myAU | AU Library | myWCL | Library Home | myLEAGLE Library Account

Pence Law Library Guides

Library Home | Research Guides | LEAGLE Catalog | E-Journals & Articles | Library Databases | Frequently Used Resources | Ask a Librarian

Skip to Main Content

International Law Research: Treaties

A guide to researching international law at American University Washington College of Law

What is a Treaty?

The signature page from the Council of Europe's European Convention on Human Rights. Source: European Court of Human Rights.A treaty is a formal agreement between two or more states or international organizations that evidences an intent to be bound. Without that intent, the agreement is just a political commitment. Article 2.1 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, defines a treaty as:

(a) "treaty" means an international  agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;

There are several useful ways to divide the discussion of treaties: By form of treaty, by number of parties, and by whether the U.S. is a party. We will use each in turn.

By Form

The first of these distinctions is between regular treaties and treaties in simplified form. A regular treaty is what you think is a treaty; A formal, written agreement signed by the appropriate authorities in each party, and ratified by whatever process each party follows. In the U.S., this entails diplomats negotiating terms, the President signing, the Senate giving advice and consent to ratification, and the President ratifying and formally proclaiming the treaty. Other states follow a similar process, often with ratification by the legislature.

A treaty in simplified form is also a binding legal obligation, but the subject matter is more routine and fluid, and as a result, it follows a more streamlined process. These can be formal written agreements that look like regular treaties, they can be exchanges of notes between foreign ministries that together constitute an agreement, or even battlefield signals exchanges between allies. In the U.S., we call them executive agreements, and we divide them into 3 types depending upon the authority to create them: sole executive agreements, treaty-based executive agreements, and congressional-executive agreements.

Sole executive agreements are entered into based upon the sole powers of the President. The foreign policy power allows agreements that recognize foreign governments, settle claims with them, or agree to regular treaty terms in a negotiation. The commander-in-chief power allows cease-fire and armistice agreements to be made.

Treaty-based executive agreements are entered into by authority of a treaty to which advice and consent to ratification has been given by the U.S. Senate under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. These agreements include things like status of forces agreements under the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO), scientific detail in environmental & climate treaties, and details about treaty implementation.

Congressional-executive agreements are the vast majority of all executive agreements. They do not fall under the President's sole powers nor are they authorized by a prior treaty. The power to enter into them must come through congressional legislative action that meets the Presentment Clause of the US Constitution (Art. I, § 7, cl. 2). This is done through either statute or joint resolution, both of which require passage by both houses and either Presidential approval or a veto override. All Free Trade Agreements (FTAs & TPAs) are congressional-executive agreements authorized by fast-track negotiation legislation.

By Number of Parties

The next distinction between types of treaties is whether they are bilateral, having 2 parties, or multilateral, having 3 or more parties.The reason this distinction is useful is that most treaty-finding tools use it, and the Bluebook has different citation styles for each type. Bilateral treaties are the simplest to describe. Once in force, they are kept in each party's treaty repository, and are usually findable using their treaty tools. The UN Charter (Art. 102) requires all treaties to be registered with the UN and published in the United Nations Treaty Series (UNTS). Tthe League of Nations required the same, publishing them in the League of Nations Treaty Series (LNTS), In practice, many states are slow to do this, and these sources can be missing some treaties.

Multilateral treaties are more complex. Once you get above just a few parties, the logistics of multilateral treaties becomes difficult. To solve this problem, these treaties use a depository power. Before modern international organizations, the depository power was one of the parties that had the infrastructure to accommodate the role, often the party that hosted the negotiations. Examples of this are the Netherlands for the treaties that came out of the Hague Conferences in 1899 and 1907, Switzerland for the Geneva Conventions, or the United States for the Pan-American Convention. After the creation of the League of Nations, and later the United Nations, these international organizations became the primary international depository powers. The regional international organizations, such as the Council of Europe, the African Union, and the Organization of American States are commonly depository powers for multilateral treaties in their regions. The depository power has the official copies of their treaties, along with authoritative information on ratification, denunciation, accession, reservations, and declarations made by the parties. They are the best source for those treaties.

By Whether or Not the U.S. is a Party

The final distinction is probably the most important one for researching treaties in the U.S. Is the U.S. a party to the treaty? If it is, your search will be much easier in a U.S. law library, where the tools you need are readily available. If it is not, you are still likely to be able to find it, but your search may be harder, and you may need translation services.

How to find a treaty or other international agreement

Do you have a citation?

Yes . . . 
  • This is the easiest scenario, as the cite will tell you where to look
  • Ask a librarian if you don't recognize the sources in the cite. Common ones include:
    • UNTS or LNTS (international treaty collections)
    • O.A.S.T.S., E.T.S. (EU), C.E.T.S. (COE), or Afr. Union (regional treaty collections)
    • U.S.T., Stat., T.I.A.S., E.A.S., T.S., Bevans, S. Treaty Doc., S. Exec. Doc. (U.S. treaty collections)
    • I.L.M., Consol. T.S., Hein's No. KAV (unofficial treaty sources)
  • Find them all in the column to the right.
  • Remember that not all cites you might have will follow Bluebook rules; if in doubt, ask.
No . . .
  • Move on to the next question below

Is the U.S. a party to the agreement?

Yes . . . 

  • Great, use the U.S. treaty tools in the section to the right ("Finding U.S. Treaties & Agreeements")

No . . .

  • Use the U.N. tools in the section to the right ("Finding Non-U.S. Treaties")
  • Use the treaty tools of the states party (some are listed in the box to the right as well, others you will need find using a tool like the Foreign Law Guide)
  • Use treaty indexes (also linked in the box to the right)
  • We also used to recommend googling for a cite. This can still work, but given the omnipresence of misinformation and A.I. hallucinations on most search engines, we recommend caution. Double-check any result, and make sure it is what it says it is.

Is the agreement in force?

Yes . . .
Not yet . . . 
  • If the U.S. is a party, use the treaty tools on congress.gov/treaties
  • Find the sponsors of the agreement (int'l orgs, nations, or NGOs) & look at their resources
  • If the U.N. is the sponsor, look in both the U.N. website and the Official Document System (ODS)
  • We also used to recommend googling for these. This can still work, but given the omnipresence of misinformation and A.I. hallucinations on most search engines, we recommend caution. Double-check any result, and make sure it is what it says it is.
Not any longer . . . 
  • Use the historical tools listed in the box on the lower right ("Finding historical (no longer in force) agreements")

Do you need it for academic purposes or for litigation?

  • If you are just looking for academic purposes, you can use any reliable source.
  • If you need the treaty or other agreement for use as evidence in litigation, your search will be more complex. 
  • The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (F. R. Civ. P.) 44 covers the proving of an official record
    • If it is a treaty to which the U.S. is a party, which makes it a domestic record under Rule 44, you need to cite to an official publication, or a copy attested to by the custodian of the record or their designee.
      • The official sources are specified at 1 U.S.C. § 112 (Statutes at Large [Stat.], if therein, 1 U.S.C. § 112a (U.S. Treaties & Other International Agreements [U.S.T.], if therein), & 1 U.S.C. § 113 (the privately printed under the authority of Congress  Statutes at Large up through volume 17 (1873), and "the publications in slip or pamphlet form of the . . . Treaties and Other International Acts Series" [T.I.A.S.]).
      • Copies of any international agreements not officially published (except for those with national security classification (see 1 U.S.C. §§ 112a(b) & 112b(b)(3)(A) may be obtained from the U.S. Department of State by request, which should have an appropriate certificate that could be used under F. R. Civ. P. 44(a)(1)(B).
        • As noted below in the section about U.S. Free Trade Agreements, none of these have been officially published by the U.S. government. If you need to use one of these in litigation, request a copy from the Department of State.
    • If it is a non-U.S. treaty, what you need changes, as it is now a foreign record under Rule 44.

Treaty Interpretation

In general

Treaty interpretation is a lot like statutory interpretation, and many of the same rules apply. The go-to treatise on statutory interpretation is:

Look at the "treaty treaty"

Even for states not party to this convention (looking at you, United States), it is still a valuable distillation of the law of treaties, and almost all of it is considered customary international law at this point. Take a look at the treatises to understand the problem areas.

Look at the travaux préparatoires

Ttravaux préparatoires are what international lawyers call the agreement's legislative history, because we have to have a different word for everything.

Look at the reservations & declarations of states party

Finding U.S. Treaties & Agreements

Special Case: U.S. Free Trade Agreements

The ways to find most U.S. treaties and other international agreements do not work with any of the free trade or trade promotion agreements the U.S. has entered into with other countries. These are all congressional-executive agreements that should be published in the T.I.A.S. database, but for some reason they are not. 

As congressional-executive agreements, they are negotiated by the executive branch under authority delegated by Congress, combining both branches constitutional powers. This delegated trade promotion authority, often referred to in it's current form as "fast-track authority," is an expedited legislative procedure for a limited period given to the President to pursue trade agreements. This was first enacted in the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2111 (2018), although non-fast-track congressional grants of trade promotional authority to the executive go back as far as the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-316, 48 Stat. 943. For a good discussion of the authority, see

Finding the agreements

Normally, you would look at the U.S. Treaties in Force to find cites to these currently in force international agreements. But when you do, you find that none of their entries list a citation. Most list a blank TIAS cite (literally just a "TIAS" followed by nothing), some list only "NP" which stands for Not Published", and others are not listed at all (Panama, Japan, & the USMCA as of 2024).

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has unofficial online texts for all the agreements on their website: ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements. This should be fine for academic purposes. If you need it for litigation, you will need to request a certified copy from either the Department of State or the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (it is not clear which should be responsible for this, however).

How do you cite them?

While the online text is fine for information, how do you cite them? The Bluebook requires more. Rule 21.4.5(a) requires, in order of preference, an official source (U.S.T., Stat., T.I.A.S., T.S., E.A.S., U.N.T.S., Sen.Treaty Doc., Sen. Exec. Doc, Dep't of State Dispatch, or Dep't of State Press Releases), or an unofficial source such as International Legal Materials (I.L.M.). None of these agreements are in the official sources, so I.L.M. it would be; except that they do not publish all of the agreements and since 2003, when they do include them, I.L.M. just contains a notice of the agreement and a now-lapsed link to the USTR web version of the text. Because of this, and as a service to your reader even when they do publish it, I recommend using Rule 18.2.1(b)(i), and attaching the URL to the USTR's online version if there is one, or an official archive version if not, as it will "substantially improve access to the source cited." 

Below are recommended Bluebook citations for all of the FTAs, listed by date of signing:

  • Israel: Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area, Isr.-U.S., Apr. 22, 1985, 24 I.L.M. 653, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/israel-fta/final-text.
  • Canada: Free Trade Agreement, Can.-U.S., Dec. 22, 1987–Jan. 2, 1988, 27 I.L.M. 281, archived copy at https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/cusfta-e.pdf. [Note: According to the 2020 U.S. Treaties in Force, p.73: "This agreement is suspended, subject to certain transition arrangements with respect to dispute settlement proceedings under Chapters 18 and 19, for such time as the United States and Canada are parties to the North American Free Trade Agreement . . . ." This presumably has been extended to include the U.S.M.C.A. (see below). Since the USTR does not link to an online version, I have added a link to the Canadian government's archive copy.]
  • Canada & Mexico: North American Free Trade Agreement,, Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 289, https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/nafta-alena/fta-ale/index.aspx?lang=eng. [No longer in force since the entry into force of the U.S.M.C.A. (see below). Since the USTR does not link to an online version, I have added a link to the Canadian government's archive copy.]
  • Jordan: Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area, Jordan-U.S., Oct. 24, 2000, 41 I.L.M. 63, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/jordan-fta/final-text.
  • Singapore: Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area and Definitions, Sing.-U.S., May 6, 2003, 42 I.L.M. 1026, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/singapore-fta/final-text. [The I.L.M. cite is just to a notice in I.L.M. that they received the final text, declined to publish it, giving a now-lapsed URL to the USTR website].
  • Chile: Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area, Chile-U.S., June 6, 2003, 42 I.L.M. 1026, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/chile-fta/final-text. [The I.L.M. cite is just to a notice in I.L.M. that they received the final text, declined to publish it, giving a now-lapsed URL to the USTR website].
  • Australia: Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area and Definitions, Austl.-U.S., May 18, 2004, 43 I.L.M. 1248, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/australian-fta/final-text. [The I.L.M. cite is just to a notice in I.L.M. that they received the final text, declined to publish it, giving a now-lapsed URL to the USTR website].
  • Morocco: Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area, Morocco-U.S., June 15, 2004, 44 I.L.M. 544, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/morocco-fta/final-text. [The I.L.M. cite is just to a notice in I.L.M. that they received the final text, declined to publish it, giving a now-lapsed URL to the USTR website].
  • Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, & Nicaragua: Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), Aug. 5, 2004, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/cafta-dr-dominican-republic-central-america-fta/final-text. [Not in I.L.M., so cite to the USTR following Bluebook rule R.21.4.5(c) as it is a website of a government.]
  • Bahrain: Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area, Bahr.-U.S., Sept. 14, 2004, 44 I.L.M. 544, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/bahrain-fta/final-text. [The I.L.M. cite is just to a notice in I.L.M. that they received the final text, declined to publish it, giving a now-lapsed URL to the USTR website].
  • Oman: Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area, Oman-U.S., Jan. 19, 2006, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/oman-fta/final-text. [Not in I.L.M., so cite to the USTR following Bluebook rule R.21.4.5(c) as it is a website of a government.]
  • Colombia: Trade Promotion Agreement, Colom.-U.S., Jan. 22, 2006, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/colombia-tpa/final-text [Not in I.L.M., so cite to the USTR following Bluebook rule R.21.4.5(c) as it is a website of a government.]
  • Peru: Trade Promotion Agreement, Peru-U.S., Apr. 12, 2006, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/peru-tpa/final-text., Protocol of Amendment to the Trade Promotion Agreement, Peru-U.S., June 24-25, 2007.  [Not in I.L.M., so cite to the USTR following Bluebook rule R.21.4.5(c) as it is a website of a government. The protocol, listed in U.S. Treaties in Force as "NP," is not published anywhere I could find.]
  • Panama: Trade Promotion Agreement, Pan.-U.S. June 28, 2007, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/panama-tpa/final-text. [Not in I.L.M., so cite to the USTR following Bluebook rule R.21.4.5(c) as it is a website of a government.]
  • South Korea: Free Trade Agreement, S. Kor.-U.S., June 30, 2007, 46 I.L.M. 642, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta/final-text, Protocol Sept. 24, 2018, Protocol Amending Exchange of Letters of 2011 Sept. 24, 2018. [The I.L.M. cite is just to a notice in I.L.M. that they received the final text, declined to publish it, giving a now-lapsed URL to the USTR website. The 2 protocols are listed in U.S. Treaties in Force, with a citation of "TIAS" but do not appear on the USTR website nor in I.L.M.].
  • Canada & Mexico: Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and Canada (USMCA), July 1, 2020, https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/agreement-between [The final text is not in I.L.M., so cite to the USTR following Bluebook rule R.21.4.5(c) as it is a website of a government. An alternative citation is possible, as the text of the agreement is actually published as an annex to a protocol replacing NAFTA with the USMCA, but this is needlessly complicated and helps no one find the text.]
  • Japan: Agreement On Strengthening Critical Minerals Supply Chains, Japan-U.S., Mar. 28, 2023, https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/US%20Japan%20Critical%20Minerals%20Agreement%202023%2003%2028.pdf. [Not in I.L.M., so cite to the USTR following Bluebook rule R.21.4.5(c) as it is a website of a government.]

Finding Non-U.S. Treaties

U.N. Treaty Tools

Regional Treaty Tools

National Treaty Tools

Other Useful Tools

Finding historical (no longer in force) agreements

Some databases to try:

And some print resources to try: