Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (61409)	12/12/2002 8:47:52 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "It's a term of art. When used without disclaimer, it means that the US is a signatory to the treaty." Ever heard of Pace Law school? The Unites States has ratified the UNFCCC and therefore is legally bound to meet with all of its requirements. Because the U.S. has only signed, and not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it is not legally bound to meet with the Protocol mandates, but as a signatory to the Protocol the U.S. still has several obligations. These obligations are outlined in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties a United Nations treaty that outlines acceptable behaviors during the various stages of multilateral treaty development and entry (see also CRS report to Congress on climate change). law.pace.edu Re: "Saying "the US signed the treaty" is playing very fast and loose with the truth, and exhibits a reckless or conscious disregard for the meaning of terms which have precise meanings." Why don't you link to the post where zonder made such an error. I couldn't find it, and I think you made it up out of whole cloth. -- Carl