The recent decision by the Trump administration to pull the US out of the UN climate treaty has stirred up heated debate. Some legal experts argue that this move might be illegal. Harold Hongju Koh, a former State Department lawyer, expressed doubt about the authority behind this decision.
The presidential memorandum made it clear that the US plans to exit not only the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) but also 65 other international organizations. Interestingly, this marks the first time any country has sought to withdraw from this crucial agreement.
Under the UNFCCC, a country must provide a year’s notice before leaving, so the US will remain part of the treaty for now. However, it remains unclear if a formal notice will be submitted.
A spokesperson from the State Department mentioned that the administration intends to take all necessary steps to expedite this withdrawal. This sentiment was echoed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who criticized the agencies and treaties involved as wasteful or redundant.
The UNFCCC was ratified by the Senate in 1992, leading some experts, like Michael Gerrard from Columbia University, to question the president’s ability to exit without congressional approval. He highlighted the contrast with the Paris Agreement, which did not require Senate ratification.
There’s disagreement among scholars about the president’s power to unilaterally end treaties. While some believe prior congressional approval is necessary, others assert that executive authority has been exercised historically without Senate consent. Curtis Bradley, a law professor at the University of Chicago, noted that presidents have often taken it upon themselves to withdraw from agreements.
The legality of Trump’s decision faces critical scrutiny. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse called it not only corrupt but illegal, highlighting concerns over fossil fuel interests influencing national policy.
The US Constitution does not clearly outline withdrawal procedures, and the Supreme Court has yet to provide a definitive ruling on the matter. Jean Galbraith from the University of Pennsylvania called the issue complex, noting that the president may have discretion over withdrawal even if the Senate suggested joining.
Looking ahead, experts have differing opinions on what it would take for the US to rejoin the UNFCCC. Some feel that Trump’s withdrawal negates the 1992 Senate approval, implying future presidents would have to secure new Senate support. However, Galbraith argues that the initial ratification still stands, suggesting that rejoining might be straightforward.
Sue Biniaz, a former climate envoy, believes that despite the withdrawal, climate action will continue both domestically and globally. She mentioned several pathways for rejoining essential climate agreements.
The withdrawal coincided with significant global issues, signaling a departure from international cooperation on climate change. Melinda St Louis, a director at Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, remarked that this decision threatens the nation’s credibility on the world stage. As climate challenges grow, many view this move as a short-sighted step backward from necessary leadership.
In essence, the decision encapsulates broader concerns about America’s commitment to international agreements and the urgent need for climate action.
Source link
