{ "id": "R44761", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44761", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 580789, "date": "2018-05-04", "retrieved": "2018-05-07T13:01:56.462891", "title": "Withdrawal from International Agreements: Legal Framework, the Paris Agreement, and the Iran Nuclear Agreement", "summary": "The legal procedure through which the United States withdraws from treaties and other international agreements has been the subject of long-standing debate between the legislative and executive branches. Recently, questions concerning the role of Congress in the withdrawal process have arisen in response to President Donald J. Trump\u2019s actions related to certain high-profile international commitments. This report outlines the legal framework for withdrawal from international agreements under domestic and international law, and it applies that framework to two pacts that may be of significance to the 115th Congress: the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) related to Iran\u2019s nuclear program.\nAlthough the Constitution sets forth a definite procedure whereby the Executive has the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, it is silent as to how treaties may be terminated. Moreover, not all agreements between the United States and foreign nations take the form of Senate-approved, ratified treaties. The President also enters into executive agreements, which do not receive the Senate\u2019s advice and consent, and \u201cpolitical commitments\u201d that are not binding under domestic or international law. The legal procedure for withdrawal often depends on the type of agreement at issue, and the process may be further complicated when Congress has enacted legislation to give the international agreement domestic legal effect. \nOn June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that he intends to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement\u2014a multilateral, international agreement intended to reduce the effects of climate change. Historical practice suggests that, because the Obama Administration considered the Paris Agreement to be an executive agreement that did not require the Senate\u2019s advice and consent, the President potentially may claim authority to withdraw without seeking approval from the legislative branch. By its terms, however, the Paris Agreement does not allow parties to complete the withdrawal process until November 2020, and Trump Administration officials have stated that the Administration intends to follow the multiyear withdrawal procedure. Consequently, absent additional action by the Trump Administration, the United States will remain a party to the Paris Agreement until November 2020, albeit one that has announced its intent to withdraw once it is eligible to do so.\nThe Trump Administration has not withdrawn the United States from the JCPOA, but the President has stated he intends do so unless the plan of action is renegotiated. When the Obama Administration concluded the JCPOA, it treated the plan of action as a non-binding political commitment. To the extent this understanding is correct, President Trump\u2019s ability to withdraw from the JCPOA would not be restricted by international or domestic law. However, some observers have suggested that U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 subsequently converted at least some provisions in the JCPOA into obligations that are binding under international law. As a result, withdrawal from the JCPOA could implicate a complex debate over the plan of action\u2019s status in international law. \nAs a matter of domestic law, the President and Congress have authority to reassert sanctions lifted pursuant to U.S. pledges made in the JCPOA if they deem the reinstitution of such sanctions to be appropriate, even if such action resulted in a violation of international law. Several possible domestic legal avenues exist to re-impose sanctions, some of which would involve joint action by the President and the legislative branch, and others that would involve decisions made by the President alone.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44761", "sha1": "5566bc5dedfaf16a43fab79d9ffe9109e56ee5d1", "filename": "files/20180504_R44761_5566bc5dedfaf16a43fab79d9ffe9109e56ee5d1.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44761", "sha1": "aea5a473b3849e1096be89c61dae7b8e44febe76", "filename": "files/20180504_R44761_aea5a473b3849e1096be89c61dae7b8e44febe76.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4756, "name": "Separation of Powers" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4758, "name": "Middle East & North Africa" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4784, "name": "International Law" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4787, "name": "State Department & International Organizations" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4815, "name": "International Environmental Policy" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4817, "name": "Executive Branch" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4842, "name": "Climate Change" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4910, "name": "Legislative Branch" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 458841, "date": "2017-02-09", "retrieved": "2017-02-10T18:20:09.609498", "title": "Withdrawal from International Agreements: Legal Framework, the Paris Agreement, and the Iran Nuclear Agreement", "summary": "The legal procedure through which the United States withdraws from treaties and other international agreements has been the subject of long-standing debate between the legislative and executive branches. Recently, questions concerning the role of Congress in the withdrawal process have arisen in response to statements made by President Donald J. Trump that he may consider withdrawing the United States from certain high-profile international commitments. This report outlines the legal framework for withdrawal from international agreements under domestic and international law, and it examines legal issues related to the potential termination of two agreements that may be of significance to the 115th Congress: the Paris Agreement on climate change and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) related to Iran\u2019s nuclear program.\nAlthough the Constitution sets forth a definite procedure whereby the Executive has the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, it is silent as to how treaties may be terminated. Moreover, not all agreements between the United States and foreign states are made through Senate-approved, ratified treaties. The President also enters into executive agreements, which do not receive the Senate\u2019s advice and consent, and \u201cpolitical commitments,\u201d which are not binding under domestic or international law. The legal procedure for withdrawal often depends on the type of agreement at issue, and the process may be further complicated when Congress has enacted legislation implementing the agreement into domestic law. \nHistorical practice suggests that, because the Obama Administration considered the Paris Agreement to be an executive agreement that did not require the Senate\u2019s advice and consent, a future Executive may unilaterally withdraw from it without seeking approval from the legislative branch. By its terms, however, the Paris Agreement does not allow parties to submit a notice of withdrawal until November 2019. Should a future Executive seek a more expedient method of exit, withdrawal from the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)\u2014the parent treaty to the Paris Agreement\u2014would also terminate the United States\u2019 participation in the subsidiary Paris Agreement. Because the UNFCCC received the Senate\u2019s advice and consent in 1992, an effort by the Executive to terminate that treaty unilaterally could invoke the historical and largely unresolved debate over the role of Congress in treaty termination. \nThe Obama Administration treated the JCPOA as a political commitment that is not legally binding. To the extent this understanding is correct, there is no legal prohibition on the President from withdrawing from the plan of action. It is worth noting that the JCPOA was \u201cendorsed\u201d by U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, and there is disagreement among observers as to whether this resolution may have converted at least some of the voluntary commitments in the JCPOA into obligations that are binding under international law. Both the JCPOA and Resolution 2231 contain what has been called a \u201csnapback\u201d mechanism that may allow the United States to cause the Security Council to reinstate its prior sanctions that had been imposed on Iran.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44761", "sha1": "77620a446dcf5f5be14285409937544109db6041", "filename": "files/20170209_R44761_77620a446dcf5f5be14285409937544109db6041.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44761", "sha1": "e6fb9ac547f601cba9afa57b1d13adc186ac65ac", "filename": "files/20170209_R44761_e6fb9ac547f601cba9afa57b1d13adc186ac65ac.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions", "Economic Policy", "Energy Policy", "Foreign Affairs", "Intelligence and National Security", "National Defense" ] }