Not that I don't support this move but doesn't this violate the Constitution ("No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation")?
Sounds like a fun Supreme Court case :)
Also, from the article: >Like the Paris accord, the deals are all non-binding. They call for investments in low-carbon energy sources, cooperation on climate research and the commercialization of cleaner technologies.
Which doesn't sound like a Treaty (in the same way the Paris Accord was not a treaty as the US President unilaterally signed the agreement without consent of Congress)
Note that this is an important question. IF the Paris accord is a binding executive agreement authorized by the UNFCC treaty, and if there were no controversy about that (or the U.S. courts found that it is a valid executive agreement and in force), then it would be true that withdrawing from it would be subject to withdrawal clauses. On the other hand, if it is non-binding, and/or subject to ratification by the Senate, then withdrawal clauses cannot be applicable no matter how much European powers claim they must be, at least not as to U.S. law. (Foreign powers might apply sanctions, though that seems unlikely, to enforce withdrawal clauses.)
Of course, POTUS could always abrogate the UNFCC treaty if U.S. courts were to find that the Paris accord is a binding executive agreement not subject to ratification by the Senate, if POTUS found the withdrawal clauses too onerous. POTUS can abrogate treaties unilaterally, without negotiation or approval from either house of Congress or anyone else. Bush abrogated the ABM treaty, you might recall.
The US Senate did ratify the UNFCCC Treaty in 1992
> 10/07/1992 Resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Division Vote.[0]
So perhaps yes, the Paris Agreement is binding to the US in the sense that it's parent treaty, the UNFCCC was actually ratified by the Senate, and was not simply an Executive action. If this is the case, we cannot simply end participation in the treaty without being in abrogation of both the Paris agreement, AND the UNFCCC. Please excuse me if I am simply repeating what you're saying.
But Article 25 (pg21) of the UNFCCC states[1]:
>1. At any time after three years from the date on which the Convention has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from the Convention by giving written notification to the Depositary. 2. Any such withdrawal shall take effect upon expiry of one year from the date of receipt by the Depositary of the notification of withdrawal, or on such later date as may be specified in the notification of withdrawal. 3. Any Party that withdraws from the Convention shall be considered as also having withdrawn from any protocol to which it is a Party.
So it's pretty easy to leave...
[0]https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/102nd-congress/38 [1]https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
Arguably the ability to abrogate a treaty is very important, as it balances the ability of a treaty to impose considerably on the laws of the U.S., as the Constitution and the treaties are the supreme law of the land, but treaties do not require anywhere near as much review and approval as Amendments! The President's ability to abrogate a treaty is a safety device that allows quick remediation of unjust/tyrannical/ultimately-undesirable treaties. (Apparently, Congress too can abrogate treaties. See below.)
I would be shocked and surprised if the SCOTUS were to rule that the President cannot alone abrogate a treaty. The Constitution simply says nothing about the topic, and thus it would seem like a political question (that's a term of art meaning: the courts do not meddle) to be decided by Congress and the President, and/or any Constitutional Conventions the States might call. The SCOTUS would have to invent an abrogation method out of thin air in order to rule that POTUS can't alone abrogate a treaty. EDIT: More than that, the SCOTUS would have to then explain whether and why previously abrogated treaties are to be considered restored or not. The SCOTUS doesn't like to be in such sticky situations, even when the majority of Justices might greatly prefer the alternative outcome on the specific policy issue before them.
Assuming the presidential power to abrogate, it doesn't matter what the UNFCC says, if POTUS wants to abrogate it, that's that, and he can either abide or not by the withdrawal process -- once a treaty is officially abrogated, its withdrawal clauses no longer have force on the country in question. The same applies to the Paris accord. Trump could leave effective immediately rather than with the accorded three-year period, and what could the other nations do? In theory they might apply sanctions (EDIT: even go to war!), but in practice it's not currently politically feasible for any significant powers to apply any meaningful, and maybe even merely symbolic, sanctions.
In [1] there is a list of treaties abrogated by the U.S. -- it's a bit out of date now, but not by much. Skimming it on my phone I counted some seven instances (careful with the asterisk'ed one) when the President abrogated a treaty without Congressional approval, once at least in spite of Congress refusing to repudiate the treaty. Another time Congress approved after the fact; I did not count that one. And we have the ABM treaty abrogation to add to that list. And who knows, perhaps soon the UNFCC as well. A number of times Congress has repudiated treaties by resolution, others by law. One treaty was "suspended", but presumably never restored, thus effectively abrogated. None of that even counts treaties that we do not comply with without saying that we won't comply with them (I'm sure there are some, perhaps many, such treaties, mostly out of obsolescence or carelessness).
Given the make-up of Congress at this time, it seems exceedingly unlikely that it would act to prevent abrogation of any treaty by POTUS. Perhaps in 2018, 2020, or later, but not at this time, and for obvious reasons. Given the attempts by the previous POTUS to bind the hands of the current POTUS, I would not be surprised if the next POTUS (if a Democrat) might not attempt to restore by fiat any treaties Trump might abrogate by fiat, but I doubt it. Recall that Clinton did not bother sending Kyoto to the Senate for ratification, and that 96 Senators had indicated their opposition to it -- assuming the Democrats win big in 2020, it's not safe to assume they would restore the UNFCC were Trump to abrogate it, or the Paris accord, as once they have won their election they won't have incentive to do things that they might actually consider against their interests (and they might this). Still, given the hazy status of abrogation in Constitutional Law, if a future administration restores an abrogated treaty, I expect such a decision to be adhered to and not require re-ratification by the Senate or any Congressional approval of any kind. After all, to abrogate a treaty is merely to stop obeying it, and whether abrogation be intentional or not, surely to abide once more by the abrogated treaty must be a perfectly normal (if unheard of) thing to do as it is merely curing an unofficial state of non-compliance.
[0] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/996.html [1] http://www.ea.sinica.edu.tw/QDown.ashx?ID=5563
Similar non-binding agreements between states (and in some cases subdivisions of states) and foreign countries (or subdivisions thereof) are extremely common, and I don't think anyone in the federal government wants to force them all through federal approval, even leaving aside the legalities.
I think it is merely symbolic, as California can accomplish its climate targets voluntarily without any agreements.
This meeting was just to give the finger to the Trump administration and show them that the power is local.
"They are all considered treaties under internal law, but are distinct from the perspective of US law."
Treaties has the force of law and are permanent, but can be repealed by an act of Congress... "By contrast, a congressional-executive agreement can only cover matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President.[1] Likewise, a sole-executive agreement can only cover matters within the President's authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President."
The U.S. has abrogated quite a few treaties[0]. Often it's been by Presidential fiat alone. There is not much case-law on the subject, and it's almost certainly a "political question" that the courts will not go near (lower courts might, but the SCOTUS almost certainly will refuse to decide whether POTUS or Congress can do this alone). Among other things there is the question of who has standing to bring suit, and that's a high enough bar to begin with. The last time the SCOTUS had a chance to say much about this, they said they couldn't[1] (but with only a plurality, not majority, so there is no precedent yet): "The Judicial Branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse." (the impasse being Congress passing a resolution opposing the President's action, which Congress did not do).
[0] http://www.ea.sinica.edu.tw/QDown.ashx?ID=5563 [1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/444/996.html
> No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Foreign policy is reserved for the federal government, is it not?
Not a lawyer, but California may deem the exiting of the Paris agreement at a Federal level imminent Danger to their citizens.