“If you really want to nitpick about it not being ratified by the Senate and therefore not being binding,”
It is not a nitpick, it is our law. Do you know, here on this forum we take our Constitution very seriously. As for your point 1, not ratified by the Senate and a dead letter. For 2, that’s a real nitpick and 2 foreign countries. Nothing to do with the USA.
MalPearce both quotes confirm your comment:
1st- pg #9
“One of the major aims of multilateral treaty negotiation is to ensure that all state party to the negotiations reach a common understanding of the purpose and goals of the treaty. IN THIS WAY, MULTILATERAL TREATY NEGOTIATION IS AS MUCH ABOUT INTERNATIONAL NORM CONSTRUCTION AS IT IS ABOUT THE MUTUAL ASSUMPTION OF LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. Under this view, one of the very purposes of the treaty is to establish consensus about the ideals contained in the treaty. Indeed, the reason that some countries sign multilateral treaties is to gain assurance that other countries are committed to the same goals.”
2nd- pg # 11
“The “advice and consent” language of the Constitution suggests that the Senate should have some role in negotiating treaties. However, the notion that the Senate could ASSIST in treaty negotiation was briefly tested and quickly rejected by President Washington. After the initial failed involvement of the Senate in treaty negotiation, the practice of sole negotiation of treaties by the executive developed. Treaty negotiation became associated with the President’s power to conduct foreign relations. While the President is now the exclusive negotiator of treaties, in practice the executive branch often consults with Congress about ongoing multilateral treaty negotiations and the potential ramifications of contemplated treaties. At times, disputes have arisen between Congress and the President regarding the effect of conflicting presidential and senatorial interpretations of a treaty during its negotiation stages. However, the President’s monopoly on treaty negotiation has never been seriously questioned.”
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=law_lawreview
“It is not a nitpick, it is our law.”
Notwithstanding RevMom’s point, the point I was making is, Ukraine’s Constitution (unlike the American one) EXPLICITLY requires ANY change to the national borders, state accession or secession, or significant Constitutional amendment, to be put to the Rada OR to a general referendum for ratification before it is implemented.
Yanukovych broke his constitutional obligation by signing away Ukrainian sovereignty to Moscow, while in Moscow, on December 17th 2013, without even telling his own Prime Minister what he was doing.
If, as you say, a treaty ain’t binding unless Senate ratifies it, then logic dictates that Ukraine already had an even more explicit requirement than the USA had... and Putin somehow got Yanukovych to do something so unconstitutional you’d have trouble giving an example of an American President doing anything as serious.
Imagine a US President signing an executive order to abolish the right to bear arms without even talking to the Senate or House of Representatives, and his own party knowing nothing about him planning to do it until after he’d done it.
That’s pretty much how it went down. Of course Ukraine had riots in the streets with people calling for Yanukovych’s head.
You think the USA wouldn’t have riots in the streets and people calling for POTUS’ head if POTUS violated his oath of office on that scale AND did so because he was ordered to by Xi or Putin?