FWIW a tariff does not require the signature of another country. Congress alone has the power to institute tariffs as they are revenue bills. The country from which we get our tariffs obviously is not going to sign off on that.
Any agreement between two countries that is binding on both is a treaty. The president is charged with negotiating treaties. They are not valid unless 2/3 of the Senate approves.
Every “trade agreement” we have entered into has been referred to by the other countries that are parties to it as a “treaty.”
TPP is a called a “trade agreement” here, but for every other country involved it is referred to as a treaty.
International law recognizes that all trade agreements between two or more nations are “treaties.” This has been true since long before the United States was formed.
Right.
It is just to note that a tariff act may involve more than tariffs. And US courts admit that “agreements” are the equivalent of treaties when it comes to nullifying state laws or perhaps even other federal laws. Thus there are clauses in this recent fast track authority that supposedly prevent altering laws. However, I don’t see any hope of reining in the courts ability to do the law altering or nullifying based on seeing an agreement equivalent to a treaty.
Yikes!