Yes, it does. Pending ratification, the United States abides by international agreement (illegally) pursuant to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which we never ratified. Hence by "customary international law," that the Senate refused to hold a ratification vote means conditions will stay this way: with the US abiding by a treaty that is not ratified, just like Kyoto and the ICC Treaties (Bush rescinded the signature of the latter).
Obama will start setting its provisions in motion immediately, if not sooner.
Is there any reason that any honest person would regard a treaty which was signed by the President but not ratified by the Senate as being any more meaningful than a treaty which was signed by the Secretary of State, or for that matter by Joe the Plumber?
Anyone who is going to take action on the basis of a treaty which has allegedly been agreed to by any nation should first check whether the alleged agreement is legitimate under the laws of that nation. If some people fail to do so and are subsequently harmed by the country's subsequent refusal to honor the "treaty", the harm they suffers is entirely their own fault; they may seek redress against any individuals who misrepresented the treaty as being a legitimate agreement, but are not due any remedy by the country that never agreed to it.
Now come enforce it. Bring body bags and a mop. I’m done f**king around.