But the word “treaty” has a specific meaning that often isn’t what people mean.
It doesn’t really have a specific meaning. It has multiple specific meanings. In US constitution it means an agreement with two-thirds approval of the Senate. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 2(1)(a) defines a treaty as:
“an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.”
Among international agreements, in US law you have a treaty (executive + 2⁄3 of the Senate), congressional–executive agreements (executive + 1⁄2 of the Congress + 1⁄2 of the Senate) and sole executive agreements (just the executive).
Both treaties (according to the US constitution) and congressional–executive agreements can be supreme law of the land and thus do things that a sole executive agreements which does not create law. From the perspective of other countries both treaties (according to the US constitution) and congressional–executive agreements are treaties.
If you would try to do an AI ban via a sole executive agreement, companies would likely sue and argue that the US president does not have the power to do that and the current US Supreme Court would likely declare the AI ban ineffectual.
When passing serious agreements like NAFTA where there’s a lot of opposition to parts of the agreement turned out to be easier to gather simply majorities + 60 Senate votes to move past the filibuster than 67 Senate votes, they are passed as congressional–executive agreements. If getting votes for the AI treaty is hard, it’s likely that it would also be passed as a congressional–executive agreements. If you do lobbying you probably should know the term congressional–executive agreements and be able to say it when a national security expert asks you what you want.
Using “international agreement” in the MIRI writing has the problem that it suggests a sole executive agreement would do the job when it wouldn’t.
It doesn’t really have a specific meaning. It has multiple specific meanings. In US constitution it means an agreement with two-thirds approval of the Senate. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 2(1)(a) defines a treaty as:
Among international agreements, in US law you have a treaty (executive + 2⁄3 of the Senate), congressional–executive agreements (executive + 1⁄2 of the Congress + 1⁄2 of the Senate) and sole executive agreements (just the executive).
Both treaties (according to the US constitution) and congressional–executive agreements can be supreme law of the land and thus do things that a sole executive agreements which does not create law. From the perspective of other countries both treaties (according to the US constitution) and congressional–executive agreements are treaties.
If you would try to do an AI ban via a sole executive agreement, companies would likely sue and argue that the US president does not have the power to do that and the current US Supreme Court would likely declare the AI ban ineffectual.
When passing serious agreements like NAFTA where there’s a lot of opposition to parts of the agreement turned out to be easier to gather simply majorities + 60 Senate votes to move past the filibuster than 67 Senate votes, they are passed as congressional–executive agreements. If getting votes for the AI treaty is hard, it’s likely that it would also be passed as a congressional–executive agreements. If you do lobbying you probably should know the term congressional–executive agreements and be able to say it when a national security expert asks you what you want.
Using “international agreement” in the MIRI writing has the problem that it suggests a sole executive agreement would do the job when it wouldn’t.
Strong upvoted to signal boost, but again note I don’t know what I’m talking about.