I truly despise discussions in which a person neglects to mention or deal with information that discounts their thesis (the ICC and the VCLT, sirrah). Keep working on that one or this is over.
Rant? Yes, I know Kyoto expired. I also know that many of the signatories are still living up to its terms. I also know that, despite Clinton signing it, the US never did. The minor carbon markets we had (yes, there were two national ones) never really got off the ground and, as I said, were a scam. I believe CA has a carbon market right now, but that’s a state issue and their business. They want to drive companies out of their state, they can feel free to do so.
And yes, I know that we do live up to some of the terms of unratified treaties as we see fit, or more correctly, as the current executive office sees fit. Push comes to shove, unratified treaties go out the window, as do ratified ones.
Change in the executive branch brings about change in what parts of what unratified treaties are adhered to, to the extent the executive branch has or can usurp the authority to do so.
Why do you bring up the ICC? It makes my point. Clinton signed on to the original document, but never sent it for ratification, and never followed it. Bush withdrew the signature. Bambi said pretend Bush didn’t do that, we’ll work with you, but that’s about as far as he’s gone.
As I said, it’s up to the whimsy of the executive branch, and no where near as cut-and-dried as you make it.