To: Bilow who wrote (61432 ) 12/13/2002 8:30:18 AM From: Ilaine Read Replies (3) | Respond to Hi Carl - I read the link you gave to the Pace Law School website - 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.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) . The United States signed the Vienna Convention on April 24, 1970, and the Convention entered into force January 27, 1980. Over the past couple of decades the Vienna Convention has been widely viewed as the framework for international law, however, it has never been ratified by the U.S. 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. << law.pace.edu
