US Withdraws from Crucial UN Climate Treaty: Experts Weigh in on Legality
The Trump administration's decision to pull the US out of the world's most significant climate treaty has sparked debate among experts about its legality. A presidential memo signed by President Donald Trump announced that the US will "withdraw" from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), along with 65 other organizations, citing concerns over the agreement's impact on American interests.
However, according to former head lawyer for the US State Department, Harold Hongju Koh, this move may be illegal. Koh argues that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally exit the treaty, as it was entered into with Senate approval in 1992.
The UN climate body requires a one-year notice period for withdrawal, but Trump's memo did not specify whether the administration would submit a formal notice of termination to the UN. State Department spokespersons claim that the agency will take necessary steps to effectuate the withdrawal as soon as possible.
Climate law experts Michael Gerrard and Curtis Bradley disagree on the issue. Gerrard points out that since the Paris climate agreement was never ratified by the US Senate, it does not require Senate approval for withdrawal. However, Bradley argues that this principle should apply equally to both entry and exit from treaties.
Harold Koh maintains that Congress's silence on the matter should be interpreted as a lack of consent for the president's actions. "If I had an agreement that I made by myself, it would make sense that I could leave by myself," he said. "But if my wife and I made an agreement that both of us had to sign, could I withdraw from it by myself? I believe we would both have to withdraw."
Critics like Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse label Trump's move as "not just corrupt, but also illegal." The US Constitution does not explicitly outline a mirror principle for treaty withdrawal, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue.
Despite the uncertainty surrounding its legality, one thing is clear: the US exit from the UNFCCC signals a significant shift in international relations. Experts warn that this move will undermine global efforts to combat climate change and damage US credibility as an international leader.
While some experts suggest that the US could rejoin the treaty with Senate approval in 1992 still being valid, others believe that future presidents could potentially withdraw without needing a new two-thirds Senate vote. The controversy surrounding Trump's decision highlights the complexity of international agreements and the delicate balance between presidential power and congressional oversight.
The Trump administration's decision to pull the US out of the world's most significant climate treaty has sparked debate among experts about its legality. A presidential memo signed by President Donald Trump announced that the US will "withdraw" from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), along with 65 other organizations, citing concerns over the agreement's impact on American interests.
However, according to former head lawyer for the US State Department, Harold Hongju Koh, this move may be illegal. Koh argues that the president does not have the authority to unilaterally exit the treaty, as it was entered into with Senate approval in 1992.
The UN climate body requires a one-year notice period for withdrawal, but Trump's memo did not specify whether the administration would submit a formal notice of termination to the UN. State Department spokespersons claim that the agency will take necessary steps to effectuate the withdrawal as soon as possible.
Climate law experts Michael Gerrard and Curtis Bradley disagree on the issue. Gerrard points out that since the Paris climate agreement was never ratified by the US Senate, it does not require Senate approval for withdrawal. However, Bradley argues that this principle should apply equally to both entry and exit from treaties.
Harold Koh maintains that Congress's silence on the matter should be interpreted as a lack of consent for the president's actions. "If I had an agreement that I made by myself, it would make sense that I could leave by myself," he said. "But if my wife and I made an agreement that both of us had to sign, could I withdraw from it by myself? I believe we would both have to withdraw."
Critics like Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse label Trump's move as "not just corrupt, but also illegal." The US Constitution does not explicitly outline a mirror principle for treaty withdrawal, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue.
Despite the uncertainty surrounding its legality, one thing is clear: the US exit from the UNFCCC signals a significant shift in international relations. Experts warn that this move will undermine global efforts to combat climate change and damage US credibility as an international leader.
While some experts suggest that the US could rejoin the treaty with Senate approval in 1992 still being valid, others believe that future presidents could potentially withdraw without needing a new two-thirds Senate vote. The controversy surrounding Trump's decision highlights the complexity of international agreements and the delicate balance between presidential power and congressional oversight.
honestly tho i dont really get why trump felt like he had to do this its like he didnt even consider the bigger picture, all his climate change talks were super weak, now hes just making it worse for america and the world. 
. Anyway, did you know the US emissions dropped by 12% from 1992 to 2018? That's a major accomplishment, especially considering we were just getting started with all this climate stuff 
. The Paris agreement is still in effect for the US, right? Like, even if they leave the UNFCCC, it doesn't automatically cancel out their commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% under that agreement 
. What's your take on this whole thing, though? Should the Senate get more involved in treaty withdrawals or is the President just trying to do what they think's best for America's interests 
?
like what's going on with climate change? shouldn't we all be working together to save the planet not pulling out of agreements? 
i mean, congress just kinda sat on their hands while trump made this move... sounds like a major constitutional crisis to me 
like what even happens when the prez just decides to ditch an international agreement without anyone else's say so? 
I'm shocked by this move, it feels like a big deal for global climate efforts 
... US just pulled out of this huge climate treaty, and I don't see how that's going to end well. I mean, climate change is a real deal, and we can't just ignore it anymore. The whole thing with the Senate approval thing seems kinda shady to me... if they're gonna make rules for entering treaties, shouldn't they also apply to leaving? 
.
, like what's next? the us just basically says "hey guys we're outta here" without even bothering to tell anyone else or follow the rules 
, what if future presidents try to do the same thing? it's like, how are we supposed to trust that they're gonna make decisions that benefit everyone instead of just themselves 
. Now Trump is doing the same thing and some people are all upset because they're worried he's gonna mess up global climate change efforts 
. And what about the US Constitution not explicitly saying anything about treaty withdrawal? 
. And if Harold Koh is right that it's technically illegal, then where's the accountability? Shouldn't Congress be having a bigger say in these decisions? 
.
I don't know, but one thing's for sure: we need more transparency and less drama in climate policy 
.
. But hey, at least we can all agree on one thing: climate change is real, and it's time for us to get serious about fixing it 
? It's not like you just walk away without saying hello 
... or in this case, without submitting a one-year notice period. And what about all those climate scientists and experts who've been working with the US on this for years? They're basically being thrown under the bus 
. The lack of clarity around this whole thing is just gonna create more problems down the line 
...