SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bilow who wrote (61457)12/13/2002 8:12:41 AM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
Good morning, Carl - I am using Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition (1979). It defines signatory thus:

A term used in diplomacy to indicate a nation which is a party to a treaty. In general, a person who signs a document personally or through his agent and who becomes a party thereto.

Thus, according to Black's Law Dictionary (which is what lawyers use, whether they are in front of a low IQ judge in Texas or anywhere else) a signatory is a party to the thing signed.

I don't think you can access Black's Law Dictionary online without access to Westlaw, but most libraries have a copy. Call up your local librarian and ask her/him to read you the definition over the phone. If you don't know that Black's Law Dictionary is what lawyers use, maybe you know a lawyer and can ask him/her.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for using non-US flag vessels to haul war materiel, what I was really wrong about was thinking that Maersk Line Ltd. was foreign flag.
Message 18007327

It's not. It's a wholly US owned subsidiary of Maersk, formed for the specific purpose of hauling the type of cargo that the parent (originally Danish - multinational, now) corporation can't generally haul, and contracting with the US government for the kind of contracts the parent corporation can't generally become (ahem) a signatory to.
maersklinelimited.com

So your explanation as to why Maersk was carrying US war materiel was ingenious, but wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I know you're smart and all that, but there really is a limit to what you can learn in a couple of hours using google.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News