I’m not a lawyer. I’m certainly not knowledgable about international law. However, when 3 countries sign an agreement, when our legislators ratify it by whatever margin, that sounds like a contract or a promise. Our own courts have ruled against us.
As I said, this “ban” is so much paper and air. I sure wish a requirement that had a chance of standing in court, requiring inspection and the enforcement of standards had been passed.
It’s merely a law, not a treaty. The other countries may regard it as a treaty, but it is not one under our Constitution. It was never ratified as a treaty. We can withdraw whenever we wish. If Congress was serious about this, they’d do exactly that. This is a massive security liability both from a terrorism and crime perspective - not including all the Americans who will die on our highways. We - as a sovereign nation - don’t have to submit to that just because some arbitration panel ordered it - regardless of any agreements we signed in the past.
Forget “international law”. What does our Constitution say on the matter of treaties? That is the only law that matters.
“Our own courts have ruled against us.”
Not the first time that’s happened. In fact, it’s an issue of some novelty when our courts act within their legal powers and in the interest of the United States. Kind of like the rest of our government.
“As I said, this “ban” is so much paper and air”
No “tribunal” can force the Congress to fund something. To state otherwise would imply that an extra-national panel has been granted power to appropriate money from our public purse. The US Supreme Court can’t order that either. Not from a legal - as in the Constitution - standpoint.
The question is, are we a Constitutional Republic still or not?