Is this a new rule of treaties? Consider the Treaty of Paris (1783). It called for the following:
...his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States, and from every post, place, and harbor within the same
And:
It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.
The British violated the first one and the Americans the second. The Americans also continued to persecute loyalists after the war, something banned by the treaty. Does this mean that the Treaty of Paris never took effect?
Of course, the Treaty of Paris also said there should be perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the American states and that navigation of the Mississippi River shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain. So much for "perpetual" and "forever".
Watch his position on Velasco develop. What it boils down to ultimately is denying that Texas ever legitimately won its independence. And don't doubt for a second that he will make a denial of that sort if it becomes necessary in holding up the reputation of Saint Abe. It's a sign of their fanatacism - these are the type of people who would deny Jesus for Lincoln.