Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "I thought you were reasonably intelligent and reasonably competent to understand a fairly complex legal argument. Am I admitting I was wrong about that? Maybe."
The proper use of language is one of those things that I think is important, and I'm always happy to learn new things. But since in the past you've shown yourself to be on the wrong side of at least one legal argument in which you claimed particular expertise (Jones act, cargo preference, see #reply-18008147 for when I finally dug up the language of the Jones Act and showed that it allowed the use of foreign ships), I looked up the definitions, as used in international treaties, and you're wrong.
While I know that winning arguments with women is the nearest thing to hopeless, I will persevere in providing you with evidence that maybe, just maybe, just this one time out of many, many chances, you're plain dead wrong, wrong, wrong, on the question of "signatory" being a term of art equivalent to "ratified party" as you claim in recent posts:
In the context of a treaty, the term "signatory" means "party." It's a legal term of art. The US is not a party to the Kyoto treaty, therefore it is not a signatory. #reply-18329754
Carl - the shorthand expression "the US signed such and such a treaty" doesn't mean that an Ambassador affixed a non-binding signature to it. It's a term of art. When used without disclaimer, it means that the US is a signatory to the treaty. I have already explained that this means that the US is actually a party to the treaty. ... 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. #reply-18331559
I already gave a link showing the White House Press Secretary and Pace Law School using "signatory" at variance with your definition. Here's some more references. Note that these are references from legal sources. The UN makes it clear that there is a difference between "signatory" and "contracting" states, and explicitly defines states as "signatory" when they have signed a document but not ratified it:
United Nations Treaty Collection
...
Any signatory or contracting state has the option of objecting to a reservation ...
...
23. Signature Subject to Ratification, Acceptance or Approval
Where the signature is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, the signature does not establish the consent to be bound. However, it is a means of authentication and expresses the willingness of the signatory state to continue the treaty-making process. The signature qualifies the signatory state to proceed to ratification, acceptance or approval. It also creates an obligation to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty.
untreaty.un.org
Update to Annex: Human Rights, Country and Legal Information Resources on the Internet
Elisa Mason
...
Texts can be retrieved by title or keyword; signatory/ratification details also provided.
...
llrx.com
General Concepts and Terms of International Legal Instruments
Costa Rica - Canada Initiative, February 22, 1999
I am asked to speak to you over general concepts and terms of international legal instruments.
...
If the text of a treaty is agreed upon, States express their intention of their consent to be bound by the treaty. Signing the treaty usually does this, by the signatories. Once a treaty is signed, customary law states that a State can no longer act against the objectives, the ideas behind that particular treaty, even if it is not binding yet. The signatories then have to go back to the national level, where the treaty will have to be ratified. That means, for example, that the treaty has to be approved by the legislature, parliament, the head of State, etc. So signatory States need to ratify, with the ratification they express their consent to be bound by the treaty. Instead of ratification, they can also use the instruments of acceptance or approval, depending on their national preference. Non-signatories, states that join the treaty at a later stage, usually do this via the instrument of accession.
...
nrcan.gc.ca
REVISED TREATY OF CHAGUARAMAS ESTABLISHING THE CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY INCLUDING THE CARICOM SINGLE MARKET AND ECONOMY
Chapter 10
...
ARTICLE 233
Ratification
This Treaty and any amendments thereto shall be subject to ratification by signatory States in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretariat which shall transmit certified copies to the signatory States.
...
sice.oas.org
Links showing that there is no special legal definition of "signatory", or even "sign":
1st-law-website-design.com
At this time, I've found precisely zero support for your contention that "signatory" is a term of art whose use is properly known only to high brow lawyers. No, the term means exactly what it says, that a country (or more properly, its representative) signed a document. It specifically does not say that the country is bound by that document, only that it signed it. Over and over the lawyers, and even the texts of the treaties themselves, differentiate between the act of signing and the act of ratifying.
If anything, "signatory" is a term of art used by people who don't know what they're talking about when trying to weasel their way out of losing an argument on the internet. But the problem with it is that searches are too easy on the internet. You can't pull the "high brow legal talent" argument and make it stick here. Maybe you can pull that kind of stunt with a IQ/90 judge in rural Georgia, but it ain't gonna fly here.
-- Carl
P.S. Regular definitions:
Signatory n.
One that has signed a treaty or other document.
dictionary.reference.com
Party n.
(a) A person or group involved in an enterprise; a participant or an accessory.
(b)Law. A person or group involved in a legal proceeding as a litigant.
dictionary.reference.com |
