Global Key factors and Trends ======

By pjain      Published Dec. 29, 2019, 9:55 p.m. in blog Geo-Politics   

Global Key factors and Trends

Real Global Challenges

Globalism based on Fair Trade - FTA/WTO

Intellectual Property Theft and Industrial Espionage

Indirect Trade Barriers - China abuses

Climate change

Dictatorships and Oppression

Terrorism

Nuclear proliferation

Specter of nuclear terrorism.

Multi-Polar Clashing Foreign Policies in 2020+

5 major powers

- US
- Europe
- Russia
- China
- India

TOC US Foreign Policies in 2020+

Mercurial, Opinionated Trump - tool of Israel

Worst: Rex Tillerson

His major foreign policy positions were often at odds with Trump, including:

  • Urging the United States to stay in the Trans-Pacific Partnership
  • Urging staying in the Paris climate accord
  • Taking a hard line on Russia
  • advocating negotiations and dialogue to defuse the mounting crisis with North Korea
  • Advocating for continued U.S. adherence to the Iran nuclear deal
  • Taking a neutral position in the dispute between Qatar and Saudi Arabia
  • Reassuring jittery allies, from South Korea and Japan of US Support
  • Convince NATO partners, that America still has their back

Historical View of US Foreign Policy

Resources

Presidents and US Secretaries Of State and Impact

Obama - neutered

Worst: Hillary Clinton

Resources

Legal Basis of US Foreign Policy

Treaty Clause of the Constitution => Primary Constitutional Means of Global Agreements

  1. The President makes a treaty with foreign powers, but then the proposed treaty must be ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
  2. Most international law has a broader interpretation of the term treaty, the U.S. sense of the term is more restricted.
  3. Foreign Affairs is a Federal Power not State

  4. President Wilson proposed the Treaty of Versailles after World War I after consulting with allied powers, but this treaty was rejected by the Senate; as a result, the U.S. subsequently made separate agreements with different nations.

  5. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states.

Executive agreements - Presidential and Joint-President-Congress

  1. Some are made by the President—in the exercise of his Constitutional executive powers—alone.

  2. Congressional-executive agreements are made by the President and Congress. A majority of both houses makes it binding much like regular legislation after it is signed by the president.

The Constitution does not expressly state that these agreements are allowed, and constitutional scholars such as Laurence Tribe think they are unconstitutional.

In contrast to most other nations, the United States considers the three types of agreements as distinct. Further, the United States incorporates treaty law into the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties afterward. It can overrule an agreed-upon treaty obligation even if that is seen as a violation of the treaty under international law. Several U.S. court rulings confirmed this understanding, including Supreme Court decisions in Paquete Habana v. the United States (1900), and Reid v. Covert (1957), as well as a lower court ruling in Garcia-Mir v. Meese (1986). Further, the Supreme Court has declared itself as having the power to rule a treaty as void by declaring it "unconstitutional" although as of 2011, it has never exercised that power.[citation needed]

The State Department has taken the position that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties represents established law. Generally, when the U.S. signs a treaty, it is binding. However, as a result of the Reid v. Covert decision, the U.S. adds a reservation to the text of every treaty that says in effect that the U.S. intends to abide by the treaty but that if the treaty is found to be in violation of the Constitution, the U.S. legally is then unable to abide by the treaty since the U.S. signature would be ultra vires.


0 comments

There are no comments yet

Add new comment

Similar posts

USA Dynasties and Oligarchies

Missile Attack Systems

Anti-Missiles Defense Systems

Military Arms Trade, Treaties