There is less difference between us, than I'd thought.
When Congress passes a law modifying a treaty, I look on that as a de facto renunciation of the treaty (in whole or in part). Yes, Congress has the power to change or renounce treaties. I'd just say, that it is dishonest and dangerous, to do so without going back to the nations who we originally negotiated the treaties with, and re-negotiating. If we are going to break our signed obligations, we should say so clearly, and not pretend we are still following the treaty.
<The only point I was making is that we cannot enter into a treaty that surrenders sovereignty.>
Every treaty obligates us to do certain things, and not do others. Every treaty is a voluntary restriction on our freedom of action in the future. A promise of future behavior. For instance, signing the Geneva Conventions, means giving up the "sovereign power" to torture prisoners. Signing the UN Charter, means we are giving up the "sovereign power" to wage wars of aggression. Signing the Kyoto Treaty, would mean giving up the "sovereign power" to endlessly dump our wastes in the global commons. And so on. Every treaty is a partial surrender of sovereignty.
To say that we cannot ever give up any sovereignty, or ever limit our freedom of action in any way, is equivalent to saying we should sign no treaties, or to claim the right to ignore all inconvenient provisions of any treaty we have signed. |
