About Treaties, in Light of Copenhagen
Posted on Freedom Advocates on October 30th 2009
By [post_author] –
There has been considerable discussion regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Treaty, such that if ratified by our Senate it will cede U.S. Sovereignty to World Government. Even with the President’s signature the treaty would still have to be ratified by 67 votes in the Senate, and this is where our efforts should focus.
Below are some of Henry Lamb’s writings and views on treaties including a link to his recent article on the subject at World Net Daily:
It does appear that the negotiators may be using the
existing treaty as the negotiating text (the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change) which we ratified in 1992. Article 25 of the existing treaty
says:
- At any time after three years from the date on which the
Convention has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from the
Convention by giving written notification to the Depositary. - Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one
year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of
withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of
withdrawal. - Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be
considered as also having withdrawn from any protocol to which it is a Party.
This is a common provision in all the treaties I’ve read. If this provision is changed in a new treaty, it would still have to be ratified.
If they are using the existing treaty as a starting point, any modification to it will still have to be ratified by 67 votes in the Senate. If they try to amend the existing treaty, or attach a protocol to it, these too, would have to be ratified by the Senate. The worst case scenario would be for the negotiators to produce a document that could be called a trade agreement (such as the World Trade Organization Agreement) which would need only a majority vote in both houses of Congress. There is no scenario that would make a treaty legally binding on the United States with only a president’s signature.
When an official delegate to a treaty conference signs a document, whether president, VP, Sec. of State, or underling, it does not make the signing nation a party to the treaty, bound by its terms. All the signature implies is that the signing nation will take no action in opposition to the goals of the treaty, but this is only an unenforceable “custom” within the international community. I had several discussions on this point with the Secretary of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC during the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. Several green organizations wanted to make more of Clinton’s signature than the law allowed.
Buried on page 18, paragraph 38, of the negotiating text of the Copenhagen Protocol to the Climate Change Treaty, are these words:
“The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the
Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative
mechanism; and financial mechanism…”
The text goes on to define the Conference of the Parties (COP) as the government to oversee the “facilitative and financial mechanisms.” The facilitative mechanism includes five agencies, one of which specializes in international monitoring, reporting, and compliance. The financial mechanism also includes five agencies, one of which specializes in compensation for losses and damages caused by excessive emissions from developed nations. If this language is adopted in Copenhagen, and the treaty is ratified by the Senate, every American who uses energy will be subject to a United Nation’s agency empowered to monitor energy use, collect taxes, fines, and other revenues for redistribution to other nations.
Make no mistake, this treaty (whatever comes out of Copenhagen) will be a disaster. Our efforts must be directed toward the Senate. There is no way to prevent Obama from signing whatever comes out of Copenhagen. We must elect more decent Senators in 2010.
Law of the Sea Treaty
Article II, Paragraph 3 of this treaty says:
“The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law.”
If this treaty is ratified, activity within the 12-mile territorial sea limit, as well as activity along the coastline and in waterways and estuaries that feed into the territorial sea, will be governed by a United Nations agency.
Sadly, the current administration, as well as a substantial number of our Senators, are eager to ratify these and other treaties that are waiting in the pipeline.
Here is an idea whose time may have come: A 28th Amendment that requires three-fourths of the states to ratify all treaties, rather than two-thirds of the Senate.
If you are interested in how the United Nations has grown its power over the years to the point where global governance is now accepted and even eagerly anticipated by much of the world, including many Americans, take advantage of these special offers:
The Rise of Global Governance book AND the two-disc, five-part
DVD
The Rise of Global Governance book AND
the 5000 Year Leap
Visit www.sovereignty.net
Hope this helps.
Henry Lamb
Related article Copenhagen Talks Put World Focus on “Hot Air”
About Treaties, in Light of Copenhagen by Henry Lamb
Henry Lamb is the author of “The Rise of Global Governance,” chairman of Sovereignty International and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21 Inc. Henry Lamb has a comprehensive archive totaling
more than 2,000 pages and accumulated since 1994, located at Sovereignty
International’s Library.
This article contains links to outside sources not controlled by Freedom Advocates and therefore are subject to change.
