The United States is something of a peculiar actor in international affairs. It is widely considered the global hegemon – that is, the state to which all other states submit in order to ensure global stability and security. Many theorists argue that it has chosen to fulfil this role by acting through international institutions such as the United Nations. Indeed, it has been the driving force behind a number of multilateral treaties aimed at promoting cross-border co-operation. Yet, others contend that the US acts unilaterally on the world stage, instrumentalising international institutions in order to project its own power and assert its dominance.
An example which perfectly characterises this dichotomy arises in the context of international treaties. The US consistently chooses not to become a member of international treaties, including many widely accepted international treaties considered important for establishing and maintaining international co-operation. Remarkably, in many cases, the US was an important part of the initiation and drafting of these very treaties. As has been articulated by the American Kyoto Protocol negotiator, David Doniger, “the system is made in America, and Americans aren’t part of it”.
A look at the history of America and international treaties shows that the US is not unwilling to sign these documents in the first place. Rather, the consistent barrier to US membership of international treaties is “ratification” – a form of domestic approval which is necessary in order for a treaty to become binding within a state. Under the US constitution, treaties with the support of two-thirds of the Senate may be ratified. The requirement of advice and consent from the legislature is not remarkable in itself. However, when considered in a comparative context, the supermajority requirement is notable. It is much higher than both France and Germany, for example, where the threshold is a simple majority.
An illustration of the difficulties this requirement can pose is clearly seen in the efforts to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban-Treaty in the 1990s. Soon after signing this ambitious document, President Clinton urged the Senate to authorise the ratification of the treaty. After more than two years of struggle, it was decided that a resolution would be submitted to the Senate in 1999. At this point, opponents of the treaty rallied for a fast-track of the vote in order to deprive the executive of sufficient time to lobby uncommitted Senators. The subsequent vote resulted in a defeat.
Structural explanations as well as partisan politics may explain the non-ratification of the CTBT, but analysis would be severely limited by stopping at this point. It is important to consider not just how, but whyone might oppose an international treaty. An examination of the arguments of both academic and political opponents of international treaties highlights a fundamental discomfort with the ability of international institutions and their staff to constrain the freedom of action of the US. Even regarding treaties that would require little policy change, such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – which is modelled off domestic US legislation – the sovereignty argument gains considerable ground. One explanation for this relates to the American understanding of nationalism. It has been argued that American nationalism places remarkable emphasis on sovereignty, to the extent that any constraint on freedom of action coming from outside the domestic system – even one in the USA’s own interests – is considered undesirable. This pattern of behaviour suggests a worrying belief on the part of the US that it does not need to act in concert with the rest of the world in order to ensure its survival.
Non-membership of treaties puts the US in a vulnerable position – often it results in the US behaving in accordance with the treaties anyway, but being deprived of a “seat at the table”. Understanding the logic behind this pattern is the first step to changing it; however, it would appear the explanations are so deep-seated and inextricably linked with the national identity of the American people that they will be neither quickly nor easily resolved.
Further Reading
US Rejects UN Treaty on Disability Rights amid GOP Opposition. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/04/senate-rejects-un-treaty-disability
Why won’t the US Ratify the UN’s Child Rights Treaty. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/11/21/why-wont-the-u-s-ratify-the-u-n-s-child-rights-treaty/?utm_term=.2f22d9e28891
Why hasn’t the US signed the Law of the Sea Treaty. Voice of America. https://www.voanews.com/a/united-states-sign-law-sea-treaty/3364342.html
Treaties. United States Senate.https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm