Yes, I agree with Patryk Labuda`s useful clarification that, although American law distinguishes between different types of international legal constructs (Article II, Executive Agreement of Congress, Executive Agreement of the Treaty, exclusive executive agreements), they all have the same status as a matter of international law, i.e. they are treaties within the meaning of the Vienna Convention on Treaty Law. The way in which the United States is able to accede to an international agreement therefore has no influence on its status, in accordance with international law. […] or by simple majorities in both houses of Congress, but also through executive measures. According to legal analysts, executive action is a possibility if a contract is based on […] For more information on the legal status of the Paris Agreement, see Bodansky and Rajamani, Key Legal Issues in the 2015 Climate Negotiations (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions 2015), Bodansky, Legally Binding vs. Non-Legally Binding Instruments, in Scott Barrett, Carlo Carraro – Jaime de Melo, eds., Towards a Workable and Effective Climate Regime (VoxEU eBook 2015), and Bodansky, Legal Options for US Acceptance of a New Climate Change Agreement (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions 2014), which this post is drawn. There is confusion about the legal nature of the Paris agreement. Last month, Foreign Minister Kerry made waves in Europe, saying the Paris agreement „would certainly not be a treaty.” This led President Hollande to reply: „If the agreement is not legally binding, there will be no agreement, because it would mean that it would not be possible to review or control the commitments made.” And just yesterday, the New York Times reported that the Paris agreement would not be a „legally binding treaty” that would have to be ratified by governments to have force, but would consist of „voluntary plans” that would „avoid the legal definition of a treaty.” […] no artigo from: Bodansky , D. The legal nature of the Paris agreement: a first. Dispon-vel: opiniojuris.org/2015/12/02/the-legal-character-of-the-paris-agreement-a-primer/ Acesso: […] Fourth, the question of whether the Paris Agreement is adopted by the United States as an Article II treaty with the Council and the approval of the Senate or as an executive agreement would not compromise its international legal character or the ability of a future president or congress to withdraw.
Regardless of the adoption procedure, the right of the United States to withdraw would be governed by international law by the withdrawal clause of the agreement and, under U.S. law, U.S. participation could, in practice, be terminated by a future president by executive measures or by Congress by the passage of subsequent legislation. Here is therefore a brief overview of the legal nature of the Paris Agreement: third, the term „treaty” has a narrower meaning in American law than in international law and refers to agreements that the President sends to the Senate for consultation and approval of ratification in accordance with Article II of the Constitution. The vast majority of treaties, in the international sense, are adopted not as „treaties” of Article II, but as „executive agreements”, most often with the agreement of Congress, but in some cases by the president acting alone. Therefore, even if the Paris Agreement is an international treaty, it should not be adopted by the United States as a „treaty” in accordance with Article II of the Constitution. (For more information on adoption in the United States, see Julian Ku`s latest article, A Treaty or Not a Treaty.) Perhaps that is what Foreign Minister Kerry meant when he said that the Paris agreement would „certainly not be a treaty.” Second, the VCLT certainly provides that the agreements are binding on the parties and that they must implement them in good faith (VCLT art).