The Thing is, a president signing an Agreement and then “forgetting” or choosing not to present it for ratification is considered underhanded or lying/ cheating in other countries, where the Person at the top of the government makes treaties and Agreements for the Country.
If you choose an arbitrary enough Definition, then you are right, just like technically, the US has not started a war or been in a war since WWII. That doesn’t Change how the rest of the world Looks at e.g. Vietnam and other “Actions”.
Yes, technically, the US didn’t sign the Geneva convention, the only law is the UCMJ, so torturing People is okay (and Blackwater aren’t official soldiers, just mercenaries). It still gets People upset. Weird, that.
Likewise, most countries’ Population are a bit fed up with first going through Special concession so that the mighty US might deign to agree with the rest of the planet on doing the right Thing for a Change - and then turn around and ignore it, because the US is so Special it can’t bow and obey other countries, including international bodies like UN.
Or refuses to sign the Children Rights conventions, because the rights of parents to home-school are more important than the rights of children to education; and the religious rights of parents are more important than the rights of children to grow up free from violence.
We’re not other countries. The USA is a Representative Democracy and the President is not a dictator. Other nation’s leaders know full well it aint a Treaty until the Senate says it is.
I know how proud many Americans are that they are unique. A lot of other countries don’t regard this as a good Thing, however.
And the rest of the western countries don’t have dictators, either. (Nice extreme duality there). It’s that in most other modern countries, a leader or rather their Team negotiate treaties for the Country, that is, with the will of the parliament. They are acting representativly for the parliament when they enter, and therefore the other countries can rely on the Agreement or treaty being upheld.
That’s why I said “Population”. There are x countries at the table, the Agreement is signed, and all countries get to work fulfilling it - except for the US, who signed, but doesn’t submit and uses other technicalities.
If you enter a negotiation at all, a certain amount of trustworthniss and Goodwill is expected, because nobody makes you come if you don’t agree at all. So getting concessions and then turning around - and being the only Country doing it - yes, that makes People upset. Reading in the paper for the umpteenth time* the technical Explanation doesn’t Change the Frustration of People saying “what was all the effort and time spent for, then?”
because we Keep forgetting how Special unique the US is in so many different Areas, assuming that as first-world Country it’s like the rest of the modern countries.
The rights of the parents were also cited as the reason for it still not being signed. As for closed adoptions, I have not heard that one.
Yes. But signing an Agreement/ treaty/ convention means that other countries can Point and say “Hey, how about that, you are in Violation of it, Keep to your word”. Yes, in many cases there is no international court and the UN has Little teeth for enforcement. It’s still a step Forward to “we agree that this should be done (but haven’t gotten around to doing it properly yet)” and “we don’t think this is important at all”.
That’s the reason why NGOs use the Children’s rights Charta when talking to govt’s in underdeveloped nations: they can say “You did agree, so now you’re not keeping your world”, or Point to the SGDs when talking with Western Govt.s “You did agree to spend more Money and influence, you’re not keeping up, step up”.
The simple truth is: nobody likes dealing with People or countries who go back on their word for Little reason. Dress it up with technicalities all you like, won’t Change that.
And the US is not a Monopol. There are alternatives, so “no deal is better than a bad deal”* goes the other way, too.
What May said about the Brexit negotiations - since she wants to quit not only the EU, but two other big European treaties, experts say it’s impossible to negotiate new treaties for all that in just two years. I don’t know if she’ll be surprised at how bad the no-deal Standard treaties will be for UK, or whether she does know and just ignores it, because she knows what the voters want to hear.
In The UK, Parliament can block any treaty. One exception there, in the UK, a treaty cannot change domestic law, while in the USA they can.
The World can rely upon a US* Treaty* being upheld.
Well, yes, most Western Nations arent dictatorships, altho several South American nations come damn close. But the World is not just the West.
As with all questions of international law, it’s necessary to distinguish two perspectives to this question, the international one and the municipal (in this case, American) one. The same act may be lawful under one but unlawful under the other. Even terms such as “ratification”, which are often thrown around indiscriminately, have different meanings under the two perspectives - under international law it means the formal declaration of a country that it will henceforth be bound by the treaty; under American law it means the consent of the Senate to the treaty, which logically and chronologically precedes the ratification in the international law sense.
From the international perspective, the Paris Accord is certainly a treaty. It is intended to be binding and was concluded in the usual procedure for a treaty. The United States was certainly bound by it, since a document of ratification was submitted on behalf of the United States by President Obama who was, under international law, certainly empowered bto submit such a document of ratification. Under the terms of the agreement, countries can notify their intention to withdraw, but at the earliest three years after the entry into force of the agreement for that country, and then the withdrawal becomes effective one year after that. Trump, being President, is under international law certainly empowered to submit such an intention to withdraw, but he has not yet done so; he has merely announced that he would. Of course that would not end the binding effect of the agreement for the United States, since the deadlines mentioned have not expired yet; until then the United States would continue to be bound by it.
Then there is the domestic, i.e. municipal, dimension to it, in other words the dimension of American constitutional law. Whether President Obama had the authority, under American constitutional law, to submit the ratification document without Senate’s consent (as he did) is a controversial question, but even if he did not the binding effect of the ratification document submitted by Obama on the international law level would not be affected. Whether President Trump has, under American constitutional law, the power to submit a withdrawal notification is similarly controversial, but one would assume that if Obama had the power to ratify unilaterally then Trump must also have the power to withdraw unilaterally. Either way, once the withdrawal notification is sent it would certainly be effective under international law irrespective of such internal American constitutional questions.
Ratification of a treaty requires a 2/3 vote in the senate. Since the senate became so highly partisan, presidents realize that no treaty will ever be ratified, so they simply don’t submit them and they are called agreements. As said many times above, what one president has agreed, another can disagree. Nonetheless, this says “Up yours” to the rest of the world.
Interesting that Trudeau has suggested that Canada can take over international leadership on climate change.
Strictly speaking, it can’t. The ratification of a treaty on the international law level is, under British law, a purely executive act that falls within the Crown prerogative, in practice the power of the Prime Minister, who does not need parliamentary consent to do so (and does not obtain it as a matter of practice). What Parliament can do is to refuse to adopt the implementing legislation which gives effect to the treaty within the legal system of the United Kingdom, but externally, i.e. on the international law level, the UK would still be bound by the treaty.
As many have pointed this wasn’t a treaty at all just a whole bunch of countries promising to be good. The promises are as binding as all promises, ie they’re not. The truth is that although Trump declared US withdrawal there was nothing at all from which to withdraw.
I correct myself: The United States submitted a notification of acceptance rather than ratification. Of course, the distinction is purely terminological; under Articles 2(1)(b) and 11 VCLT, the effect is just the same.
But the reality is the US is special. And if the US is in some “agreement” with no teeth, no enforcement, no binding, then what’s the point? To feel good about a meaningless gesture?
But to answer the question about how Trump can? What mechanism stops him from choosing to no longer agree? Even with something being a law, the administration can choose to not enforce it.
Then why is Trump claiming that the treaty is unfair to the United States if it obligates us to nothing? And what new terms is Trump supposedly going to negotiate?
I suspect Trump is just feeding his base some more anti-Obama nonsense. Next year (if he’s still in office) Trump will agree to the exact same thing Obama agreed to but claim he got a much better deal.
In case you haven’t noticed yet, Trump is a lying liar who lies. He also either pretends to, or lacks, even the basic knowledge about the things - in this case the accord - he talks about. See for reference his talks about EU countries “owing” the US “NATO membership fees”.
Nobody knows what he’s dreaming about. In reality, it’s very unlikely he will get negotiations re-opened.
It seems he believes that his previous “tactics” of threatening to withdraw to get better terms will work on the international stage. Hint: it wont.
I suspect it’s about feeding his ego first and foremost. After all, a large group of major companies signed an appeal to him to not quit, which should count for more than a handful of coal miners; just as ten thousands of new jobs in solar and wind should count for more than at max 5 000 coal miner jobs (plus the health impacts of coal vs. solar/ wind).
Highly unlikely. Oh, he probably will still be in office, but he won’t get a better deal, given that he is terrible at negotiations if his “partners” are not dependant on him. And in one year, China will pull ahead of the US, esp. regarding influence in developing countries, meaning there is even less pressure the US can bring to the table.
Individiual states and cities of the US, who have pledged to follow the agreement, will be better of re: health and jobs, so that won’t be affected if Trump would change his course.