No, I meant that the withdrawal clause of the ABM Treaty did not create a process specifically identifying the President as having the authority to issue the withdrawal unilaterally.
There is an interesting Constitutional question that remains unasked: can the President unilaterally withdraw from a treaty without a clause in that treaty specifically granting that power to the President? Or does the Senate have any say in the matter, as they are responsible for ratifying treaties?
This is an interesting separation of powers issue. The Executive Branch, as head of state, is responsible for intercourse with other nations at a state-to-state level (diplomacy and negotiating treaties). However, the Senate is charged with giving a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down on treaties--and the treaties' status as law does give the Senate at least a pretext of a claim on the decision to maintain or renounce them. A reasonable and sane argument can be made on both sides of this issue.
However, as I noted earlier, the Senate has punted on this issue. If they do it often enough, then the courts will be forced to say that whatever implied power the Senate may have had was lost by voluntary cession.
That explains Clinton's administration! ;^)
Isn't it interesting how liberals race to find a sympathetic court when they don't get their way?