Introduction
A treaty refers to an official, written understanding between two or more countries concerning an economic, security, political or development issue among other particular concerns by states party to the convention. A treaty comes into force after approval by the legislator of respective states. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is a bilateral convention between the United States and Russia that sets to limit the nuclear arsenal know-hows of both countries at the same time allowing for inspection ( Woolf, 2012). The first agreement was signed in 1991 and came into effect in 1994. It barred the two nations from deploying more than 6000 missiles. It expired in 2009 hence a new treaty named START 1 was signed in 2010, and it became operational in February 2011. The essay will discuss what is likely to happen in the event the US decided to terminate the agreement, by looking at the procedure as well as legal implications ( Helfer, 2012).
Reasons for Withdrawal
The US needs to withdraw from the treaty with USSR due to many reasons. First, contrary to their agreement to reduce their nuclear production by both countries, Russia has continued to produce more strategic offensive arms. For example, a report in January 2016 stated that the Russian supplies of weapons have increased by 87 %. Still, the level of commitment by Russia is questionable as the country is known to violate its agreements for instance in the case of the INF treaty and conventional forces in Europe (CFE) treaty which it refused to comply with ( Helfer, 2012).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
To this effect, the US Congress voted for the suspension of funding the New START treaty hence it is not operational. On the same note, there have been bad relations between the US and Russia since the rise of the incumbent President, Vladimir Putin. Recently, the president withdrew from a milestone nuclear security deal to disposes of plutonium which can be used to make about 17000 weapons. That was a sign that the two countries have not yet improved and their cooperation in different nuclear areas could be threatened.
Reasons against withdrawal
Although America and Russia have always not agreed on several issues, the treaty is a chance to encourage peace between the two countries and end the cold war which has engulfed them. Additionally, the number of weapons likely to lead to mass destruction has significantly decreased hence making the efforts to make the world nuclear free worthy.
The deal has so far helped maintain balance in the production of nuclear weapons between the two countries such as missiles as opposed to earlier where they were always competing. Similarly, the move has helped Moscow to deal more on other global issues ( Woolf, 2012). For instance, it has led to submission by Middle East countries such as Iran to decrease their nuclear activities with the fear that if the US and USSR join forces, they can completely destroy them in the case of war. As a result, Iran has complied with the United Nations bid to stop its nuclear program.
Procedure for withdrawal.
Treaties are not virtually forever binding to the signatory states. Because the international laws develop due to consensus by the participatory states, then the states allow for withdrawal as long as the procedures for doing so are followed. The likelihood of pulling out of a treaty depends on the terms of the agreement and its travaux preparatory.
In case the US decides to withdraw from the New START treaty, it needs to follow a defined set of standards. Since the agreement is bilateral, i.e. consensus between two countries, then the withdrawal by the US will lead to the automatic termination of the agreement ( Helfer, 2012). The first step will be to notify their Russian counterparts by writing a resignation letter three months prior their exit. The process is according to the rules of the treaty. The notice is required to explain the events related to the deal that might jeopardize the interests of America.
The second step involves Russia replying to the US in reacting to their request. Since the whole process will require three months, it will enable the two countries to sort all their legal papers and other issues and then finally sign a termination contract which will allow them to be free from each other. Lastly, representatives of the treaty will be required to go back to their respective countries signifying the end of the agreement.
Critique of Termination Clause
Each treaty has a termination clause. Before considering and the eventual exit from a treaty, each member state has to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of staying put. The new START treaty’s termination provision allows for exit “…only on a particular occasion, identified by either time period or upon the occurance of a particular event.” ( Helfer, 2012). The clause is not that realistic because it allows either party to consider breaking the deal due to insignificant matters. It does not suggest for talks which can change the participants’ stand hence not appropriate, especially when it involves nations which don’t enjoy close and cordial relations.
The clause implies that states only enter into treaties with other countries with the aim of benefiting directly or indirectly from the treaty. Thus, once they get what they want, then they can leave under the pretext that the events of the other participants are a threat to their interests.Therefore, such termination clauses need to be amended to ensure that a country’s reason for terminating international agreements is of reasonable magnitude to warrant an exit.
Legal Effects of Withdrawal
The VCLT has set universal principles concerning the legal consequences of ceasing to be part of a convention. According to article 70, termination of a treaty under its provisions releases the parties from any obligation to engage in matters which were supposed to be performed under the agreement ( Helfer, 2012). For instance, once the START termination process is successful, the US will not be obligated to decrease its nuclear activities. Likewise, it will not be supposed to regulate the nuclear activities of Russia. However, the US will be required by international law to engage in activities aimed at reducing nuclear weaponry.
Similarly, the termination will not affect the organizations or legal situations created by the treaty. Rather, the two nations will be required to carry out the activities of the institutions in regards to their ideologies. For instance, agencies developed by the US in efforts to control their nuclear production will not be shut down, but rather will need to carry out the activities only in the US jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The New START Treaty is aimed at limiting the availability of nuclear arms in USSR and USA, a move which will eventually persuade other countries with the much nuclear power to limit their production. Even so, the treaty has its advantages and disadvantages which may lead for or to be in favor or against the dissolution of the agreement. If the US decides to terminate the deal, it will have to follow the international guidelines for such a process by its terms of the agreement. It is important to also note that withdrawal from the treaty comes with a number of international and national legal consequences.
References
Helfer, L. R. (2012). Terminating Treaties. In Hollis, D (Ed.), The Oxford Guide to Treaties ( 634-649 ). Oxford University Press.
Woolf, A. F. (2012). The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions. Russia, China and Eurasia , 28 (5/6), 623.
