I feel bad about sniping a small part of a thoughtful comment, but this:
it's hard to change treaties and the laws they create once they are enacted
... is not actually at all true. The laws put in place by treaties (ie: ratified by Congress to enable treaties that they approve) are no harder to override than any other law.
Wouldn't that break the terms of the treaty? I presume that breaking the treaty either has a direct penalty or you're just kicked out entirely. If you're kicked out entirely, that changes the trade structure that your economy has adapted to over the time the treaty was in place. You'll face serious opposition from businesses that have grown to depend on those new trade arrangements.
Local laws can be adapted piecemeal, but my understanding is that a treaty like this is all or nothing.
That's kind of what I was intending with the "laws they create" phrase; I should have phrased that better. My point was more that laws are generally not easy to repeal once they are enacted.
Sure, some are repealed, but it's a lot easier to fix a bad policy before it becomes the status quo. After a policy becomes law, fixing it now has the added hurdle of having to argue against an "incumbent" policy.
it's hard to change treaties and the laws they create once they are enacted
... is not actually at all true. The laws put in place by treaties (ie: ratified by Congress to enable treaties that they approve) are no harder to override than any other law.