Replies

Hence by "customary international law,"

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.

Legally, no, the United States never ratified the Vienna Convention. Yet in holding that view, you will have to undo almost 35 years of precedent.

Most nations are signatories and have ratified the Vienna Convention. It is therefore the law of their nations. Legally not ours, but by custom it has been done that way.

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.

Look, I'm no fan of this situation any more than you are. It is, however, a reality of the lawless government we face. We have done it in order to get other nations to sign such agreements. It is my responsibility to point out what the situation is, regardless of the fact that most FReepers' opinions hold that a signature is meaningless. Legally, they are correct. In terms of what will happen, it is not.