Will the United States be ratifying any treaties soon?

Your assessment of the difficulty of the treaty process seems sound. But you've overlooked the main consequence ...
a continuing circumvention of the treaty process.

Treaties are now for uncontroversial subjects. For the rest, we have executive agreements, generally undertaken with the explicit or implicit support of a majority of both houses of Congress.

Your assessment of the difficulty of the treaty process seems sound. But you've overlooked the main consequence ...
a continuing circumvention of the treaty process.

Treaties are now for uncontroversial subjects. For the rest, we have executive agreements, generally undertaken with the explicit or implicit support of a majority of both houses of Congress.

I generally agree with your short list as the core of republican votes (I have one or two more for the list, but you are close), the ones that will vote 'aye' is just a bit of encouragement from Senator Lugar. But there are a dozen others who will support it with some effort on the part of the Navy and Coast Guard, the Telecomm industry, the Shipping industry and the Fishing industry, and they will cite endorsements from republicans from Reagan-era appointees like George Shultz, John Whitehead and Ken Adleman to recent republican officials such as Colin Powell, John Negroponte and George W. Bush.

In a larger sense, the concern over treaties is real - the LOS Convention is sui generis in its breadth of support, and this time there is neither a republican majority leader nor a far-right dominated presidential primary to impede senate action - only hesitancy in the White House in seeing the Senate tied up for a week or so while Senators Vitter, Inhofe and a few others pander to the isolationists and go-it-alone'ers with mis-information provided by the John Birch Society. On the other hand, other nations will judge that if the Administration cannot ratify the LOS Convention with 60 democrats and independents and the support of the navy and coast guard, the chamber of commerce and the American Petroleum Institute and WWF and the Ocean Conservancy, there is little reason to make concessions in other negotiations where support is less impressive.

for both supporters and opponents, the LOS Convention is a test case for whether the United States can agree to multilateral treaties and conventions, and it is a case where avoidance by the White House will count as failure.

I did a quick lookup--10 Democratic Senators voted against the Panama Canal Treaty--which reinforces my assumption Obama will have an almost impossible job in getting unanimous Dem support. Problem is, it's an easy vote to demagogue (witness Reagan) and there's no one who is offended by it.

My prediction: Obama won't get any of these treaties ratified.

It seems to me that treaty proponents are missing a perfectly valid, and in my mind convincing, argument that the treaty enhances rather than diminishes US sovereignty. It does this by, among other things, providing a disputes resolution regime which we have used since the inception of our republic (See, Jay Treaty- -arbitration). If we can reduce the areas of conflict which can only be resolved by the use of force, then we enhance our security and, hence, our ability to exercise our sovereignty.

Interesting post. I think that people always tend to down play treaty ratification under G.W. Bush. He did, after all, ratify several major law of war treaties. (Hague ’54, CCW Protocols, etc) – but none of the high profile ones, of course.

I guess it depends on the issue. Like posted above, there are other options as well like declaring various policies. The US tends to basically follow all of the LoS guidance anyway. It’s there as practice and the US also regards most of it as custom.

Personally, I’m gunning for the Convention on the Rights of the Child – if only so that I don’t have to hear people whine about it anymore.

There are conservative and 'sovereign' democrats as well. It is arrogant and potentially politically fatal for a president to presume that their party will blindly follow.

It has been interesting to hear conservatives who argue that Obama should adopt the policy recommended in Afghanistan by General McCrystal because he is the general in charge simultaneously argue that senators should ignore the unanimous position of the joint chiefs of staff, all current and former chiefs of naval operations and commandants of the coast guard that the LOS Convention should be given advice and consent so we can join it. If deference to military leaders on matters of national security is desirable, then conservatives should be supporting the LOS Convention - and some will. And while they won't be taken for granted, I think with the high level military support, along with industry, environmental and science community support, it won't be too difficult for Obama and other LOS supporters to hold the democrats together. Moderate and conservative democrats don't really want to be known for ignoring the military leadership out of fear of orchestrated mass mailings from the far right.

Obama is well aware of the impact that his presidency would have by working with other world leaders to achieve peace where it is more needed. The Nobel Peace prize was awarded to him last month as a booster to pursue his promises made in this regard during his presidential campaign. Wanting to
give a new trajectory to the US Foreign policy which during the last 8 years of the Bush administration suffered a "chronic PR" campaign where even its allies were wary of the unpredictability of the latter, the Obama administration has inaugurated a new era in the US foreign policy mindset where there is an unmitigated reversal of the major policy during the George W. Bush era. However, given that 67 senators have to ratify a treaty in order to become law, while there are only 58 Democrat Senators and 2 independents; the Obama administration will need to work across the aisles in order to build support to gain the 7 more votes needed from the Republican to reach the majority. For this purpose the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in accordance with the Obama's administration need to reach out to opponents and be willing to make concessions in order to get his republicans colleagues on board and allay their concerns about the early warning of all nuclear test and make sure the United states nuclear deterrent is ready. Those are the reasons that made the Senate rejected the treaty at the end of the Clinton's administration, lessons need to be learned.

Blue, on matters of fleet mobility, rights of navigation, piracy, protection of navigation, passage through international straits, enforcement of maritime regulations and sovereign immunity of warships, and based on years of operational experience, it is certainly the Navy and Coast Guard who are on the front lines of the law of the sea, and they have consistently held that joining the Law of the Sea Convention is essential to protect US military and security interests. The convention's protections for rights of navigation of warships and exemption of warships and ships on government service from environmental and mandatory dispute resolution procedures are essential protections for US military interests as is the recognized right of free navigation of nuclear powered and nuclear-carrying vessels even in innocent passage through foreign territorial seas. These are core areas of competence of the Navy and Coast Guard, every bit as much as ground strategy is the province of the generals. To claim that flag officers must be deferred to in their area of competence in one area of the world but not another is a bit of hypocrisy.

In both Afghanistan and in Law of the Sea, I am in the camp that believes that even in areas of its competence, military strategy is subject to the even broader responsibility and civilian authority of the President. But here there has been bipartisan support for the LOS Convention since planning began under President Nixon. Even President Reagan declared that the convention, with the exception of the deep seabed mining provisions, was in the US interest and would be adhered to as much as possible. George H.W. Bush began the consultations to meet Reagan's criteria for acceptable seabed mining provisions that were completed under President Clinton, and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush asked the Senate to give its Advice and Consent.

With a history of fervent military support and the endorsement of presidents of both parties, as well as the support of energy, telecommunications, shipping and fishing industries, I think it is safe to say that with this broad and deep support and in spite of some senators' desire to avoid the skirmish on the floor with the isolationists and go-it-alone'ers, the Convention will gather a safe margin in the senate to gain advice and consent once President obama follows the path of George Bush in asking the Foreign Relations Committee to act on the Convention.

According to both lists from the White House, and conversations with the SFRC, this is going to be the likely order of major treaty ratification efforts (there are lots of minor ones that may go through):

1. The START follow-on, once the agreement with Russia is completed (2010) - the votes seem to be there
2. Law of the Sea (2010)
3. The recently signed, and generally uncontroversial Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) - ie. noone wants to be against a treaty that helps the handicapped (2010 or 2011)
4. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) - after START happens, and some more Republican support can be generated (2010 or 2011) - still need to get Lugar on board
5. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)- (2011 or 2012)
6. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - we ratified an optional protocol of this treaty under Clinton (2012)
7. ILO-11 (perhaps 2012)

Congress is constitutionally mandated to follow the law of nations as per A 1 S 8 C 10 of USC with regard to international relations... Not that this POTUS cares about the constitution! Obama is a Usurper to Presidency. He is not a Natural Born Citizen. His father was not a Citizen when Obama 2 was born. Even if he was born in the White House, he is not a Natural Born Citizen. He must be Born in the US to 2 Citizen Parents. Oh, I know, "Crazy birther", you'll say. Well I don't care where he was born, could have been the White House, in JFKs lap. He is not a Natural Born Citizen(which is the requirement, not American Citizen) because of a fact he has already admitted at Fight the Smears. AT BIRTH his citizenship was "governed" by the British Nationality Act of 1948. As a dual citizen AT BIRTH, he can never be a Natural Baorn Citizen. It is a security provision. Otherwise the son of Ahmedinedad (or Kim Jong Il, or Bin Laden) could impregnate an American woman, and the birth of that child in America would allow the child to run for POTUS. As a Usurper, anything he signs will be null and void when this Constitutional crisis is allowed to come to light. Right now he is being protected by the fawning press and the Treasonous Congress. Just so you know, McCain, born in Colon, Panama, is not a Natural Born Citizen either. That is what provided cover for Obama to run illegally. Oh, and another thing, Jindal, born in La. of Indian immigrant parents, is not a Natural Born Citizen either.

Please go away.

Does it make you feel uncomfortablr that you support a Traitor to the constitution, which is what you are now also?