Editing Treaty (section)

==Treaties under domestic national law==
{{Main|Monism and dualism in international law}}

===Australia===
{{see also|List of Australian treaties|Law of Australia#International law}}
The [[constitution of Australia]] allows the [[Government of Australia|executive government]] to enter into treaties, but the practice is for treaties to be tabled in [[Parliament of Australia|both houses of parliament]] at least 15 days before signing. Treaties are considered a source of [[Australian law]] but sometimes require an act of parliament to be passed depending on their nature.  Treaties are administered and maintained by the [[Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia)|Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade]], which advised that the "general position under Australian law is that treaties which Australia has joined, apart from those terminating a state of war, are not directly and automatically incorporated into Australian law. Signature and ratification do not, of themselves, make treaties operate domestically. In the absence of legislation, treaties cannot impose obligations on individuals nor create rights in domestic law. Nevertheless, international law, including treaty law, is a legitimate and important influence on the development of the common law and may be used in the interpretation of statutes."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/treaties/treaty-making-process/pages/treaty-making-process.aspx|title=Treaty making process|website=Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade|access-date=7 April 2017|archive-date=18 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170918160503/http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/treaties/treaty-making-process/pages/treaty-making-process.aspx|url-status=live}}</ref> Treaties can be implemented by executive action, and often, existing laws are sufficient to ensure a treaty is honored.

Australian treaties generally fall under the following categories: extradition, postal agreements and money orders, trade and international conventions.

===Brazil===
The federal [[constitution of Brazil]] states that the power to enter into treaties is vested in the [[president of Brazil]] and that such treaties must be approved by the [[Congress of Brazil]] (Articles 84, Clause VIII, and 49, Clause I). In practice, that has been interpreted as meaning that the executive branch is free to negotiate and sign a treaty but that its ratification by the president requires the prior approval of Congress. Additionally, the [[Supreme Federal Court]] has ruled that after ratification and entry into force, a treaty must be incorporated into domestic law by means of a presidential decree published in the federal register for it to be valid in Brazil and applicable by the Brazilian authorities.

The court has established that treaties are subject to [[judicial review|constitutional review]] and enjoy the same hierarchical position as ordinary legislation (''leis ordinárias'', or "ordinary laws", in Portuguese). A more recent ruling by the [[Supreme Court of Brazil]] in 2008 has altered that somewhat by stating that treaties containing human rights provisions enjoy a status above that of ordinary legislation, subject to only the constitution itself. Additionally, the 45th Amendment to the constitution makes human rights treaties approved by Congress by a special procedure enjoy the same hierarchical position as a [[constitutional amendment]]. The hierarchical position of treaties in relation to domestic legislation is of relevance to the discussion on whether and how the latter can abrogate the former and vice versa.

The constitution does not have an equivalent to the [[supremacy clause]] in [[US constitution|United States Constitution]], which is of interest to the discussion on the relation between treaties and legislation of the [[states of Brazil]].

===India===
In [[India]], subjects are divided into three lists: union, state and concurrent. In the normal legislation process, the subjects on the union list must be legislated by the [[Parliament of India]]. For subjects on the state list, only the respective state legislature can legislate. For subjects on the concurrent list, both governments can make laws. However, to implement international treaties, Parliament can legislate on any subject and even override the general division of subject lists.

===United States===
{{main|Treaty Clause}}
In the United States, the term "treaty" has a distinct and more restricted legal definition than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes between "treaties", as [[Treaty Clause|defined in the U.S. Constitution]], and "[[executive agreements]]", which are either "congressional-executive agreements" or "sole executive agreements"; although all three classes are equally treaties under international law, they are subject to different political and legal requirements and implications in the U.S.<ref>[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/pdf/CPRT-106SPRT66922.pdf Treaties and Other International Agreements: the Role of the United States Senate] Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress (January 2001), '''p. 5-6.'''</ref>

The distinctions primarily concern the method of approval: Treaties require the "[[Article Two of the United States Constitution|advice and consent"]] by two-thirds of the Senators present, whereas sole executive agreements are executed by the President acting alone and congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate.<ref>Treaties and Other International Agreements: the Role of the United States Senate Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress (January 2001), '''p. 4-6.'''

''Under international law, a ''treaty'' is any legally binding agreement between nations. In the United States, the word treaty is reserved for an agreement that is made ''by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate'' (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution). International agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as ''executive agreements'' in the United States, but they are considered treaties and therefore binding under international law. For various reasons, Presidents have increasingly concluded executive agreements. Many agreements are previously authorized or specifically approved by legislation, and such ''congressional executive'' or statutory agreements have been treated almost interchangeably with treaties in several important court cases. Others, often referred to as ''sole executive agreements,'' are made pursuant to inherent powers claimed by the President under Article II of the Constitution. Neither the Senate nor the Congress as a whole is involved in concluding sole executive agreements, and their status in domestic law is not fully resolved.''</ref> The three classifications are not mutually exclusive: A treaty may require a simple majority in Congress before or after it is signed by the President or may grant the President authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols.

Currently, international agreements are ten times more likely to be executed by executive agreement, due to their relative ease. Nevertheless, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement to gain congressional support on matters that require Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds as well as for agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S. For example, the [[Iran deal|agreement by the United States, Iran, and other countries]] is not a treaty under U.S. law,<ref>"[https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/65728.pdf International documents of a non-legally binding character]" (PDF). [[United States Department of State|U.S. State Department]].</ref> but rather a "political commitment" that does not bind the parties by law.<ref>"[http://opiniojuris.org/2015/03/11/dealing-with-iran-a-primer-on-the-presidents-options-for-a-nuclear-agreement/ Dealing with Iran: A Primer on the President's Options for a Nuclear Agreement]". ''Opinio Juris''. 11 March 2015.</ref>

The nuances and ambiguity of how international agreements are effectuated or implemented in U.S. law has been subject to multiple legal cases. The [[US Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled in the ''[[Head Money Cases]]'' (1884) that "treaties" do not have a privileged position over [[Act of Congress|acts of Congress]] and can be repealed or modified by legislative action just like any other regular law. In a similar vein, the court's decision in ''[[Reid v. Covert]]'' (1957) held that treaty provisions that conflict with the U.S. Constitution are null and void under U.S. law.<ref>Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 18 (1957) ("This Court has . . . repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.").</ref> However, the U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized the "supremacy" of treaties in the U.S. Constitution, such as in ''[[Ware v. Hylton]]'' (1796) and ''[[Missouri v. Holland]]'' (1920).

The relative ease by which certain international agreements could be entered into by the President has often prompted congressional pushback, most notably in the proposed [[Bricker Amendment#Legal background|Bricker Amendment]] to the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly sought to reign in executive treatymaking powers.