Third, the term “treaty” has a narrower meaning in U.S. law than in international law and refers to the agreements that the President sends to the Senate for consultation and approval of ratification in accordance with Article II of the Constitution. The vast majority of treaties, in the international sense, are adopted not as “treaties” of Article II, but as “executive agreements”, most often with the agreement of Congress, but in some cases by the president acting alone. Therefore, even if the Paris Agreement is an international treaty, it should not be adopted by the United States as a “treaty” in accordance with Article II of the Constitution. All iterations of the negotiating text contained final clauses that only made sense if the Paris Agreement were to be a treaty. In its adoption, the Paris Agreement contains provisions on how Member States express their consent to tender (through ratification, accession, adoption or approval), minimum entry requirements (acceptance by 55 states representing 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions), reserves, withdrawal and the custodian (the United Nations). Many different terms can be used to describe trade agreements between peoples. Under Article 1.1 of UN Article 1.1 on the registration and publication of international treaties and conventions, in accordance with Article 102 of the UN Charter, the nature of the international agreement is important, not the added descriptive name: IPPC is a treaty that prevents the introduction and spread of pests to plants and plant products and currently has 177 government beneficiaries. IPPC has developed plant health guidelines and serves as a reporting centre and source of information. Seven regional plant protection organizations have been established under the aegis of ipPC. For example, the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) consists of the United States, Canada and Mexico, which participate through APHIS, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and the Plant Health Directorate. The European and Mediterranean Organization for the Protection of Plants (EPPO) is an intergovernmental organisation that is also responsible, within the framework of the IPPC, for plant health cooperation between 50 countries in the European and Mediterranean region.
While the agreement has been welcomed by many, including French President Francois Hollande and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, criticism has also emerged. James Hansen, a former NASA scientist and climate change expert, expressed anger that most of the agreement is made up of “promises” or goals, not firm commitments.  He called the Paris talks a fraud with “nothing, only promises” and believed that only a generalized tax on CO2 emissions, which is not part of the Paris agreement, would force CO2 emissions down fast enough to avoid the worst effects of global warming.  There are also serious legal and constitutional issues. Foreign leaders in Europe, Asia and around the world should have no more to say about the U.S. economy than our own citizens and their elected representatives. That is why our withdrawal from the agreement is a reaffirmation of American sovereignty. (Applause) Our constitution is unique among all the nations of the world, and it is my supreme commitment and the greatest honor to protect them. And I will. The initial commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol was extended until 2012. This year, at COP18 in Doha, Qatar, delegates agreed to extend the agreement until 2020 (without some industrialized countries withdrawing).
They also reaffirmed their commitment made at COP17 in Durban, South Africa, in 2011, to create a new global climate treaty by 2015 that would require all major emitters not included in the Kyoto Protocol, such as China, India and the United States, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.