SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (61591)12/13/2002 6:22:23 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi CobaltBlue; Re: "Perceived obligations the U.S. may have as a signatory" means that the US is not a signatory, despite the perception that it is a signatory, because the US did not ratify the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

No, what it says is that despite being a signatory, the obligations are only "perceived". It does not say that the US is not a signatory.

But what's hilarious is that you could fail to understand the clearly written passage. And why are you bothering to ignore the other links I gave you, are they too clear for you to obfuscate? Here they are again:

UN definition of "signature subject to ratification":

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

Signatory States which had not yet ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention
opcw.org

Signatory States that have not ratified the Convention
cites.org

Last month, the administration took the unprecedented step of formally renouncing its obligations as a signatory to the 1998 Rome Statute to establish the ICC. Its action was taken three weeks after the 60th signatory ratified the Statute, bringing it into legal effect as of July 1. Sixty-nine countries have now ratified the treaty out of almost 140 that have signed.
muslim-lawyers.net

This posting contains the press release from the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. Burkina Faso became the 40th country to ratify to 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, ensuring that the treaty will enter into force on March 1, 1999. 42 African countries have signed the treaty, and nine, including Burkina Faso, have completed the ratification process.
africaaction.org

also see:
cnsdl.miis.edu

Heck, go try and find a single instance of "signatory" being used to imply ratification in any of these 32,500 links:
google.com

Re: "You didn't take a look at Black's, did you?"

(1) I agree with the definition you gave from Black's, so there is no need to look at it. I'll ask my brother for his comments.

(2) Since this is not a law class, our use of the language is not defined by Black's. Even if "signatory" did have an obscure legal meaning, (it doesn't), it's plain and obvious meaning would apply on Silicon Investor. The links I've provided show plenty of evidence that the plain and obvious meaning of "signatory" means "entity who signed", exactly as zonder used it.

You've provided zero references to signatory being a term of art in legal language. Unless you come up with something fairly soon, I am going to write you off as a source of legal information.

-- Carl

P.S. You should talk to Neocon, who has already apologized for misquoting zonder and suggesting she misused the term "signed" or "signatory": #reply-18330451 and Carl was right, my details were a faulty, but the substance was correct. #reply-18333331 But then again, my experience is that it is always easier to get men to admit that they are wrong.