quote:

---

Hey, that reminds me... is it even possible to have a legal treaty with a nation that doesn't exist anymore? (The ABM treaty was with the USSR)

---

..come from?

From the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties:

quote:

---

If, at the date of the succession of States, a multilateral treaty was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates and the newly independent State gives notice of its intention that the treaty should be applied provisionally in respect of its territory, that treaty shall apply provisionally between the newly independent State and any party which expressly so agrees or by reason of its conduct is to be considered as having so agreed.

---

quote:

---

the newly independent State gives notice of its intention that the treaty should be applied provisionally in respect of its territory,

---

That's all very nice... but DID they give notice? I mean, BEFORE the US's change in policy? See, AFTER, it's too late.

quote:

---

any party which expressly so agrees or by reason of its conduct is to be considered as having so agreed.

---

Which clearly isn't the United States, by expression OR conduct.

Basically, what the above treaty says is that both sides must agree that the treaty is still in force for it to still be in force. Clearly, they don't. So it isn't.

[ July 26, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]

I don't know if anyone else reads real news these days, but Bush and Putin are planning on working out a new agreement/replacement for the ABM treaty. I'm sure that accounts for something.

Anyway , on the topic of Treaties. The Signing of a treaty doesnt always insure compliance , for example Germany's violation of the Treaty of Versailles which barred them from rebuilding their army after WW1 , we all know how well that worked out.

Another , more modern example is Iraqs Weapons Of Mass Destruction sanctions. After the Persian Gulf Cease Fire , Iraq agreed to halt their Bio , Chem and Nuclear weapons programs and allow for Random UN Weapons inspections. After agreeing to this they backed out , and kicked the inspectors out and forced the UN to renegotiate and of course the UN got suckered into a weaker deal taht allowed the Iraqis to turn away inspectors when they wanted too.

Anyway the problem with these and other treaties is that they fall onto the back burner as time goes by , they lose their importance as other problems arise.

Personally I'm not going to form an opinion on the US not signing these treaties untill i read the treaties in full , you cant judge a treaty by its name.

I mean a treaty to end production of Bio Chemical Agents sounds nice , but as has been stated , what if this Treaty also limits production of agents used to create vaccines or counter - measures for a chemical attack etc.

The debates and problems inside it that we hear about is just a tip of the iceberg of affairs that the deal with annually, a big chunk of it probably doing a lot of good.

[ July 30, 2001: Message edited by: Nimrod ]