T he United States is party to 14 international free trade agreements (FTAs) with 20 countries. These agreements impose a wide variety of international obligations on the United States and its trading partners. Such obligations address import tariffs, as well as potential nontariff trade barriers in areas such as agriculture, customs procedures, foreign investment, government procurement, intellectual property protection, and services trade. A country that is party to an FTA and that maintains laws, regulations, or practices that violate one of these obligations may be subject to trade retaliation (e.g., increased tariffs imposed by other FTA parties on its exports) or may have to pay a fine or monetary compensation to an FTA partner or injured investor. During the past decade, some have suggested that the United States should attempt to renegotiate—and possibly withdraw from—the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). These people have argued, among other things, that the United States' elimination or reduction of tariffs on imported products in accordance with the agreement has negatively impacted U.S. workers. Such statements have prompted congressional interest in domestic and international legal issues pertaining to U.S. termination of, or withdrawal from, an FTA. No U.S. FTA has been terminated; one has been suspended. The United States and Canada agreed to suspend operation of the U.S.-Canada FTA when NAFTA entered into force on January 1, 1994. This report provides brief answers to frequently asked legal questions about withdrawal by the United States from an FTA. The answers in the report assume that a court would find a case raising these questions to be justiciable (i.e., that a court could hear the case) and that the plaintiffs had standing (i.e., that a party had a legal right to bring a dispute before a court or other tribunal for possible resolution of the issues in the party's complaint). The report does not analyze other implications (e.g., economic) of U.S. withdrawal from an FTA. The President negotiates FTAs with foreign countries and submits to Congress legislation that would implement the agreements by making "necessary or appropriate" changes to U.S. law. U.S. FTAs have historically been approved as congressional-executive agreements by a majority vote of each house of Congress rather than as treaties ratified by the President after having received the "advice and consent" of a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate. During several periods from 1974 onward, Congress has agreed to make such implementing bills eligible for consideration under expedited ("fast track") procedures if the President adheres to certain trade agreement negotiating objectives defined in statute, and meets other requirements for informing and consulting with Congress. Following congressional enactment of the implementing law, the President exchanges notes with FTA partners and proclaims the agreement to have entered into force. Such proclamations may also include changes to tariff schedules and rules of origin necessary to implement FTA obligations. FTAs are not self-executing agreements (i.e., implementing legislation is required to provide U.S. bodies with the domestic legal authority necessary to enforce and comply with the agreements' provisions). Thus, if FTA obligations require changes to U.S. federal statutory law, Congress must enact legislation that implements those changes. Although many trade agreement obligations may not require changes to U.S. laws or regulations—or are already implemented in U.S. law—others require Congress to amend, repeal, or create provisions in federal statutory law to eliminate inconsistencies with FTA obligations or make any necessary or appropriate changes to U.S. federal statutory law needed to implement specific obligations contained in the FTA. Although implementing laws vary, they often alter—or authorize to the President to modify or waive—tariff schedules; rules of origin; government procurement domestic content restrictions; and customs user fees, among other things. Implementing laws may also authorize the President to promulgate or amend regulations to implement FTA obligations. As noted below, most FTA implementing laws provide for their full or partial repeal in the event that the underlying trade agreement terminates. It is also important to note that not all U.S. laws consistent with a particular trade agreement obligation are contained in the act implementing that trade agreement. As noted above, as a matter of domestic law, FTAs have historically been approved as congressional-executive agreements by a majority vote of each house rather than as treaties ratified by the President after advice and consent of a two-thirds majority of the Senate. However, under international law, FTAs are legally binding agreements (i.e., they are "treaties" under international law, which has a more expansive meaning than the term under U.S. domestic practice, which only refers to those international legal agreements that are submitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification). A violation by a party to an FTA of an obligation under the agreement may subject that party to state-to-state dispute settlement or investor-state arbitration proceedings before international tribunals in accordance with the terms of the FTA. Under the terms commonly employed by FTAs, if the United States violates an FTA obligation, it may be subject to such sanctions as trade retaliation by a complaining country (e.g., increased tariffs on U.S. exports), payment of a fine to an FTA partner country, or payment of compensation to an injured foreign investor. However, under terms of FTAs that have been approved by Congress, neither the decisions of dispute settlement panels nor those of international investment tribunals constituted under an FTA's provisions alter U.S. law. As noted above, U.S. FTAs are international agreements that impose legally binding international obligations on the United States. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Vienna Convention) addresses withdrawal of a party from, and termination of, a binding international agreement in Part V of the Convention. Article 54 states that "termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place: (a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty.... " As discussed below, all U.S. FTAs that have entered into force as of the date of this report contain provisions allowing for a party's withdrawal from, or termination of, the FTA upon advance notice to the other parties. The Vienna Convention does not specifically state which government officials of a treaty party have the power to give notice of termination or withdrawal. However, Article 67 states that "Any act declaring invalid, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty pursuant to the provisions of the treaty ... shall be carried out through an instrument communicated to the other parties. If the instrument is not signed by the Head of State, Head of Government or Minister for Foreign Affairs, the representative of the State communicating it may be called upon to produce full powers" (i.e., a document showing that the representative has authority to terminate the agreement on behalf of the state). This language suggests that if the President (i.e., the "head of state" for the United States) communicated a notice of withdrawal from an FTA to the other parties, that action would effectively withdraw the United States from, or terminate, the agreement as a matter of international law. As described in more detail below, unless the United States and other parties to the FTA otherwise agree or the FTA otherwise provides, termination of an FTA in accordance with its provisions would release the United States from FTA obligations from the date that withdrawal or termination became effective. FTAs that have entered into force with respect to the United States contain short provisions addressing termination of, or withdrawal of a party from, the agreements. These provisions generally require a party that wishes to terminate or withdraw from the agreement to provide advance notice to other parties to the agreement. For example, Article 2205 of NAFTA states that "a Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties." Withdrawal provisions in U.S. FTAs set forth a specific amount of time that must pass after a party delivers its notice of withdrawal to the other parties before the withdrawing party is released from its international obligations under the agreement. Although the U.S.-Israel FTA establishes a 12-month period between a party's notice of withdrawal and termination of the agreement, subsequent U.S. FTAs, including NAFTA, set forth a six-month period between notice to other parties and termination of, or withdrawal of a party from, the agreement. As noted above, no U.S. FTA has been terminated, and only one has been suspended. The United States and Canada agreed to suspend operation of the U.S.-Canada FTA when NAFTA entered into force on January 1, 1994. For the purposes of this section, "termination" refers to a situation in which the FTA ceases to have effect under international law for all parties to the FTA, whereas "withdrawal" refers to a situation in which a multilateral FTA ceases to have effect under international law only for the United States. Section 125 of the Trade Act of 1974, which, among other things, sets up the procedure for Congress's consideration of implementing legislation, specifically addresses termination of FTAs. Historically, the act by which Congress has approved an FTA has also enacted or amended federal laws in order to implement the agreement by bringing the United States into compliance with its international trade obligations in the FTA. Many of these FTA implementing laws contain provisions addressing repeal of implementing provisions in the event that the agreement terminates or a party withdraws from the agreement. Section 125 of the Trade Act of 1974, which Congress has made applicable to most FTAs entered into by the United States, including NAFTA, is also relevant to U.S. withdrawal from an FTA.