3 ms·

How is it enforced, and what are the penalties?

matt4077 9y ago
It's enforced by fishing in the high artic being pretty conspicuous. Regarding penalties: With ratification, such treaties become law. There are no penalties specified, but courts are empowered to enforce them by whatever means they deem effective. Environmental groups, for example, could sue the US, in US courts. Beyond that, international cooperation doesn't rely on penalties or similar sanction mechanisms as much as, for example, criminal law. There simply is no "world government" that would have the power to "enforce by force". But, contrary to armchair politicians everywhere, that doesn't render international law meaningless. It's a system of thousands of treaties and other agreements that, collectively, are net-positive for every country involved. The alternative to respecting them is to be seen as an untrustworthy partner, making it harder, or impossible, to reach future agreements or keep others to their word. A great, current example is the possibility of the US pulling out of the Iran Deal: Not only would it legitimately allow Iran to then restart their nuclear program. It is also a major factor in the tensions between the US and North Korea. Because NK, quite obviously, is asking themselves: Why should we engage in negotiating a deal, if the US does not feel bound by it? (The same works in reverse, because NK has also been less-than-stellar in following previous agreements)
- jcranmer 9y ago
  Trump has not pulled the US out of any treaties. Treaties, as you say, become law upon ratification; therefore, it requires an act of Congress to repeal them. Now, the Paris climate agreement is an "executive agreement" which does not require ratification of the Senate, and so therefore can be unilaterally withdrawn by the President. Nor did the US pull out of the Iran deal. Congress attached a rider to the ratification requiring the president to periodically certify Iran's commitment to the deal to continue with the unwinding of sanctions. Trump declined to so certify Iran, but that doesn't affect the treaty in any legal sense. (It certainly does affect the foreign politics of the situation, but at this point it seems clear that the world knows to ignore Trump and just flatter him into thinking he's important and useful).
  - matt4077 9y ago
    If you read the post more carefully, specifically the possibility of the US pulling out of the Iran Deal: Not only would it legitimately [...], you'll notice that I never claim Trump pulling out of any treaties– possibility and would indicate the conditionality here. Arguably, the effects I mentioned could also result just from high-level politicians talking about the possibility of unilaterally withdrawing from such deals. I also didn't use the word 'treaty' anywhere near my mention of Trump, nor did I mention the Paris agreement.

It's enforced by fishing in the high artic being pretty conspicuous. Regarding penalties: With ratification, such treaties become law. There are no penalties specified, but courts are empowered to enforce them by whatever means they deem effective. Environmental groups, for example, could sue the US, in US courts. Beyond that, international cooperation doesn't rely on penalties or similar sanction mechanisms as much as, for example, criminal law. There simply is no "world government" that would have the power to "enforce by force". But, contrary to armchair politicians everywhere, that doesn't render international law meaningless. It's a system of thousands of treaties and other agreements that, collectively, are net-positive for every country involved. The alternative to respecting them is to be seen as an untrustworthy partner, making it harder, or impossible, to reach future agreements or keep others to their word. A great, current example is the possibility of the US pulling out of the Iran Deal: Not only would it legitimately allow Iran to then restart their nuclear program. It is also a major factor in the tensions between the US and North Korea. Because NK, quite obviously, is asking themselves: Why should we engage in negotiating a deal, if the US does not feel bound by it? (The same works in reverse, because NK has also been less-than-stellar in following previous agreements)

jcranmer 9y ago
Trump has not pulled the US out of any treaties. Treaties, as you say, become law upon ratification; therefore, it requires an act of Congress to repeal them. Now, the Paris climate agreement is an "executive agreement" which does not require ratification of the Senate, and so therefore can be unilaterally withdrawn by the President. Nor did the US pull out of the Iran deal. Congress attached a rider to the ratification requiring the president to periodically certify Iran's commitment to the deal to continue with the unwinding of sanctions. Trump declined to so certify Iran, but that doesn't affect the treaty in any legal sense. (It certainly does affect the foreign politics of the situation, but at this point it seems clear that the world knows to ignore Trump and just flatter him into thinking he's important and useful).
- matt4077 9y ago
  If you read the post more carefully, specifically the possibility of the US pulling out of the Iran Deal: Not only would it legitimately [...], you'll notice that I never claim Trump pulling out of any treaties– possibility and would indicate the conditionality here. Arguably, the effects I mentioned could also result just from high-level politicians talking about the possibility of unilaterally withdrawing from such deals. I also didn't use the word 'treaty' anywhere near my mention of Trump, nor did I mention the Paris agreement.