I. The gap between binding international commitments and domestic action U.S. law distinguishes between directly applicable and non-self-executing international agreements. A directly enforceable treaty enters into force upon ratification as U.S. law – the supreme constitutional right enforceable in the courts – and does not require new legislation to enable the U.S. to meet its international obligations. On the other hand, a contract which is not directly applicable requires the adoption of national legislation to give effect to its provisions. In particular, international agreements are considered „binding” on Contracting Parties at the time of their entry into force, regardless of the method of implementation at national level. If the United States does not enact domestic laws that implement the terms of a non-self-executing international agreement, the international obligation will not remain less binding, but the United States is simply not lagging behind its international obligation. Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that „any treaty or international agreement concluded by a State Member of the United Nations after the entry into force of the present Charter shall be registered with and published by the Secretariat as soon as possible”. All international treaties and agreements registered or deposited and registered with the Secretariat since 1946 will be published in the UNTS.
The terms „treaty” and „international agreement” within the meaning of Article 102 of the Charter cover the widest range of instruments. Although the General Assembly of the United Nations has never established a precise definition of the two terms and has never clarified their mutual relationship, Article 1 of the Rules of the General Assembly for the Application of Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that the obligation of registration applies to any treaty or international agreement, „whatever its form and descriptive name”. In the practice of the Secretariat under Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations, the terms „treaty” and „international agreement” encompass various instruments, including unilateral obligations, such as declarations by new States Members of the United Nations accepting obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, declarations of recognition of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Status; and certain unilateral declarations establishing binding obligations between the reporting nation and other nations. The specific designation of an international instrument is therefore not decisive for the obligation of Member States to register it. The term „declaration” is used for various international instruments. However, declarations are not always legally binding. The term is often chosen deliberately to indicate that parties do not intend to create binding obligations, but simply to explain certain aspirations. One example is the Rio Declaration of 1992, but declarations can also be treaties in the general sense that are supposed to be binding under international law. It is therefore necessary to consider on a case-by-case basis whether the parties intended to create binding obligations. Determining the intention of the parties can often be a difficult task. Some acts entitled „Declarations” were not originally intended to be binding, but their provisions may have reflected customary international law or subsequently become binding as customary law. This was the case with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
Declarations intended to have binding effect could be classified as follows: In international law, a treaty is any legally binding agreement between States (States). A treaty may be called an agreement, protocol, pact, agreement, etc.; It is the content of the agreement, not its name, that makes it a treaty. Thus, both the Geneva Protocol and the Biological Weapons Convention are treaties, even though neither has the word „treaty” in its name. Specifically, under U.S. law, a treaty is a legally binding agreement between countries that requires ratification and the „deliberation and consent” of the Senate. All other agreements (treaties in the international sense) are called executive agreements, but are nevertheless binding on the United States under international law. The purpose of this introductory note is to provide a basic, but not exhaustive, overview of the main terms used in the United Nations Treaty Collection to refer to internationally binding international instruments: treaties, agreements, conventions, charters, protocols, declarations, declarations, declarations of intent, modus vivendi and exchange of notes. The aim is to facilitate a general understanding of their scope and function. It is important to note that the Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, is not legally binding and there are no binding emission reduction targets for countries. Under the Paris Agreement, countries are free to reduce their emissions as much as they want, and there are no consequences for non-compliance. The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol is legally binding with binding targets for countries. Thank you for that explanation, sir.
I have another question. How would we define an annex and what is the difference between an annex and a protocol? A treaty is negotiated by a group of countries, either through an organization established for that specific purpose or through an existing body such as the United Nations (UN) Disarmament Board. The negotiation process can take several years, depending on the theme of the treaty and the number of participating countries. Once the negotiations are completed, the treaty will be signed by the representatives of the governments concerned. The terms may require that the treaty be ratified and signed before it becomes legally binding. A government ratifies a treaty by depositing an instrument of ratification at a place specified in the treaty; The instrument of ratification is a document that contains official confirmation that the government accepts the terms of the treaty. The ratification process varies according to the laws and constitutions of each country. In the United States, the president can ratify a treaty only after receiving the „advice and assent” of two-thirds of the Senate. First of all, it must be a binding agreement, which means that the contracting parties wanted to create legal rights and obligations. Second, the agreement must be concluded by States or international organizations with treaty powers.
Thirdly, it must be governed by international law, that is, by the common good of humanity.