Right. It wasn’t but it had every earmark constitutionally of a treaty that should have been ratified by the Senate. Which of course it would ‘t have been, which is why it was a “non-binding” executive agreement, and a bad one, which is why Trump tore it up.
When you want to kick something even a dangerous something down the road a FEW years you don’t do a treaty. If someone with some sense wants to nullify it, it is easy.
If someone is intent on a good bipartisan plan for the long haul, you go for a treaty that requires 2/3 of the Senate to ratify. If not, it isn’t worth the paper it is written on or the paper currency we hauled over there.
An executive agreement is considered politically binding, but not legally binding.
And yes the rest of the world is well aware of the US signing agreements, and subsequently not ratifying them...or simply ignoring them.
In particular the native American population can testify to that.
Just to mention a few that you claim are not worth the paper its written on:
1919 - Treaty of Versailles
1949 - International Labor Convention (freedom of association and protection of the right to organize)
1954 - Geneva Agreement (end to the Korean War and First Indochina War)
1966 - ICESCR (human Economic, Social and Cultural rights)1979 - CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
1989 - CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
1996 - Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
1997 - Mine-Ban Treaty, or Ottawa Treaty
1998 - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Since you say these agreements are not worth the paper its written on, get this right:
There are 156 countries outside of the US where women enjoy a higher level of protection against discrimination than in the USA.
The USA is the ONLY
country that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
And whereas the US promulgates to be the peacekeeper of the world, with the interest to reduce human suffering at heart, it has not ratified the Nuclear Test Ban treaty, nor the min ban treaty.
All in all this is quite remarkable because it is exactly the US who demands that both North Korea and Iran cease nuclear testing.
If the US is not ratifying these agreements...why the audacity to demand someone else must?