posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 04:52 PM
reply to post by DJW001
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...
Let me try to explain it again.
IF a president signs a treaty OTHER countries consider it VALID. Therefore it completely depends on WHAT type of enforcement is contained within the
treaty itself. WTO has TEETH!!
Instead of the usual trade treaties for the first time a world organization, WTO, with tough sanction and enforcement powers, was formed. More
important, decision making would be secret, with no oversight. The most vital issues of economic life on the planet were to be decided behind closed
Under WTO rules, countries or Corporations can challenge another’s laws. The case is heard by a tribunal of three trade bureaucrats (corporate
lawyers). There is no conflict of interest rules binding them, and the names of the judges are kept secret. There is no rule that the judges of WTO
respect any national laws, the three judges meet in secret and all court documents are confidential and cannot be published.
US wins WTO backing in war with Europe over GM food
The bans in EU countries were declared illegal by the World Trade Organization in 2006.
Eli Lilly files $500M NAFTA suit
against Canada over drug patents
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...
That is why I used the World Trade Organization and the FDA
'Harmonization efforts to avoid
penalties as examples. .
NEW IMPROVED WTO 2005
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...
There is is just one fly in the soup.
...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.
....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....
The Monsanto run FDA LIED!
...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.