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 (61515)	12/13/2002 12:05:28 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

I figured you would make that point eventually. The domestic law of treaties and the international law of treaties do not completely jibe. Brava!

To: Ilaine who wrote (61515)	12/13/2002 1:56:44 PM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 281500

They're smart and think they know everything, but they don't.);^) Carl doesn't know everything. Dang another disillusionment. Next you will tell me there is no Santa Clause and that France and Russia don't really care about the people of Iraq. Paul

To: Ilaine who wrote (61515)	12/13/2002 5:16:31 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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