| The situation is rather complicated. Most treaties have termination clauses, for example, and therefore, by extension, one can fail to abide by them if there is cause, short of termination. That is one way of trying to get compliance from the other party, by being free to act given his violations, and only complying yourself when there is mutuality. In addition, the UN Charter recognizes the right reserved to the member states to act in accordance with security concerns. Also, as I recall, the votes of the General Assembly are not considered binding, only those of the Security Council. I would have to examine documents before remarking more certainly, which I have no time for right now, but my impression is that the United States has a great deal of latitude in how it interacts with the UN, and that the Congress concedes quite a bit of discretion to the President in the matter. In any event, the short answer is that it might be impeachable if it is a flagrant violation, but that the House would determine what was flagrant, and what was within the bounds of discretion, and therefore, it would be a matter internal to the United States, in essence. |
