The Journey Of A Treaty Becoming Law

The process of a treaty becoming law varies depending on the treaty's nature and the nation in question. In the US, for instance, the procedure for ratifying international agreements is established by the Treaty Clause of the US Constitution, which grants the President the authority to negotiate agreements with other countries. The advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate are required for a treaty to become binding with the force of federal law. This process, which involves the executive and legislative branches, ensures that treaties are given the same weight as federal statutes.

The role of the President

The President plays a crucial role in the process of a treaty becoming law. The Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) establishes the President as the primary negotiator of agreements between the United States and other countries. This clause empowers the President to negotiate and sign treaties, which are then presented to the Senate for approval or disapproval. The President has the final responsibility for completing the treaty-making process and deciding whether to make the final decision to enter the treaty on behalf of the United States.

The President's role in the treaty-making process is further shaped by their authority to terminate treaties. While the President can unilaterally terminate a treaty if permitted by its terms, doing so in violation of the treaty's terms would raise questions under the Supremacy Clause, which considers treaties as the supreme law of the land. The President's power to terminate treaties without Senate consent is a contested issue, as seen in the case of Goldwater v. Carter (1979).

Additionally, the President has the authority to enter into executive agreements, which do not require the Senate's advice and consent. These agreements are typically used for diplomatic recognition, claim settlements, and national security matters. However, it is important to note that the Supreme Court has endorsed unilateral executive agreements by the President only in limited circumstances.

In conclusion, the President's role in the process of a treaty becoming law involves negotiation, signing, and ratification. Their power to terminate treaties and enter into executive agreements adds complexity to the treaty-making process, highlighting the dynamic nature of international relations and the separation of powers within the US government.

The role of the Senate

The U.S. Constitution outlines the role of the Senate in the process of making treaties. The Treaty Clause (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) establishes that the President has the power to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. This means that the President, who is the primary negotiator of agreements between the U.S. and other countries, must seek the approval of the Senate for a treaty to be ratified. The Senate's approval is given by a two-thirds supermajority vote, after which the President can proceed with ratification.

Additionally, the Senate's role in treaty termination is a contested issue. While the President can terminate treaties according to their terms, the question of whether the President can do so without Senate consent remains unresolved.

In summary, the Senate's role in the treaty-making process is primarily to provide advice and consent, with the power to approve or disapprove treaties by a two-thirds supermajority vote. The Senate's authority does not extend to advising the President during negotiations, and its role in treaty termination is still a matter of debate.

The process of ratification

Negotiation and Signing:

Senate Review and Consent:

After the treaty is signed, it is then submitted to the Senate for review and consent. The Senate plays a crucial role in providing "advice and consent," which is often referred to as the resolution of ratification. During this stage, the Senate thoroughly examines the treaty and may attach conditions or reservations. The Senate's approval requires a two-thirds majority vote, demonstrating the importance and seriousness of the ratification process.

Presidential Ratification:

Once the Senate provides its advice and consent, the process returns to the executive branch. The President has the final responsibility for completing the treaty-making process and deciding whether to ratify the treaty on behalf of the country. The President is not obligated to ratify a Senate-approved treaty and may choose to decline ratification. However, if the President decides to ratify, this step involves signing the instrument of ratification and arranging for the deposit or exchange of the instrument as indicated by the treaty's terms.

Implementation and Proclamation:

Even after ratification by the President, additional action by Congress may be necessary to implement the treaty into domestic law. This implementation ensures that the treaty's provisions are enforceable within the country and aligns with existing laws. Once all parties to the treaty complete the necessary processes and express their final assent, the President may proclaim the treaty and declare it in force through an executive order.

Judicial Interpretation:

The meaning and interpretation of treaties are determined by the courts. The judiciary interprets the provisions of treaties and ensures their compliance with the Constitution and existing laws. This step is crucial to prevent any conflict between the treaty and domestic laws or individual rights.

The ratification process is a collaborative effort between the executive and legislative branches, with the President and the Senate playing pivotal roles. It is designed to be meticulous and rigorous to ensure that treaties are in the best interests of the nation and do not infringe on the rights of citizens.

Self-executing vs non-self-executing treaties

The distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties first emerged in the early 19th century in the United States, where it has been a source of confusion for the courts. Since then, other countries have adopted this distinction.

A self-executing treaty is one that can be directly applied in the courts, whereas a non-self-executing treaty requires legislative implementation before it can be applied by the courts or other domestic law-applying officials. In other words, a self-executing treaty becomes enforceable as domestic law immediately upon ratification, without the need for any additional legislation or implementation by the national legislature. On the other hand, a non-self-executing treaty requires implementation through legislation before it becomes judicially enforceable.

There are various indicators to identify whether a treaty is self-executing or non-self-executing, including statements by Congress or the Executive regarding the treaty, the indeterminate language of the treaty, or whether the treaty deals with matters within the exclusive law-making power of Congress, indicating that Congress must create implementing legislation.

The question of whether a treaty's self-executing character is determined by municipal law or international law is a subject of debate among scholars. Most scholars in the United States regard a treaty's self-executing character as solely a matter of domestic law, while non-US scholars argue that it is a matter of international law.

The role of the Supreme Court

Additionally, the Supreme Court plays a vital role in resolving disputes related to treaties, particularly when there are conflicting laws or obligations at play. For example, the Court may need to decide whether a treaty supersedes state law or whether it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution. In such cases, the Court's interpretation and enforcement of the treaty's provisions take precedence, provided they do not violate the Constitution's individual rights provisions.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has provided clarity on the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties. Self-executing treaties are those that come into force without the need for additional legislative action, while non-self-executing treaties require implementing legislation from Congress to have domestic legal force. This differentiation is essential as it determines the domestic legal status and enforceability of a treaty within the U.S. legal system.

The Supreme Court also weighs in on matters related to the termination of treaties. While the Court has not explicitly ruled on the President's power to break a treaty without congressional approval, it has indicated that a president may unilaterally terminate a treaty if permitted by its terms. However, terminating a treaty in violation of its terms would raise questions under the Supremacy Clause, which grants treaties the force of domestic law.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has addressed the interplay between the Treaty Clause and other constitutional provisions. In Missouri v. Holland (1920), the Court suggested that the Treaty Clause allows treaties to address subjects beyond the enumerated powers of the federal government. However, this interpretation was later limited by Reid v. Covert (1957), which established that treaties cannot violate the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

In summary, the Supreme Court's role in the process of how a treaty becomes law is multifaceted and essential. The Court interprets and enforces treaties, resolves disputes, clarifies the distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing treaties, weighs in on treaty termination, and provides guidance on the interplay between the Treaty Clause and other constitutional provisions.

Frequently asked questions