4 ms·

No, by international law [1] (and U.S. law [2]) they are treaties [1]. U.S. is not the only country with the notion of ratification [3][5] (not a surprise). Gen

No, by international law [1] (and U.S. law [2]) they are treaties [1]. U.S. is not the only country with the notion of ratification [3][5] (not a surprise). Generally, the U.S. distinguishes between "treaties", executive acts or acts of Congress agreements internally, but externally they are treaties. U.S. treaties are not permanent, and while the statement as ratified, it is law, the U.S. has broken a lot of treaties treaties. See Native American section [4]. I can agree that statements like "It is wrong for the US to walk away..." are strictly moral, with no legal ground, as it was not ratified. Yet this is a treaty that was signed. In the eyes of the world and U.S. law, this is a "broken" treaty. And it doesn't help if we go around breaking treaties. It is not illegal, but you are not building credibility right? It might be only fair if other States start breaking their treaties when convenient. (And some of them do.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_S... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Ratification_of_an_international_treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification#Ratification_of_a... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_o... Edit: This is a nice interesting read, in case you are interested: https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international-agreements-and-us-law https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international...

Nasrudith 8y ago
Not to go Godwin but a lot of massacres were also wrong on moral not legal grounds. When it comes down to that non-defense things get even uglier very quickly as it turns to "there is no law here against heading there and breaking your face". Even if they thought it was firmly in their domain. "Their word is law." is a primitive framework but it expresses that enforcement backs laws.
azernik 8y ago
From that link, it is not a treaty in US law. The article uses the blanket term "treaty-related law", but the Iran agreement falls under the "Executive agreement" category. This is in part a long-standing presidential workaround for the similarly-long-standing Congressional unwillingness to bind the US to treaties. But it does come with a bit of deception of foreign partners, because it does not bind the US in the same way that treaties bind other countries under their own domestic law. One of many ways in which the US system is a bit dysfunctional.

Nasrudith 8y ago

Not to go Godwin but a lot of massacres were also wrong on moral not legal grounds. When it comes down to that non-defense things get even uglier very quickly as it turns to "there is no law here against heading there and breaking your face". Even if they thought it was firmly in their domain. "Their word is law." is a primitive framework but it expresses that enforcement backs laws.

azernik 8y ago

From that link, it is not a treaty in US law. The article uses the blanket term "treaty-related law", but the Iran agreement falls under the "Executive agreement" category. This is in part a long-standing presidential workaround for the similarly-long-standing Congressional unwillingness to bind the US to treaties. But it does come with a bit of deception of foreign partners, because it does not bind the US in the same way that treaties bind other countries under their own domestic law. One of many ways in which the US system is a bit dysfunctional.