The New York Times reported yesterday that President Obama was "Pursuing a Climate Accord in Lieu of a Treaty". What does this mean? Is an international accord not a treaty? How does it differ? Or is it only relevant as a matter of domestic law? Take a read of the article, and in light of what we have discussed in class today, post your thoughts!
UPDATE: Here is a blog post on this issue, on the international law blog Opinio Juris (something you should get in the habit of scanning). Note that this is as much about U.S. constitutional law as it is about international law. But it is interesting.
From what I understand from class, in the eyes of the international community, an accord would just be a treaty under a different name, correct? Could the President sign an "accord" and not require the approval of the Senate, since it is technically not a "treaty". If so, would the US be then held to the standard of not defeating the object and purpose of the treaty/accord?
ReplyDeleteIn the interest of starting a discussion, I believe Obama should sign the accord, thereby circumventing the Constitution and the intransigent congress, and then use is enforcement powers through various agencies to mandate compliance with all the requirement of the "accord".
It seems from the description in the article that the accord in question is a treaty. What they call it doesn't matter in effect it is a treaty. It's purpose and object is to lower air pollutants. The real question seems to be whether or not Obama can bind the United States to the accord/treaty without senate approval.
ReplyDeleteIf this were a stand alone treaty requiring ratification by the senate, the president might face capacity issues when trying to make the United States a party. Without senate approval does the president still have the authority to bind the United States under international law?
It seems that they are trying to bypass senate approval by coat-tailing this new accord into an existing ratified treaty.