Transcript of the above video:

As the title of this video suggests, we are discussing the difference between a Treaty and an FTA. For those who are unaware, the acronym FTA stands for Free Trade Agreement. Now oftentimes when people discuss this sort of colloquially, they will use the term Free Trade Agreement - Treaty interchangeably. In fact folks that are quite well versed in matters of international relations I have found will do this frequently. That said, they're not the same thing. There's a difference between a Treaty and a Free Trade Agreement. For example many countries have Free Trade Agreements with Thailand. Meanwhile the United States has what is called the US-Thai Treaty of Amity. We have this Treaty that goes back nearly 200 years now with Thailand. A relationship that dates back about 200 years but 190 years of Treaty relationship. And Treaty alliance is kind of a different thing than just having an FTA. I want to get into this.

So the difference between, I am going to go ahead and quote from bilaterals.org, under the heading: The difference between the FTAs and the Trade Treaty for the People, and they are talking about a different issue here. I urge you to go read that to get the context of what they're talking about the thrust of which is wildly different than what we are talking about here. In any event, there is some good analysis in here on Treaty. Quoting directly: Pablo Solón, an expert on trade and integration, identifies at least four differences between the FTA and the TCP. The TCP commits to purchasing Bolivian products and to deregulating government procurements in Venezuela.

Question: what is the difference between the FTA and the TCP?

Pablo Solón: The only thing that FTAs seek to do is to reduce and/or abolish customs. However they don't guarantee that these preferences will guarantee a market."

That is an interesting thing. I thought that was a fair point. FTAs have to do with like Customs duties, import export taxes, they don't have to deal with broader implications. I will get into that in a minute. Quoting further, and this is from trade.gov, so this is the US Government website, trade.gov, under the heading: What are free Trade Agreements? Quoting directly: "A Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is an agreement between two or more countries where the countries agree on certain obligations that affect trade in goods and services, and protections for investors and intellectual property rights, among other topics. For the United States, the main goal of Trade Agreements is to reduce barriers to U.S. exports, protect U.S. interests competing abroad, and enhance the rule of law in the FTA partner country or countries."

Now further, and this is from LOC, that is Library of Congress.gov, so loc.gov. What is a Treaty? Quoting directly: "Treaties are a serious legal undertaking both in international and domestic law. Internationally, once in force, Treaties are binding on the parties and become part of International Law. Domestically," (and this is key here I think), "Treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation," (again I have done this analysis before. Under article 6 of The Constitution, specifically.) Quoting further: "form a part of what the Constitution calls "the Supreme Law of the Land." However the word Treaty does not have the same meaning in the United States and in International Law. Under International Law, a "treaty" is any legally binding agreement between nations. In the United States, the word Treaty is reserved for an agreement that is made "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution)." Quoting further: "International agreements not submitted to the Senate are known as "Executive Agreements" in the United States, but they are considered Treaties and therefore binding under International Law."

So with regard to the American side of the equation, it has a wildly different connotation. So effectively the US-Thai Treaty of Amity in an American context is considered from a domestic standpoint, akin to Federal Legislation again pursuant to the supremacy clause in Article 6 of the US Constitution. Meanwhile, when you are dealing with International agreements, what I would say is Treaties especially from an American legal context, rise to a far higher level in terms of the solidity of that law or the rigidness of the application of that law insofar as, I always sort of look at it like trying to play a trump card in like a game of cards or something. Again something that rises to the level of Supreme Law of the Land under the US Constitution, that is about as high up the trump card list as you can get. I mean save the Constitution itself you could even make the argument under Article 6 that it incorporates it as being akin to the Constitution itself because it says so right in the Supremacy clause. So again, from an American context there is a very big difference between a Treaty and a Free Trade Agreement.