Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "I see you left out the part that says that the US did not ratify that Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and thus is not bound by its definition of signatory. Funny, that, since it was in the same paragraph, just a sentence or two after the part you quoted."
Here's the quote:
"Therefore, any perceived obligations the U.S. may have as a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, as described in the Vienna Convention, could not be enforced, because as a non-ratification party, the U.S. cannot be governed by the Vienna Convention’s mandates."
The above quote makes it very clear that "signatory" is not a "term of art", but instead simply denotes that a signature has been given. This is my point, not yours, LOL.
If it had been in favor of your usage (that "signatory" is a term of art in diplomacy that implies that a party is governed by the law), then the passage would have read as follows:
"Therefore, since the U.S. is not a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, as described in the Vienna Convention, it cannot be enforced, nor is the U.S. governed by the Vienna Convention's mandates."
But it doesn't read that way. Instead, just like I said it did, it quite specifically states that the U.S. is a signatory to Kyoto.
-- Carl |
