follow-up for 'fast track' entry

火曜日のエントリに付けていただいたコメントへのfollow-upをば。（※ 注：かなりマニアックです）

まず、Komuさんからのコメントにあった「議会が大統領に委任するための具体的な手続き」ですが、Wikipediaによると、

It (= The Fast track negotiating authority) was in effect pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974 from 1975 to 1994 and was restored in 2002 by the Trade Act of 2002.

との由。通常の連邦法として措置されているようです。ちなみに、2002年法の条文はこちら。2002年法成立の際の両院投票結果は、同じくWikipediaによると、

At 3:30 am on July 27, 2002, the House passed the Trade Act of 2002 narrowly by a 215 to 212 vote with 190 Republicans and 27 Democrats making up the majority. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 64 to 34 on August 1, 2002.

だったそうです。特に言及されていませんでしたが、基本的に、これ自体は「普通の法律」ですので、「両院の単純多数決」&「Senateではfilibuster使用可」ということではないかと思われます。

気候変動交渉との絡みで検索してみたところ、こんなarticleが引っ掛かりました。(下線・強調はblog筆者。)

The (U.S.) President can sign a climate treaty, but he relies on two-thirds of the Senate vote to ratify for it to become law, and Congress must subsequently pass implementing legislation. But judging from expressions of opposition to recent legislative proposals, sufficient votes for ratification of a climate change agreement are not assured; the President may decide to wait until Congress passes a climate change bill before making an international commitment that requires Senate ratification.

Other options may be available for advancing the international climate change agenda with U.S. participation, even without Senate ratification. It has been proposed, for example, that a congressional-executive agreement could be used instead of a treaty. The President has frequently used this constitutional authority; since the early twentieth century, over ninety percent of international agreements have been done as executive agreements rather than as treaties. However, such a move would appear to contradict a statement in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report on ratification of the UNFCCC that “a decision by the Conference of the Parties to adopt targets and timetables would have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent before the United States could deposit its instruments of ratification for such an agreement.” Still, measures related to adaptation, technology transfer and finance might be handled this way.

（Cymie R. Payne (2009). State of Play: Changing Climate at Copenhagen. ASIL Insight, Volume 13, Issue 24, December 2009, The American Society of International Law） 

更に遡ってみたところ、こんな文章も。

The Committee (=the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) notes that a decision by the Conference of the Parties to adopt targets and timetables would have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent before the United States could deposit its instruments of ratification for such an agreement. The Committee notes further that a decision by the executive branch to reinterpret the Convention to apply legally binding targets and timetables for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to the United States would alter the "shared understanding" of the Convention between the Senate and the executive branch and would therefore require the Senate's advice and consent.

(David M. Ackerman (2001). Selected Legal Questions About the Kyoto Protocol. CRS Report for Congress, National Council for Science and the Environment)

つまり、本来的には、Trade Actと同様の‘fast track’手続法を通しさえすれば、気候変動分野の国際交渉にもCongressional-Executive Agreement方式を使えるはずなんですが、殊、“legally binding targets and timetables for reducing emission of greenhouse gases to the United States”(米国国内における温室効果ガス排出削減に関する法的拘束力のある目標及び工程表)に関しては、「‘fast track’は認めませんよ」と、UNFCCC（国連気候変動枠組み条約）批准の際に、上院から釘を刺されてしまっているようです。

（ちなみに、このnoteの中に出てくる“advice and consent”は、米国憲法Article II, Section 2, Clause 2（いわゆる“Treaty Clause”: “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....”）に出てくる表現そのまんまですので、「Treatyしか認めない（＝Congressional-Executive Agreementは認めない）」ということを意味しているんだと思われます。）

このnote自体は、法律でも判決でも何でもないわけなので、どれだけ尊重されるべきかは、議会における慣習と、そのときどきの政情情勢で決まってくるんじゃないかと思われるのですが、現下の政治情勢を考えるに、これを無視して「手続法」を上院で通すというのは、なかなか厳しいのではないかと。と考えると、Iさんのコメントの中にあった、「条約に依拠したExecutive Agreement」で押し切る選択肢は、なおのこと厳しいと言わざるを得ないのかも知れません。

Maxwell School, Syracuse, Feb 12, 14:12