President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change raises a series of legal, procedural and policy questions that have yet to be decisively answered, said the Congressional Research Service last week.
Among those questions: Will the US follow the prescribed multi-year procedure for withdrawal? Or can the US withdraw immediately? What role if any will the US play in future climate change deliberations under the Paris Agreement? What are the prospects for a legal challenge to the US withdrawal?
See President Trump’s Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement Raises Legal Questions, CRS Legal Sidebar, June 9, 2017.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
FY2018 Defense Budget Request: The Basics, June 9, 2017
Qatar: Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy, updated June 9, 2017
Israel and the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, updated June 9, 2017
U.S. Foreign Aid to the Middle East and North Africa: The President’s FY2018 Request, CRS Insight, June 8, 2017
Malawi: Key Developments and U.S. Relations, June 2, 2017
U.S. Strategy for Engagement in Central America: Policy Issues for Congress, June 8, 2017
European Security and Islamist Terrorism, CRS Insight, updated June 8, 2017
Juneteenth: Fact Sheet, June 9, 2017
Air Force B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber, updated June 7, 2017
Special Counsels, Independent Counsels, and Special Prosecutors: Options for Independent Executive Investigations, June 1, 2017
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.
FAS is launching the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI) to build a new, transpartisan vision of government that works – that has the capacity to achieve ambitious goals while adeptly responding to people’s basic needs.