means, unreliable, which is not what countries wanting to make deals are looking for. Quite the opposite, countries want to make deals that have a Chance of continuing even if Administrations Change.
Currently, very few countries who have other Options feel inclined to make deals with the US, because there is no guarantee that deals will be kept.
Companies are also wary to invest in the US because of the political climate in General. Putting tribal Affiliation (like denying climate Change) higher than reality makes Business dealings difficult.

[constanze]

@adaher

Recognizing that “binding” and “not binding” can sometimes depend on how you interpret the legalese, most liberal sites I’ve seen comment on this say that it’s definitely non-binding and thus there was no reason to withdraw. Is that just a political argument?

I am not a lawyer myself, so I haven’t looked at the Details of the Agreement, but instead rely on the experts being cited.

[race_to_the_bottom]

@Iggy

List of treaties unsigned or unratified by the United States as “signed but not ratified”

Generally speaking, the US refuses to be bound by international law. I suspect that most US Americans would be shocked that their government refuses to ratify many of these conventions, e.g., protecting women, children, and people with disabilities.

[DrDeth]

@Little_Nemo

I doubt anyone’s planning on declaring war. But if the United States decides to just start ignoring treaties whenever we feel like it, we have to expect other countries will do the same and cite us as precedent.

There was no Treaty.

[DrDeth]

@UDS

Aren’t all treaties voluntary, or at least ostensibly voluntary, agreements?

Treaties that end wars are so much voluntary, at least by the losing party.

[DrDeth]

@constanze

The US govt. has a Long, Long record of breaking (or ignoring) treaties. That’s hardly a precedent.

Find me some Ratified by the US Senate Treaties we broke with international parties.

Most Native American “Treaties” are signed agreements.

[DrDeth]

@race_to_the_bottom

Generally speaking, the US refuses to be bound by international law. I suspect that most US Americans would be shocked that their government refuses to ratify many of these conventions, e.g., protecting women, children, and people with disabilities.

Cite?

Yes, the US refuses to ratify some treaties that* in effect* would bind the USA but not other signatories. China, for example, ignores treaties.