3 ms·
LOL. Most treaties the US signs are politically "binding" but have no effect because there is no underlying statute created to enforce them. tl;dr: treaties ar
by kingcharles 5y ago
LOL. Most treaties the US signs are politically "binding" but have no effect because there is no underlying statute created to enforce them.
tl;dr: treaties are PR shams
- eftychis 5y agoThe tl;dr is not true however. There is binding international law affecting certain treaties, and some kind of treaties and parties do expect ratification from each signatories' internal legislative body. (e.g. totally random example https://www.jta.org/archive/french-senate-ratifies-lausanne-treaty https://www.jta.org/archive/french-senate-ratifies-lausanne-...) Your body is correct though: Now why the US follows a counter-pattern and why Ukraine did not ask for ratification is another discussion, that I consider to be long term harmful. From the Ukraine's side/pov: it will be politically not wise for the U.S.A. to back out of the protection treaty. There is good will capital that is lost, just for allowing this 8 year situation to occur.