4 ms·

There's a distinction between being a signatory vs having ratified the treaty. The US is a signatory (the treaty was signed on 22 March 1990) which is why they

by huxley 10y ago

There's a distinction between being a signatory vs having ratified the treaty. The US is a signatory (the treaty was signed on 22 March 1990) which is why they are on the list, but it's not ratified since the US Congress has never passed legislation which would make the treaty "the law of the land" The Basel Convention joins a distinguished list of signed but unratified treaties including the Convention on Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The Basel Convention joins a distinguished list of signed but unratified treaties including the Convention on Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Except that the ABM Treaty was ratified in 1972; the US, under the mechanisms in the treaty, withdrew from it (terminating its effect entirely) in 2001, but that's a different issue than not ratifying it.
- danbruc 10y ago
  But it is only a technical difference - you say you want to do X and sign an agreement, then you decide you don't really want to do X and you don't ratify the agreement or you ratify it and later withdraw. The outcome is the same.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    There's a considerable difference between never ratifying a treaty (in which case, it is never in force), and ratifying it, having it in force for nearly three decades, and then using the mechanism that the agreement itself provides to trigger its termination.
    - danbruc 10y ago
      What is the difference with regard to the end result?
      - khuey 10y ago
        That the treaty applied for thirty years?
        onion2k 10y ago
        30 years of doing good doesn't count for very much if you then do something bad. If a 31 year old kills someone they can't use the prior 30 years of "not committing any murders" as evidence that they're actually a decent person.
        rtkwe 10y ago
        The name is a bit confusing it actually just limits the defensive deployment of anti-ballistic missile bases designed to shoot down ballistic missiles it doesn't do anything to limit ballistic missiles like the name kind of implies. It wasn't really preventing anything and more just cranking up the consequences of nuclear war (could argue that that decreases the probability of it happening by taking away the ability to shield yourself effectively). ABMs situated after the boost phase were kind of pointless soon after their invention anyways because the MIRV (multiple independent reentry vehicle) warheads + decoys could easily overwhelm them.
        vacri 10y ago
        A history of good character is frequently used as a legal defence to reduce or eliminate punishment.
        praxulus 10y ago
        Those 30 years included the last couple decades of the cold war. There was clearly some benefit to having an arms reduction treaty in place while we were still staring down the Soviets.
        deleted 10y ago

by huxley 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> The Basel Convention joins a distinguished list of signed but unratified treaties including the Convention on Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Except that the ABM Treaty was ratified in 1972; the US, under the mechanisms in the treaty, withdrew from it (terminating its effect entirely) in 2001, but that's a different issue than not ratifying it.

danbruc 10y ago
But it is only a technical difference - you say you want to do X and sign an agreement, then you decide you don't really want to do X and you don't ratify the agreement or you ratify it and later withdraw. The outcome is the same.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  There's a considerable difference between never ratifying a treaty (in which case, it is never in force), and ratifying it, having it in force for nearly three decades, and then using the mechanism that the agreement itself provides to trigger its termination.
  - danbruc 10y ago
    What is the difference with regard to the end result?
    - khuey 10y ago
      That the treaty applied for thirty years?
      - onion2k 10y ago
        30 years of doing good doesn't count for very much if you then do something bad. If a 31 year old kills someone they can't use the prior 30 years of "not committing any murders" as evidence that they're actually a decent person.
        rtkwe 10y ago
        The name is a bit confusing it actually just limits the defensive deployment of anti-ballistic missile bases designed to shoot down ballistic missiles it doesn't do anything to limit ballistic missiles like the name kind of implies. It wasn't really preventing anything and more just cranking up the consequences of nuclear war (could argue that that decreases the probability of it happening by taking away the ability to shield yourself effectively). ABMs situated after the boost phase were kind of pointless soon after their invention anyways because the MIRV (multiple independent reentry vehicle) warheads + decoys could easily overwhelm them.
        vacri 10y ago
        A history of good character is frequently used as a legal defence to reduce or eliminate punishment.
        praxulus 10y ago
        Those 30 years included the last couple decades of the cold war. There was clearly some benefit to having an arms reduction treaty in place while we were still staring down the Soviets.
        deleted 10y ago