[quote=Gort;863200]
Quote:
|
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.
|
You are right but in international law you conclude a treaty for the entire surface of your state, that means that the treaty also applies to territories that you do not govern anymore, if this territory wishes so. Again just think about it: if it would be otherwise, a newly independant state of Quebec would lose the work of over 200 years of Canadian diplomacy...
Quote:
|
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.
|
You are correct the Convention itself is not that important, nevertheless there is one part which can be considered as a part of universal international law which is the established practice that a multilateral treaty continues to be in force unless the newly independant state (and nobody else) wishes so. This is even in the source that you quoted.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The treaty is not only talking about two states forming one new, but also about "newly independent states" (Part III.) In Article 2, newly independent state is defined as "a successor state the territory of which immediately before the date of succession of states was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor state was responsible." Well, this is kind of complicated legal English but as I interprete it, this would be kind of the case of Quebec.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I think I already answered this, international treatys are concluded between governments on behalf of their territories (not states and not populations). As for the feelings of Quebec towards the US you might be right. An orientation of Quebec towards the EU might be an alternative, yet, this is absolutely no issue whatsoever right now.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Treaties and UN SC resolutions are not the only sources of international law. We also have to include among other universal international law. Although this is a small part (and in practice often unimportant admittedly). Nevertheless Art.16 can be considered as such a part (see also your web link) since this is the general rule which is applied in almost all cases of state succession. Nevertheless in such an event, it might depend on the policy of the US how all this is regarded, e.g. Art.16 does not apply to the membership to International Organizations. As for your example of NAFTA it would be interesting to see if this association qualifies as an International Organization which I doubt.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I understand your point. Also for Quebec is far away and it is not all to urgent for our matters over here. My main interest in all that was a legal point of view. How that might work.