TexasCHLforum.com

As this thread has slowed down, perhaps I can inject a little more life. While this note is not 100% "guns," it certainly is relevant to our discussion of the formalities, if any, required to bring the contents of the UN Arms Trade Treaty into force domestically. This draft "Agreement" is the latest public copy of our draft agreement with Afghanistan. This agreement could quite arguably keep us in Afghanistan forever, and keep out country at war forever. It would undertake the commitment of billions of dollars and perhaps untold American lives.

Nowhere in the draft do I see the word "Treaty." This draft is particularly of interest in that it contains additions and deletions proposed by the parties.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Secti ... cument.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Question: Would this "Agreement" as it currently stands require the advice and consent of our Senate before it could come into force domestically?

I look for an answer in either the affirmative or the negative and the reasons therefor. I would think that a discussion of the merits of this agreement/treaty might well be off-topic.

Edited to note that Reuters reports that Afghanistan says an agreement has been finalized. A later Reuters report says that the US says that there are still unsettled details. We are not favored with a copy of this "final"/"not-final" agreement.

Jim

The Dude wrote:If they can do something by executive order and an unratified treaty, they can do it by executive order and no treaty.

Respectfully, Dude, this broad statement is quite arguable, if by the word "do" you mean "lawfully do."

As a matter of international law, both sole-executive agreements and congressional-executive agreements are treaties -- all three express an agreement between our government and a foreign government or institution -- a contract, if you will. They are considered distinct only as a matter of U. S. domestic law. While the chief executive can "do" most anything, it is quite arguable that his authority to "do" something pursuant to powers given by a treaty, such authority not being granted to him by the Constitution itself, differs significantly depending upon whether the treaty we are dealing with is a Senate-ratified treaty, a sole-executive agreement or a congressional-executive agreement.

When an issue in this respect arises the door is opened to its resolution by our federal judiciary, which has in many cases struck down actions taken by the chief executive outside his authority as granted by neither the Constitution nor a treaty.

Jim

Those wishing to know more about the U. S. law of international agreements might take a look at Wikipedia, as a place to start, while keeping in mind the inherent weakness of that source at times. Wikipedia is not always trustworthy, particularly when dealing with complicated legal issues. If nothing else, this article points out the complexity of this subject and shows that merely reading Article II of our Constitution cannot safely be the end of one’s research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Relevant to this thread is that three different kinds of international agreements have arisen as our domestic law has been developed by actions of the legislature, the executive and the judiciary – the classic “treaty,” “sole-executive agreements,” and “congressional-executive agreements.“ These three domestic categories of international agreements differ substantially in both their enactment and their force.

According to this Wikipedia article:

“...Between 1946 and 1999, the United States completed nearly 16,000 international agreements. Only 912 of those agreements were treaties, submitted to the Senate for approval as outlined in Article II of the United States Constitution. Since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency only 6% of international accords have been completed as Article II treaties. Most of these executive agreements consist of congressional-executive agreements....”

The OP asks four very good questions which are not easy to answer:

1. Once the treaty is signed, is it forced to go to the Senate for a vote?
2. (a) If not, could the administration simply not send it to the Senate for a vote,
(b) therefore allowing them to continue to adhere to the "spirit of the treaty" via executive orders?
3. If the treaty goes to the Senate for a vote and it is rejected, is the administration restricted from adhering to the "spirit of the treaty" via executive orders?

At great risk of giving short answers to complex questions, and as a fool stepping in where angels fear to tread, I would only suggest that the answers to those questions might be:

1. No.
2(a). Yes.
2(b). Perhaps.
3. Probably not.

Jim