It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
t doesn't matter whether other nations consider a rejected treaty... It has no legal force in the United States until the Congress ratifies it....
U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties, which are derived from the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution, from congressional-executive agreements and executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law...
...So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states[nations] at the time the treaty was contracted...
www.allacademic.com...
EU may face trade sanctions over WTO biotech case
...In 1999, Roquefort cheese was among European products hit with punitive 100 percent duties when the United States imposed $117 million of sanctions on EU goods in retaliation for the EU's failure to lift a ban on hormone-treated beef. Other affected European products included pork, truffles and tomatoes.
The same year, Washington imposed $191 million of sanctions against EU exports after the WTO ruled the EU's banana import policies broke world trade rules. The sanctions hit goods ranging from handbags, cardboard boxes, bed linen and batteries...
Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the free trade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions...
...The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures encourages the use of international standards..developed by ... other international organizations. These organizations are the joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (“Codex”) for food safety; the World Organization for Animal Health (previously the Office International des Epizooties “OIE”) for animal health and zoonoses; and the FAO International Plant Protection Convention (“IPPC”) for plant health. Most of the WTO’s member countries are also members of these international bodies... The main purposes of this Programme are to protect the health of consumers, to promote coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations, and to ensure fair trade practices in food trade.
HARMONIZATION
....As noted previously, both the TBT and SPS Agreements make reference to international standards. The TBT Agreement contains the obligation to use relevant international standards as a basis for technical regulations and standards set at the national level... the SPS Agreement mandates Members to base their sanitary or phytosanitary (SPS) measures on international standards... Most importantly, a country may have SPS measures in place that result in a higher level of SPS protection than that implicit in the international standard, if there is a scientific justification or if the level of SPS protection deemed appropriate by the Member requires such measures in light of the risk assessment performed....
www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report05_e.pdf -
...First of all, according to relevant U.S. statues, trade treaties are not self-executing...
... status of trade agreements in U.S. law is governed by the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 ... In the Act, Congress made clear that any provision of the Tokyo Round agreements negotiated under the GATT framework would not prevail over a U.S. statute, regardless of when the statue was enacted. Clearly, this was not consistent with the later-in-time-prevail rule. ....
For implementing the GATT/WTO embodied in the Uruguay Round Agreements, the U.S. Congress adopted the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994 (URAA) to define the limits of legal effects of the GATT/WTO agreements in U.S. legal order. A brief of the URAA is that it prevents terms of the GATT/WTO that conflict with existing federal law from having domestic effects, and allows for continued ability of the United States to take unilateral actions pose for the WTO... During the debate on approving the WTO Agreement, the prevailing view was that the multinational pact was not in conflict with U.S. sovereignty generally for two reasons: first, Congress is ultimately responsible for changing the laws of the United States; and second, the U.S. is entitled to withdraw .... These arguments were vehemently endorsed by Clinton Administration officials who were eager to get the agreement passed Congress. Mickey Kantor, U.S. Trade Representatives, stated... "[n]o ruling by any dispute panel … can force us to change any federal, state or local law or regulation. ...His assistant, Deputy USTR Rufus Yerxa reiterated that "a WTO dispute settlement panel recommendation does not automatically change U.S. law. It has not self-executing effect …
...the language of the URAA is even clearer. The features of the URAA are described as follows:
United States Law to Prevail in Conflict The URAA puts U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law under perfect protection. According to the Act, if there is a conflict between U.S. and any of the Uruguay Round agreements, U.S. law will take precedence regardless when U.S. law is enacted.
Also can you think of very much any nation does when international treaties are violated?
if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law