,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
So, Trump walks back US signature on Arms Trade Treaty by telling the Senate to return it to the White House. Can he make such a request? Sure. Does the Senate have to return it? No. nytimes.com/2019/04/26/us/…
The super-useful 2001 Senate Foreign Relations Committee Treaty Handbook notes the Senate may send treaties back to the White House by resolution. For example, when I was in the Treaty Office back in 2000, the Senate approved a resolution to send 17 treaties back to the Executive
The SFRC handbook (p. 145) notes further "initiative for returning a treaty may come from the Foreign Relations Committee itself or the Senate leadership, or it may take the form of a request from the President."
But "The President does not have the formal authority to withdraw a treaty from Senate consideration without the Senate's concurrence."
In short, the Senate gets to decide whether to return the ATA to the White House or hold onto it.
Holding onto it, of course, does not mean the US will be bound by the ATA, that would require Senate advice and consent AND ratification by the President (with the latter being something within the President's discretion to deny even after Senate action)
The more interesting question in this exchange is one of international, not domestic, law. Namely, will Trump's letter suffice to signal an end to the US obligation as a signatory not to defeat the ATA's object and purpose?
When John Bolton sought to end signatory obligations under ICC's Rome Statute, he sent a letter to UN Treaty Office. Will WH do the same here? If not, is the public nature of Trump's letter to the Senate enough to put other states on notice the US has no intent to ratify?
I think it is. But what do others think? Anything else I'm missing on the process front (putting aside the merits of whether US should ratify the ATA itself)
