[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febobo
I wonder what your sources for that view are Gort. Just think about it: if it would be like that, a newly independent state could so easily be isolated by neighbouring countries. This would lead immediately after the foundation to deep economic crisis and political instability, so no it is not like that.
|
I am not talking about isolating Quebec, merely indicating that NAFTA was concluded with the Canadian government not the government of the newly independant Quebec. Accordingly including Quebec into NAFTA would have to be agreed upon by Canada, the US, and Mexico. Furthermore I am not even sure the convention to which you refer is an issue here. To my knowledge neither Canada, the US or Mexico is a signatory to the Convention, and in fact it appears that most of Europe isn't either. Moreover it appears that the intention of this treaty is to deal with one state disolving such as the USSR or Yugoslavia, and what the obligations and right are of the state that succeed it. In the case of Quebec, Canada would not be disappearing, one part of it would be seperating to form an entirely new state. While the treaty does talk about two or more states combining into one new state it does not appear that this would meet that criteria.
http://www.walter.gehr.net/frame2bis.html
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febobo
In addition, the Canadian government concluded all international treaties and agreements for the entire Canadian state (including Quebec), the same goes for all national laws. According to your logic, also all national laws would immediately cede to be valid after the independance of Quebec, causing chaos and anarchy until the new Quebecois gvt votes all those thousands of laws that are coming from Canada, and according to your logic, lose any viability.
No of course not.
|
You are right the Canadian government did conclude NAFTA with the US and Mexico, and since Quebec was at the time part of Canada it was included. However as soon as they elect to leave this multi lateral treaty ceases to apply to Quebec, although it would still apply to Canada, the US, and Mexico. Quebec would have to apply for inclusion into NAFTA and that inclusion would have to be agreed to by the President and ratified by the Senate in order for it to apply to the US. If that ratification is not forthcomming then a new agreement would have to be drawn up with Quebec. I am really not sure this is even an issue though. Considering how Quebecers feel about the US I feel they are more likely to turn to France for their trade agreements than us.
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Febobo
|
As stated before to my knowledge neither the US, Canada, or Mexico are signatories to this treaty and accordingly if that is the case, if it is not please link to where we have signed, the convention does not apply here. While UNSC resolution do in fact apply without requiring additional approval from the President and the Senate, I do not believe this is a UNSC resolution. Simple UN conventions are considered treaties and as such are not binding on the US until the constitutional requirements pertaining to international treaties have been met. In this case I do not believe it has.
Febobo do not get me wrong, it isn't that I am opoosed to Quebecs independance. Frankly that is none of my business since I am not from there. However I am concerned about how that independance will afffect the US and that is my concern. If Quebec wants to be independant and the rest of Canada wants to let them pursue that path that is their concern. However treaties we have with Canada do not automatically apply to Quebec since we are not signatories to the convetion you refer to and even if we were I am not sure Quebecs independance meets the definition of successor state in the convention.