USA’s international trade agreements.

[I'm Supposn]

USA’s international trade agreements.

The USA has international trade agreements but I do not believe we have any trade Treaties. USA Treaties are ratified by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate and thus have an extremely high legal status. Only a Constitutional Amendment can repeal a USA treaty but the federal courts can deem a treaty to be unconstitutional.

I’m given to believe that all of USA’s agreements that are lesser than treaties are executive-congressional agreements or executive orders that are all subject to unilateral modification and/or termination.
The U.S. Constitution grants the executive administration with extraordinary jurisdiction over international affairs. There has been at least one instance of a president unilaterally terminating an international agreement without consulting the U.S. Congress.

In one such instance Senator Goldwater of Arizona tried to challenge the president in federal court. The Supreme Court refused to hear his case; (I would suppose the court’s refusal was without any comment or explanation or they could have taken the position that a single senator does not have legal status to challenge the president’s action).

Federal courts are (for good reasons) highly reluctant to hear cases that they consider to be more political rather than legal matters. I won’t speculate as to what the federal courts would do if the U.S. Senate or both houses of the U.S. Congress should ever mount a legal opposition to such a presidential action.

Diplomats are or should be realists aware that it’s not unusual for defecation to occur. I’d be surprised if drafting of any executive-congressional agreements or executive agreements did not include some provisions for the agreements’ terminations or modifications.

I’m a proponent of a specific “Import Certificate” policy for USA’s global trade. Goggle to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article
or refer to
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/253134-import-certificates.html

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[SocialD]

USA’s international trade agreements.

The USA has international trade agreements but I do not believe we have any trade Treaties. USA Treaties are ratified by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate and thus have an extremely high legal status. Only a Constitutional Amendment can repeal a USA treaty but the federal courts can deem a treaty to be unconstitutional.

I’m given to believe that all of USA’s agreements that are lesser than treaties are executive-congressional agreements or executive orders that are all subject to unilateral modification and/or termination.
The U.S. Constitution grants the executive administration with extraordinary jurisdiction over international affairs. There has been at least one instance of a president unilaterally terminating an international agreement without consulting the U.S. Congress.

In one such instance Senator Goldwater of Arizona tried to challenge the president in federal court. The Supreme Court refused to hear his case; (I would suppose the court’s refusal was without any comment or explanation or they could have taken the position that a single senator does not have legal status to challenge the president’s action).

Federal courts are (for good reasons) highly reluctant to hear cases that they consider to be more political rather than legal matters. I won’t speculate as to what the federal courts would do if the U.S. Senate or both houses of the U.S. Congress should ever mount a legal opposition to such a presidential action.

Diplomats are or should be realists aware that it’s not unusual for defecation to occur. I’d be surprised if drafting of any executive-congressional agreements or executive agreements did not include some provisions for the agreements’ terminations or modifications.

I’m a proponent of a specific “Import Certificate” policy for USA’s global trade. Goggle to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article
or refer to
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/253134-import-certificates.html

Respectfully, Supposn

Looking at for instance NAFTA. That was done through normal law and went to the house then the senate. that's not the process for a treaty. So I don't know what it is. However the Senate did pass it with 68% voting for it technically it would meet the requirement of 2/3 of the senate.
Similarly CAFTA was done the same way but was less popular so barely passed.
Internationally both of these are treaties but under the US Constitution they are not they are I guess what is referred to as a Congressional-Executive Agreement. which is pretty much BS for dodged the rules.
Now GATT is an actual treaty.

 

[I'm Supposn]

Looking at for instance NAFTA. That was done through normal law and went to the house then the senate. that's not the process for a treaty. So I don't know what it is. However the Senate did pass it with 68% voting for it technically it would meet the requirement of 2/3 of the senate.
Similarly CAFTA was done the same way but was less popular so barely passed.
Internationally both of these are treaties but under the US Constitution they are not they are I guess what is referred to as a Congressional-Executive Agreement. which is pretty much BS for dodged the rules.
Now GATT is an actual treaty.

SocialD, what information do you have regarding AATT now being a treaty? It appears that GATT is not a treaty if (regardless of the U.S. Senate’s plurality.
I do not believe the U.S. Senate designate it as a treaty. I also note that GATT was voted upon in both houses of the U.S. Congress. Only the U.S. Senate with a 2/3 vote ratifies treaties.

It’s interesting that from what I’ve read thus far about the GATT, there’s nothing within that agreement that incompatible with the Import Certificate proposal as described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.

I’m certainly not opposed to the concept of “most favored nation” (which is discussed within this referred link). The concept is for participating nations’ agreeing to treat all foreign nation’s global traders and their products with equal consideration. The Import Certificate proposal certainly does precisely that.
I am not opposed to treating a “pact” of nations such as the EU at a single participants that grants their member nations with more favorable considerations; providing ALL of their member nations grant the USA no less favorable considerations than are granted to any other non-member nation.
I consider such nation’s within the EU as similar to USA’s states prohibited from restricting commerce across their borders without specific expressed agreement from our federal government but Import Certificates will still be required for any goods entering the USA. (For an example of such federal authorization, refer to
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm ).

Respectfully, Supposn

///////////////////////////////////////////////
Excerpted from
ttp://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Treaties-Post-world-war-ii-collective-trade-agreements.html

… The trade rules in the GATT were part of the International Trade Organization (ITO) agreed to in the Havana charter in 1948. Interestingly, because the rules governing world trade set out in the GATT were so ambiguous, flexible, and loosely framed, Congress refused to ratify U.S. membership in the International Trade Organization. So the United States joined through an executive agreement, using power given to the president under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. Congress has never recognized the GATT, but in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it extended the power given to the president in the 1934 act to negotiate tariff-cutting agreements. …
… The GATT was founded on the principles of nondiscrimination and multilateralism in international trade. Nondiscrimination was expressed through unconditional most-favored-nation status for all contracting parties. By this convention, if tariffs on imports from one country were lowered, the tariff on all imports of the same goods from other GATT members must also be reduced. Most-favored-nation treaties had been the preferred device for the United States in dealing with China in the nineteenth century, when the United States gained access to the China market on the back of British imperialism. Indeed, most-favored-nation treaties were favored throughout U.S. history, and the GATT was just the latest embodiment of this mechanism of extending commercial opportunities. Multilateralism in the 1950s and 1960s favored the expansion of U.S. corporations across the globe, but by the 1970s and 1980s free trade meant that the United States faced stiff competition from the revitalized economies of Western Europe and Japan. …

Read more: Post?world war ii collective trade agreements - Treaties

 

[joG]

USA’s international trade agreements.

The USA has international trade agreements but I do not believe we have any trade Treaties. USA Treaties are ratified by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate and thus have an extremely high legal status. Only a Constitutional Amendment can repeal a USA treaty but the federal courts can deem a treaty to be unconstitutional.

I’m given to believe that all of USA’s agreements that are lesser than treaties are executive-congressional agreements or executive orders that are all subject to unilateral modification and/or termination.
The U.S. Constitution grants the executive administration with extraordinary jurisdiction over international affairs. There has been at least one instance of a president unilaterally terminating an international agreement without consulting the U.S. Congress.

In one such instance Senator Goldwater of Arizona tried to challenge the president in federal court. The Supreme Court refused to hear his case; (I would suppose the court’s refusal was without any comment or explanation or they could have taken the position that a single senator does not have legal status to challenge the president’s action).

Federal courts are (for good reasons) highly reluctant to hear cases that they consider to be more political rather than legal matters. I won’t speculate as to what the federal courts would do if the U.S. Senate or both houses of the U.S. Congress should ever mount a legal opposition to such a presidential action.

Diplomats are or should be realists aware that it’s not unusual for defecation to occur. I’d be surprised if drafting of any executive-congressional agreements or executive agreements did not include some provisions for the agreements’ terminations or modifications.

I’m a proponent of a specific “Import Certificate” policy for USA’s global trade. Goggle to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article
or refer to
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/253134-import-certificates.html

Respectfully, Supposn

Interesting Question.

PS: I am not at all sure I like the certificate system. It is not necessarily a bad mechanism. I do suspect that it would reduce efficiency of allocation. If we installed such an instrument it would certainly work best with an exchange that permitted an efficient search and find mechanism for trading the import/export certificates. In a way, it would duplicate the foreign exchange technology and it is not clear, that it would work better, while adding an additional layer of operations and cost.

 

[I'm Supposn]

Interesting Question.

PS: I am not at all sure I like the certificate system. It is not necessarily a bad mechanism. I do suspect that it would reduce efficiency of allocation. If we installed such an instrument it would certainly work best with an exchange that permitted an efficient search and find mechanism for trading the import/export certificates. In a way, it would duplicate the foreign exchange technology and it is not clear, that it would work better, while adding an additional layer of operations and cost.

JoG I’m responded to your post within the thread
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/253134-import-certificates.html .

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Lafayette]

I would suppose the court’s refusal was without any comment or explanation or they could have taken the position that a single senator does not have legal status to challenge the president’s action)

There are three separate but equal instances of governance in the US: the Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial.

They are ALL equally independent:
*Which is why a PotUS cannot sign a law not voted affirmatively by the two chambers of Congress.
*Which is why a PotUS can veto any law or parts thereof.
*Which is why, if they decide to not accept a case, the judges of the Supreme Court will never hear the case. Of if they do, they can abridge the law according to their interpretation of the Constitution.

All three instances have been known to be arbitrary because they consist of human-beings.

We humans, though very-intelligent, are often highly arbitrary animals - especially when it comes to our governance ...

NB: Remember, the "government" (per se) is only the Executive branch.
______________________

 

[SocialD]

SocialD, what information do you have regarding AATT now being a treaty? It appears that GATT is not a treaty if (regardless of the U.S. Senate’s plurality.
I do not believe the U.S. Senate designate it as a treaty. I also note that GATT was voted upon in both houses of the U.S. Congress. Only the U.S. Senate with a 2/3 vote ratifies treaties.

It’s interesting that from what I’ve read thus far about the GATT, there’s nothing within that agreement that incompatible with the Import Certificate proposal as described within Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article.

I’m certainly not opposed to the concept of “most favored nation” (which is discussed within this referred link). The concept is for participating nations’ agreeing to treat all foreign nation’s global traders and their products with equal consideration. The Import Certificate proposal certainly does precisely that.
I am not opposed to treating a “pact” of nations such as the EU at a single participants that grants their member nations with more favorable considerations; providing ALL of their member nations grant the USA no less favorable considerations than are granted to any other non-member nation.
I consider such nation’s within the EU as similar to USA’s states prohibited from restricting commerce across their borders without specific expressed agreement from our federal government but Import Certificates will still be required for any goods entering the USA. (For an example of such federal authorization, refer to
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm ).

Respectfully, Supposn

///////////////////////////////////////////////
Excerpted from
ttp://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Treaties-Post-world-war-ii-collective-trade-agreements.html

… The trade rules in the GATT were part of the International Trade Organization (ITO) agreed to in the Havana charter in 1948. Interestingly, because the rules governing world trade set out in the GATT were so ambiguous, flexible, and loosely framed, Congress refused to ratify U.S. membership in the International Trade Organization. So the United States joined through an executive agreement, using power given to the president under the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934. Congress has never recognized the GATT, but in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it extended the power given to the president in the 1934 act to negotiate tariff-cutting agreements. …
… The GATT was founded on the principles of nondiscrimination and multilateralism in international trade. Nondiscrimination was expressed through unconditional most-favored-nation status for all contracting parties. By this convention, if tariffs on imports from one country were lowered, the tariff on all imports of the same goods from other GATT members must also be reduced. Most-favored-nation treaties had been the preferred device for the United States in dealing with China in the nineteenth century, when the United States gained access to the China market on the back of British imperialism. Indeed, most-favored-nation treaties were favored throughout U.S. history, and the GATT was just the latest embodiment of this mechanism of extending commercial opportunities. Multilateralism in the 1950s and 1960s favored the expansion of U.S. corporations across the globe, but by the 1970s and 1980s free trade meant that the United States faced stiff competition from the revitalized economies of Western Europe and Japan. …

Read more: Post?world war ii collective trade agreements - Treaties

The problem with all of these is the Reciprocal Tariff Act or Reciprocal Trade Act of 1934 was passed under then Roosevelt authorizing the President to ' To enter into foreign trade agreements with foreign governments or instrumentalities thereof'
GATT was seen an under this and therefore didn't require Senate approval and I would guess laws since could be construed as the same.

Personally I think we need to go back to the beginning and redo it all of our trade agreements and core trade law.

 

[I'm Supposn]

The problem with all of these is the Reciprocal Tariff Act or Reciprocal Trade Act of 1934 was passed under then Roosevelt authorizing the President to ' To enter into foreign trade agreements with foreign governments or instrumentalities thereof'
GATT was seen an under this and therefore didn't require Senate approval and I would guess laws since could be construed as the same.

Personally I think we need to go back to the beginning and redo it all of our trade agreements and core trade law.

SocialD, there are many good purposes for international agreements and even for treaties. For example we entered into an agreed transaction to purchase Alaska.

I’m certainly not opposed to agreements that would generally establish standards that generally enable mutual understanding and agreement of individual transactions. But I’m generally opposed to federal international agreements with economic purposes. Within the framework of the U.S. Constitution and our legal statutes and regulations, agreements of individual transactions should be left to individual entrepreneurs and enterprises.

I’m unaware of any federal trade agreement for economic purposes that have been primarily of net economic benefit to our nation but I’m aware of some agreements that have been to our economic detriment.
I’m certainly not opposed to the concept of “most favored nation” of participating nations agreeing to treat all foreign nations’ global traders and their products with equal consideration. The Import Certificate proposal certainly does precisely that.

I’m a proponent of a specific “Import Certificate” policy for USA’s global trade. Goggle to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article
or refer to
http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/253134-import-certificates.html

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[SocialD]

I’m unaware of any federal trade agreement for economic purposes that have been primarily of net economic benefit to our nation but I’m aware of some agreements that have been to our economic detriment.

And that pretty much tells the tale. we have a trade deficit just about every country we trade with. so yes I am unaware of any either and that's why I think we do to redo our trade agreements as we are getting shafted across the board pretty much.
But definitely need to start with China since that's where there is the greatest deficit.

 

[I'm Supposn]

And that pretty much tells the tale. we have a trade deficit just about every country we trade with. so yes I am unaware of any either and that's why I think we do to redo our trade agreements as we are getting shafted across the board pretty much.
But definitely need to start with China since that's where there is the greatest deficit.

SocialD, the Import Certificate concept is a unilateral trade policy. If by redoing our trade agreements you mean international renegotiating USA’s foreign trade policy, I’m opposed to that.
The USA and all sovereign nations should determine what may or may not pass and under what conditions they may pass through their national borders. There’s no need or good reason to officially discuss our trade policies with other nations. It should be considered as domestic affairs rather than negotiable subjects between nations.

I’m a proponent of the “most favored nation” concept. Participating nations agreeing to treat all foreign nations’ global traders and their products with equal consideration. (The Import Certificate proposal certainly does precisely that).
If any nation does not wish to agree and/or comply with that, they will have to deal with the consequences of their own acts and decisions.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[SocialD]

SocialD, the Import Certificate concept is a unilateral trade policy. If by redoing our trade agreements you mean international renegotiating USA’s foreign trade policy, I’m opposed to that.
The USA and all sovereign nations should determine what may or may not pass and under what conditions they may pass through their national borders. There’s no need or good reason to officially discuss our trade policies with other nations. It should be considered as domestic affairs rather than negotiable subjects between nations.

I’m a proponent of the “most favored nation” concept. Participating nations agreeing to treat all foreign nations’ global traders and their products with equal consideration. (The Import Certificate proposal certainly does precisely that).
If any nation does not wish to agree and/or comply with that, they will have to deal with the consequences of their own acts and decisions.

Respectfully, Supposn

Without getting to lengthy what I mean is... policy needs to be set for a few reasons and angles.
one is us companies manufacturing overseas so they can take advantage of less pollution regulations, lack of enforced labor and child labor policies, and all kinds of other malfeasance.
they then ship the goods to the us to sell.
also you have the foreign companies doing the same of course.
Then you have foreign goverments. we agree to free trade ( no tariff policies with them ) then they end up charging tariffs on our exports while we do not to theirs.. yes it happens.
Also you have the currency manipulation as an extra issue.

I don't see that import certificates resolve all of those issues. but I don't know about them extensively

 

[I'm Supposn]

Without getting to lengthy what I mean is... policy needs to be set for a few reasons and angles.
one is us companies manufacturing overseas so they can take advantage of less pollution regulations, lack of enforced labor and child labor policies, and all kinds of other malfeasance.
they then ship the goods to the us to sell.
also you have the foreign companies doing the same of course.
Then you have foreign goverments. we agree to free trade ( no tariff policies with them ) then they end up charging tariffs on our exports while we do not to theirs.. yes it happens.
Also you have the currency manipulation as an extra issue.

I don't see that import certificates resolve all of those issues. but I don't know about them extensively

SocialD, you should look at Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article. The 752-word article has sub-topic headings; you can read as much or as little of it that you find of any interest.

Under an Import Certificate policy if price differences between a domestic or foreign produced product is too great, the product will be imported unless the USA consumers choose to do without that particular product. Because the Import certificate policy is more market rather than government determined, USA consumers individually due to their own determinations of what’s to their own comparative advantages may decide to pay the increased price or the may decide to do without some imported products.

The Import Certificate policy will increase USA’s production, (i.e. GDP) and consequentially increase our numbers of jobs and their purchasing powers but it is likely to change what we decide to purchase. It is much more a market rather than a government driven policy.

The Import Certificate concept is not altruistic. It depends upon changing our trade policy so that enterprises and individuals acting in what they believe to be in their own individual best interests are also acting in for the best interests of our nations economic and social benefit.
Because it’s not an altruistic policy, it does not offer solutions to some of the issues you have raised within the transcript of your post that I’m responding to.

[We can attempt to remedy those problems by means other than Import Certificates, but beware of consequences due to our attempting to judge and intervene how other nations conduct their domestic affairs or of international agreements that permit others to judge and intervene within our domestic affairs. There are good reasons for nation’s to respect each other’s sovereignty].

We can make choices between expensive pollution domestic pollution control and accepting that those nations will pollute their own lands and waters while producing and exporting those products to us. There’s a problem when foreign environments affect our entire global environment.
Import certificates will not remedy or further degradation of our planet. The same can be said regarding the topic of slave labor, child labor, inadequate compensation of labor or unfit working conditions. We will have to look elsewhere for solutions to all such problems.

It is for the great many products where the differences between USA’s and foreign production costs are marginal, the concept of Import Certificates “shines”.

Because USA purchasers of imported goods pay all direct net federal expenses due to the Import Certificate policy, the additional costs of Imports to them enable domestic sales of products that were previously to expensive to produce in the USA can now be produced and sold in the USA. That increases USA’s GDP.
Additionally Import Certificates are an indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods. That also increases USA’s GDP.

Import Certificate policy does not eliminate foreign low-wage advantages over USA goods but it does “cap” the extent of those advantages. The extent of USA’s imports are limited to how much more USA purchasers are willing to pay and to how much USA exported goods the remainder of the world is willing to purchase. Regardless of how much more or less exports USA ships out, USA’s GDP improves. We gain as much GDP due to our production for export or for our production for domestic consumption.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[SocialD]

SocialD, you should look at Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article. The 752-word article has sub-topic headings; you can read as much or as little of it that you find of any interest.

Under an Import Certificate policy if price differences between a domestic or foreign produced product is too great, the product will be imported unless the USA consumers choose to do without that particular product. Because the Import certificate policy is more market rather than government determined, USA consumers individually due to their own determinations of what’s to their own comparative advantages may decide to pay the increased price or the may decide to do without some imported products.

The Import Certificate policy will increase USA’s production, (i.e. GDP) and consequentially increase our numbers of jobs and their purchasing powers but it is likely to change what we decide to purchase. It is much more a market rather than a government driven policy.

The Import Certificate concept is not altruistic. It depends upon changing our trade policy so that enterprises and individuals acting in what they believe to be in their own individual best interests are also acting in for the best interests of our nations economic and social benefit.
Because it’s not an altruistic policy, it does not offer solutions to some of the issues you have raised within the transcript of your post that I’m responding to.

[We can attempt to remedy those problems by means other than Import Certificates, but beware of consequences due to our attempting to judge and intervene how other nations conduct their domestic affairs or of international agreements that permit others to judge and intervene within our domestic affairs. There are good reasons for nation’s to respect each other’s sovereignty].

We can make choices between expensive pollution domestic pollution control and accepting that those nations will pollute their own lands and waters while producing and exporting those products to us. There’s a problem when foreign environments affect our entire global environment.
Import certificates will not remedy or further degradation of our planet. The same can be said regarding the topic of slave labor, child labor, inadequate compensation of labor or unfit working conditions. We will have to look elsewhere for solutions to all such problems.

It is for the great many products where the differences between USA’s and foreign production costs are marginal, the concept of Import Certificates “shines”.

Because USA purchasers of imported goods pay all direct net federal expenses due to the Import Certificate policy, the additional costs of Imports to them enable domestic sales of products that were previously to expensive to produce in the USA can now be produced and sold in the USA. That increases USA’s GDP.
Additionally Import Certificates are an indirect but effective subsidy of USA’s exported goods. That also increases USA’s GDP.

Import Certificate policy does not eliminate foreign low-wage advantages over USA goods but it does “cap” the extent of those advantages. The extent of USA’s imports are limited to how much more USA purchasers are willing to pay and to how much USA exported goods the remainder of the world is willing to purchase. Regardless of how much more or less exports USA ships out, USA’s GDP improves. We gain as much GDP due to our production for export or for our production for domestic consumption.

Respectfully, Supposn

Yea I get those but we do have our trade agreements like NAFTA and others as mentioned that have eliminated or at least lowered tariffs depending on where and what the good is. This interfered with MFN policies for one.
To me unless we redo those agreements even goods imported via trade certificate from other countries even if they are MFN will be disadvantaged.

 

[I'm Supposn]

Yea I get those but we do have our trade agreements like NAFTA and others as mentioned that have eliminated or at least lowered tariffs depending on where and what the good is. This interfered with MFN policies for one.
To me unless we redo those agreements even goods imported via trade certificate from other countries even if they are MFN will be disadvantaged.

SocialD, read the explanation of “most favored nation”; tariffs do not interfere with MFN agreements if the nation levies the same rates of tariffs upon all foreign nations. I don't know but I doubt if NAFTA interfered with MFN policy.

Import Certificates and MFN are two different unrelated concepts. They are not incompatible to each other but a nation can include both or one or none of the two concepts within their foreign trade policies. I’m a proponent of both concepts.

I’m not opposed in to the principle to tariffs. But for a nation that experiences chronic annual trade deficits of globally traded goods, the trade policy as described in Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article is superior to any other global trade policy I’ve ever read of.

The federal fees defray USA’s entire net costs due to the trade policy.

Only exporters that are motivated to request their goods be assessed prior to leaving the USA pay the fees. They’re motivated to pay those fees in order to acquire the more valuable Import Certificates. Those fees are passed onto USA purchasers of foreign goods that are the basic cause of USA’s annual trade deficits.

The policies much more market rather than government driven. It’s dependent upon individual persons and enterprises acting in what they consider to be their own best interests and their aggregate considerations are generally correct and they converge with the best interests of the nation that adopts that policy. ;

Import certificates are an indirect but effective subsidy of the nation’s exported goods.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[I'm Supposn]

Yea I get those but we do have our trade agreements like NAFTA and others as mentioned that have eliminated or at least lowered tariffs depending on where and what the good is. This interfered with MFN policies for one.
To me unless we redo those agreements even goods imported via trade certificate from other countries even if they are MFN will be disadvantaged.

SocialD, prior USA trade agreements would not interfere with USA adopting the Import Certificate Proposal.

USA has no trade treaties and I would suppose that if all of USA’s international agreements do not have a termination date or a procedure for their amendment or termination, something as comparatively impermanent as trade agreements would all have such provisions.

Specifically within the General Agreement on Tariffs and trade, (i.e. GATT), all participating nations are entitled without prejudice a nation can provide 6 months notice of their intention to withdraw from continued participation within such an agreement.
It’s certainly feasible for the USA to negotiate any necessary accommodation for a nation enacting a unilateral Import certificate policy. It’s unreasonable to assume that we could not succeed to achieve such an accommodation but if such a highly unlikely and illogical situation should occur, the USA as a last resort would simply exercise our right to give notice of our resignation from such an agreement.

Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////
Excerpted from
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_02_e.htm#articleXXXI

Current notes:
Article XXX: Amendments
1. Except where provision for modification is made elsewhere in this Agreement, amendments to the provisions of Part I of this Agreement or the provisions of Article XXIX or of this Article shall become effective upon acceptance by all the contracting parties, and other amendments to this Agreement shall become effective, in respect of those contracting parties which accept them, upon acceptance by two-thirds of the contracting parties and thereafter for each other contracting party upon acceptance by it.
…
Article XXXI: Withdrawal
1. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 12 of Article XVIII, of Article XXIII or of paragraph 2 of Article XXX, any contracting party may withdraw from this Agreement, or may separately withdraw on behalf of any of the separate customs territories for which it has international responsibility and which at the time possesses full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations and of the other matters provided for in this Agreement. The withdrawal shall take effect upon the expiration of six months from the day on which written notice of withdrawal is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
…