Return to Answer

1. Was this treaty approved by the Congress or the Senate? And in that case, does it mean treaty's termination also requires the Congress/Senate approval?

Within the treaty it states:

• Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America July 11, 1956;
• Ratified by the President of the United States of America September 14, 1956;

Clarification: https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display_2014.htm

"The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch. The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification."

The Senate does not ratify treaties, rather it formally advises or consents to the President proceeding with ratifying the treaty.

The President may terminate a treaty upon presidential authority as it stands, but the actual constitutionality was left open: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter

"Article II, Section II of the Constitution merely states that the President cannot make treaties without a Senate majority two-thirds vote. As it stands now, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress."

2. Does the US withdrawal nullify the ICJ's vote?

Essentially the decision stands whether the US withdrew from the treaty or not.

So it wouldn't have nullified the ICJ vote, no.

The terms of ending the treaty, as you mentioned earlier:

"Article XXIII[...]3. Either High Contracting Party may, by giving one year's written notice to the other High Contracting Party, terminate the present Treaty at the end of the initial ten-year period or at any time thereafter."

1. Was this treaty approved by the Congress or the Senate? And in that case, does it mean treaty's termination also requires the Congress/Senate approval?

Within the treaty it states:

• Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America July 11, 1956;
• Ratified by the President of the United States of America September 14, 1956;

Clarification: https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display_2014.htm

The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch. The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification.

The Senate does not ratify treaties, rather it formally advises or consents to the President proceeding with ratifying the treaty.

The President may terminate a treaty upon presidential authority as it stands, but the actual constitutionality was left open: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter

Article II, Section II of the Constitution merely states that the President cannot make treaties without a Senate majority two-thirds vote. As it stands now, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress.

2. Does the US withdrawal nullify the ICJ's vote?

Essentially the decision stands whether the US withdrew from the treaty or not.

So it wouldn't have nullified the ICJ vote, no.

The terms of ending the treaty, as you mentioned earlier:

Article XXIII[...]3. Either High Contracting Party may, by giving one year's written notice to the other High Contracting Party, terminate the present Treaty at the end of the initial ten-year period or at any time thereafter.

1. Was this treaty approved by the Congress or the Senate? And in that case, does it mean treaty's termination also requires the Congress/Senate approval?

Within the treaty it states:

• Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America July 11, 1956;
• Ratified by the President of the United States of America September 14, 1956;

Clarification: https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display_2014.htm

"The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch. The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification."

The Senate does not ratify treaties, rather it formally advises or consents to the President proceeding with ratifying the treaty.

The President may terminate a treaty upon presidential authority as it stands, but the actual constitutionality was left open: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter

"Article II, Section II of the Constitution merely states that the President cannot make treaties without a Senate majority two-thirds vote. As it stands now, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress."

2. Does the US withdrawal nullify the ICJ's vote?

Essentially the decision stands whether the US withdrew from the treaty or not.

So it wouldn't have nullified the ICJ vote, no.

Terms of the ending the treaty, as you mentioned earlier:

"Article XXIII[...]3. Either High Contracting Party may, by giving one year's written notice to the other High Contracting Party, terminate the present Treaty at the end of the initial ten-year period or at any time thereafter."

1. Was this treaty approved by the Congress or the Senate? And in that case, does it mean treaty's termination also requires the Congress/Senate approval?

Within the treaty it states:

• Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America July 11, 1956;
• Ratified by the President of the United States of America September 14, 1956;

Clarification: https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display_2014.htm

"The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch. The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification."

The Senate does not ratify treaties, rather it formally advises or consents to the President proceeding with ratifying the treaty.

The President may terminate a treaty upon presidential authority as it stands, but the actual constitutionality was left open: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter

"Article II, Section II of the Constitution merely states that the President cannot make treaties without a Senate majority two-thirds vote. As it stands now, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress."

2. Does the US withdrawal nullify the ICJ's vote?

Essentially the decision stands whether the US withdrew from the treaty or not.

So it wouldn't have nullified the ICJ vote, no.

The terms of ending the treaty, as you mentioned earlier:

"Article XXIII[...]3. Either High Contracting Party may, by giving one year's written notice to the other High Contracting Party, terminate the present Treaty at the end of the initial ten-year period or at any time thereafter."

1. Was this treaty approved by the Congress or the Senate?

Within the treaty it states:

• Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America July 11, 1956;
• Ratified by the President of the United States of America September 14, 1956;

Clarification: https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display_2014.htm

"The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch. The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification."

The Senate does not ratify treaties, rather it formally advises or consents to the President proceeding with ratifying the treaty.

2. Does the US withdrawal nullify the ICJ's vote?

Essentially the decision stands whether the US withdrew from the treaty or not.

So it wouldn't have nullified the ICJ vote, no.

Terms of the ending the treaty, as you mentioned earlier:

"Article XXIII[...]3. Either High Contracting Party may, by giving one year's written notice to the other High Contracting Party, terminate the present Treaty at the end of the initial ten-year period or at any time thereafter."

1. Was this treaty approved by the Congress or the Senate? And in that case, does it mean treaty's termination also requires the Congress/Senate approval?

Within the treaty it states:

• Ratification advised by the Senate of the United States of America July 11, 1956;
• Ratified by the President of the United States of America September 14, 1956;

Clarification: https://www.senate.gov/general/Features/Treaties_display_2014.htm

"The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch. The Senate does not ratify treaties. Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, empowering the president to proceed with ratification."

The Senate does not ratify treaties, rather it formally advises or consents to the President proceeding with ratifying the treaty.

The President may terminate a treaty upon presidential authority as it stands, but the actual constitutionality was left open: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter

"Article II, Section II of the Constitution merely states that the President cannot make treaties without a Senate majority two-thirds vote. As it stands now, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress."

2. Does the US withdrawal nullify the ICJ's vote?

Essentially the decision stands whether the US withdrew from the treaty or not.

So it wouldn't have nullified the ICJ vote, no.

Terms of the ending the treaty, as you mentioned earlier:

"Article XXIII[...]3. Either High Contracting Party may, by giving one year's written notice to the other High Contracting Party, terminate the present Treaty at the end of the initial ten-year period or at any time thereafter."