The current issue (31:1) of the Renewable Resources Journal (published by the Renewable Natural Resources Foundation) has two timely articles: 'Withdrawal from International Agreements: Legal Framework and the Paris Agreement' by Stephen P. Mulligan, an attorney with the Congressional Research Service. The article is based upon a CRS report.
The first few paragraphs:
Renewed attention to the role of Congress in the termination of treaties and other international agreements has arisen following statements by President Donald Trump that he may consider withdrawing the United States from certain high profile agreements.
This article examines the legal framework for withdrawal from international agreements, and it provides a specific focus on the Paris Agreement on climate change.
Although the Constitution sets forth a definite procedure whereby the President has the power to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, it is silent as to how treaties may be terminated. Moreover, not all agreements be- tween the United States and foreign nations are made through Senate-approved, ratified treaties. The President commonly enters into binding executive agreements, which do not receive the Senate’s advice and consent, and “political commitments,” which are not legally binding, but may carry significant political weight.4 Executive agree ments and political commitments are not mentioned in the Constitution, and the legal procedure for withdrawal may differ depending on the precise nature of the agreement.
The second paper is by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI): 'Restoring and Sustaining Great Lakes Ecosystems'.
Here is the intro, sent by Tim Smith, who alerted me to these papers:
Shared with Canada and spanning more than 750 miles (1,200 kilometers) these vast inland freshwater seas provide water for consumption, transportation, power, recreation and a host of other uses. More than 30 million people live in The Great Lakes basin, and the impact of their daily activities, from the water consumed to the waste returned, directly affect the Great Lakes environment.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)1 was launched in 2010 to accelerate efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes by providing additional resources to make progress on the most critical long-term goals for this important ecosystem. The GLRI has been a
catalyst for unprecedented federal agency coordination through the Interagency Task Force and the Regional Working Group, which are led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Great Lakes clean up and restoration activities frequently focus on “Areas of Concern.” These areas are defined under the 1987 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as geographic areas where significant impairment of beneficial uses has occurred as a result of human activities at the local level. At the time of the agreement, there were 43 areas of concern including contaminated or deformed fishes, eutrophication, toxic sediments, and habitat destruction. Areas of concern occur in all of the Great Lakes.
Future conservation efforts should include work to lay foundations for future projects to protect and restore species diversity, reintroduce populations of native species to restored habitats and evaluate their survival, protect or restore species that are culturally significant to tribes in the Great Lakes region, manage invasive species that inhibit the sustainability of native species, pioneer species propagation and relocation techniques, and implement other activities necessary for the eventual recovery of federal and state threatened and endangered species.
Though clear improvements have been realized due to efforts of the GLRI, restoration of the Great Lakes is a work in progress. In order for successful restoration to continue, efforts to ensure that future conservation action is taken will be necessary.
Enjoy!
"If you're not self-interrogating the epistemic underpinnings of intentionally obfuscatory academic discourse, you're not paying attention." - From Shit Academics Say
Comments