ACTA and democracy?

Who can sing and approve treaties will differ by country. In the US, it requires ratificayion by 2/3 of the Senate.

Thank you for this information. I wasn't aware though that ACTA had been approved by 2/3 of the senate? Unless they're supposed to get the senate's approval after they signed it?

The way it usually works, I believe, is the ambassadors or whatever sign the treaty, acting on the President's behalf. Then the signed treaty is presented to the Senate and voted on.In many cases, if the President thinks the Senate won't ratify a treaty, he can ask opposed senators what changes could be asked for to get them on board. In other cases, he may have it signed hoping he can convince the Senate to accept it as necessary, or maybe even get the people on his side and have them force the senators to ratify it.In any case, it gets signed by the ambassadors, etc before it goes before the Senate.

I was so positively surprised when i opened my email box today i actually got a reply from 3 of our representatives thanking me for the email and that they too are concerned abut the ACTA treaty and that these sorts of email shows support form the people for those members that are against the treaty or have concerns about the treaty.

Generally speaking, parties to a treaty are well aware that the US has to take the treatyt back to the legislature in order to comply with its provision. I suppose that what happens is whatever the parties agreed they would do in such a case.The wiki article is not strictly on point. Usually, simply failure to get the treaty ratified despite the president's best efforts wouldn't constitute a breach, because everybody knows the process during treaty negotiations.But yes, the signing of a treaty does provide some persuasive force to Congress, particularly if the treaty brings some good stuff along with it. The executive branch which includes law enforcement is not above pushing for treaty terms that include provisions of law that may be difficult to pass, and then asking Congress to respect our treaty obligations.But even more insidious is that treaties are treated as an additional source of federal power. It is possible for a treaty to provide new sources of law and new powers that are not granted in the constitution.

Not really. Just to gather answers you've already gotten into one place, the senate has to both ratify the treaty after the president has agreed to it, and in cases where the treaty is not self-enacting, Congress has to pass the enabling legislation.More generally though, as long as the Constitution is complied with, then there can be no violation of separation of powers. Any procedure allowed by the Constitution, and that gives an unchecked nod to one branch of government would have to be considered an exception to the general rule of checks and balances.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Ok, thanks for your answers, I'll keep an eye on how things go I guess.

As far as I understood, it's standard operating procedure for all treaties. I've been having trouble finding confirmation of this online. Aside from the US, the only countries whose procedures I've found outlined are Brazil's (where the President needs approval of Congress to ratify a treaty) the UK's (where, technically, the government didn't need the approval of Parliament, but by convention always sought it - this was changed in 2010 such that Parliamentary approval is a legal requirement), and Australia's (where the government doesn't need Parliamentary approval). Wikipedia does say "In most countries, the constitution requires most treaties to be approved by legislature before they can formally enter into force and bind the country in question" but this isn't cited.ABE: Here we go. This is from the europatientrights website, discussing the subject with regard to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine:

quote:

---

The simple signature applies to most multilateral treaties. This means that when a State signs the treaty, the signature is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval. The State has not expressed its consent to be bound by the treaty until it ratifies, accepts or approves it. In that case, a State that signs a treaty is obliged to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty. Signature alone does not impose on the State obligations under the treaty. For states this usually means that the international agreement has to be put before the national parliament for approval, thereby giving the people a direct say in the external activities of the state.

---

Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.