US, China ratify Paris climate agreement
UPDATE: 6:00 a.m. EDT — The United States has joined China in formally ratifying the Paris climate agreement. Barack Obama, who arrived in China Saturday on the first leg of his final tour of Asia as president, and Chinese President Xi Jinping have now submitted their plans to join the agreement to United Nations Secretary-General Ban…
26 responses to US, China ratify Paris climate agreement
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
anothertoothpick September 3rd, 2016 at 08:50
Sometime today trump is going to tell his dummies that Obama/Clinton are killing the coal industry.
The fact of the matter what is killing coal is Environmental concerns, mechanization, and the much loved free market.
Suzanne McFly September 3rd, 2016 at 09:34
This is great news, but why are we giving China till 2030 to reach its peak for emissions? Can’t we say we already met the peak so lets start lessening the pollution now?
jybarz September 3rd, 2016 at 10:27
Because China is not done yet with destroying the environment…South China Sea marine environment for one and international lawlessness like PCA’s decision is considered as waste paper as far as China is concerned.
amongoose September 3rd, 2016 at 12:02
The executive branch only signs it, ratification requires senate approval to be law.
Obewon September 3rd, 2016 at 12:19
Nope. This agreement isn’t a “Treaty” e.g. Reagan’s unratified Nuclear arms treaties that the USA adhered to, even though START I was never ratified.
->”In Washington, the Republican-controlled Congress has questioned Obama’s legal right to ratify the accord by decree, noting that the constitution grants the Senate a role of “advice and consent” in making treaties.
But the chamber does not ratify treaties, and the US also has increasingly relied on “executive agreements” since the second world war. Those agreements are not submitted to the Senate but are also considered binding in international law.” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/03/breakthrough-us-china-agree-ratify-paris-climate-change-deal
amongoose September 3rd, 2016 at 12:43
So why isn’t it a treaty?
It is an agreement between sovereign nations, that is the definition of a treaty.
Obewon September 3rd, 2016 at 12:44
Comprendo? “The US also has increasingly relied on “executive agreements” since the second world war. Those agreements are not submitted to the Senate but are also considered binding in international law.”
amongoose September 4th, 2016 at 11:38
And which of those “executive agreements” that have the force of law were made law without congress and or the senate?
.
Read the constitution, it explains it all.
Obewon September 4th, 2016 at 11:51
Even FNC Murdoch’s WSJ proves you’ve been wrong since 1780!
1.”The ability to make treaties, (executive) agreements, or even nonbinding handshakes with foreign leaders has long rested with the White House — sometimes, but not always, with the consent of the Senate. “-WSJ.
2. “Presidents of both parties have instead opted to enter into so-called executive agreements, which for the most part don’t require congressional authorization.”-WSJ 5th grade level easy reader.
P.S. A 2009 study published by the University of Michigan found that 52.9% of international agreements were executive agreements from 1839 until 1889, but from 1939 until 1989 the ratio had risen to 94.3%. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/03/10/treaties-vs-executive-agreements-when-does-congress-get-a-vote/
amongoose September 4th, 2016 at 11:53
The constitution proves I’m right, one branch cannot on it’s own create law.
Obewon September 4th, 2016 at 11:59
“The Constitution proves”-You’ve never read or comprehended it!
E.g. Three independent coequal branches are the Executive, Judicial & Legislative. That’s also why you’re constitutionally debunked by Congressional Research Service via FAS linked above your head. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32528.pdf
amongoose September 4th, 2016 at 12:20
The Constitution allocates primary responsibility
for entering into such agreements to the executive branch, but Congress also plays an essential
role. First, in order for a treaty (but not an executive agreement) to become binding upon the
United States, the Senate must provide its advice and consent to treaty ratification by a two-thirds
majority. Secondly, Congress may authorize congressional-executive agreements. Thirdly, many
treaties and executive agreements are not self-executing, meaning that implementing legislation is
required to provide U.S. bodies with the domestic legal authority necessary to enforce and
comply with an international agreement’s provisions.
.
Still looks like even they are saying it takes more than one branch to make law.
Show me where it is allowed for the president, or congress to act alone to make law.
You sir are the one who needs to read and comprehend that splendid old document.
Obewon September 4th, 2016 at 12:22
International law is derived from two primary sources—international agreements and customary practice. Under the U.S. legal system, international agreements can be entered into by means of a treaty or an executive agreement. The Constitution allocates primary responsibility for entering into such agreements to the executive branch, but Congress also plays an essential role. First, in order for a treaty (but not an executive agreement) to become binding upon the United States, the Senate must provide its advice and consent to treaty ratification by a two-thirds majority. Secondly, Congress may authorize congressional-executive agreements. Thirdly, many treaties and executive agreements are not self-executing, meaning that implementing legislation is required to provide U.S. bodies with the (EPA) domestic legal authority necessary to enforce and comply with an international agreement’s provisions. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32528.pdf
amongoose September 4th, 2016 at 12:23
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/The-Constitution-Executive-agreements.html
Congressional approval is required for an agreement/treaty to be binding.
Obewon September 4th, 2016 at 12:30
“Congressional Research Service International Law and Agreements: Their Effect upon U.S. Law
Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney February 18, 2015 ” Proves your ignorance e.g. “Congressional Research Service”-D’oh! https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32528.pdf
amongoose September 4th, 2016 at 13:50
Justice Sutherland saw it differently, you should read the article you posted.
William September 3rd, 2016 at 13:20
http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/faqs/70133.htm
You’re welcome.
amongoose September 3rd, 2016 at 13:58
So where in the constitution does it give the executive branch the ability to make a binding agreement without the senates approval?
That offered no legal reason.
Obewon September 3rd, 2016 at 14:10
Congressional Research Service explains: Summary This report provides an introduction to the roles that international law and agreements play in the United States. International law is derived from two primary sources—international agreements and customary practice. Under the U.S. legal system, international agreements can be entered into by means of a treaty or an executive agreement. The Constitution allocates primary responsibility for entering into such agreements to the executive branch, but Congress also plays an essential role. First, in order for a treaty (but not an executive agreement) to become binding upon the United States, the Senate must provide its advice and consent to treaty ratification by a two-thirds majority. Secondly, Congress may authorize congressional-executive agreements. Thirdly, many treaties and executive agreements are not self-executing, meaning that implementing legislation is required to provide U.S. bodies with the (EPA) domestic legal authority necessary to enforce and comply with an international agreement’s provisions. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32528.pdf
amongoose September 3rd, 2016 at 14:29
Exactly, the executive may enter into the agreement but it needs the senate, and or congressional laws to be enforced.
It ain’t binding until the senate says so.
Checks and balances.
Obewon September 3rd, 2016 at 16:38
Nope. Reread. Good luck initiating comprehension.
amongoose September 3rd, 2016 at 18:15
No one branch can make law on it’s own, reread the part on the checks and balances in the process.
Show me where it does allow it, you haven’t yet.
Obewon September 3rd, 2016 at 19:50
3 independent coequal branches are the Executive, Judicial & Legislative. That’s also why you’re constitutionally debunked by Congressional Research Service via FAS linked above your head.
William September 3rd, 2016 at 15:16
You didn’t read the link did you? If you did and can’t comprehend it, that’s different. I can’t help you. Those skills should have been covered in sixth grade. Anyway, here is the difference.
The Constitution of the United States does not specifically give a president the power to conclude executive agreements. However, he may be authorized to do so by Congress, or he may do so on the basis of the power granted him to conduct foreign relations. Despite questions about the constitutionality of executive agreements, in 1937 the Supreme Court ruled that they had the same force as treaties. Because executive agreements are made on the authority of the incumbent president, they do not necessarily bind his successors.
In other words the incoming president can undo an agreement but not a treaty.
Obewon September 3rd, 2016 at 12:20
Yet another Excellent BHO44 lifesaving agreement!
If the Paris agreement comes into force this year as hoped, it means the nearly 200 governments party to it will become obliged to meet emissions-cutting pledges made before the deal last December. For example, the EU has a “national determined contribution” of cutting emissions 40% by 2030 on 1990 levels, and the US by up to 28% by 2025 compared with 2005.
The deal coming into force would also commit the countries to aspire to keep temperatures below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels – a tall ask and one that will require those country pledges to be ramped up – and for rich countries to continue giving climate aid to poorer countries beyond 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/03/breakthrough-us-china-agree-ratify-paris-climate-change-deal
amersham1046 September 3rd, 2016 at 22:13
China ratification of any treaty means nothing (see Law of the Sea Convention )