• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    These high-minded treaties don’t actually mean anything - there’s no enforcement mechanism and countries with a much worse human-rights record than the USA have signed them without consequences. IMO it’s better not to sign them than it is to pretend that signing does any good and lend unearned legitimacy to those other countries.

    • homura1650@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      The treaty itself does not have any enforcement mechanism; however the US does. US courts recognize ratified treaties as having equal weight to laws passed the normal way Ratifying the Treaty would immediately make it federal law. The US has a robust enough legal system that the courts would the (over years of building up case law) determine exactly what that means.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        This.

        A treaty is a three step process. Draft, sign, ratify. This made it to step two, not step three for the US.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      This perception arises from the fact that people think signing and ratifying are the same thing. They are not.

      A treaty needs to be ratified to be legally binding, and ratification takes 2/3rd of the senate to OK it.

      The executive branch signs international shit all the time, but they can’t get it through Congress. Which is why recent treaties lack teeth.

    • CashewNut 🏴󠁢󠁥󠁧󠁿@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Ah yes the oft-used American Exceptionalist attitude of “we’re too good to bind ourselves to treaties like this”.

      Tale as old as time. It’s why the US isn’t a member of the ICJ and many other international treaties. King’s don’t follow rules - they make them!

      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        The US is a member of the International Court of Justice - every country in the United Nations is. Are you thinking of the International Criminal Court?

        Other than that, my answer is “yes but that’s not a bad thing”.

          • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago
            1. The actions of an international court will inevitably be political.

            2. The countries that are the worst human rights violators will never voluntary accept the authority of the court.

            In that context, why should the USA give other, potentially hostile countries power over itself? It might have been worthwhile if it meant everyone had to follow the rules but in practice it would just give countries opposed to US foreign policy a tool for interfering without giving the US anything useful.

            (My general view is that the US has made many very harmful mistakes but the era of American hegemony has still been one of remarkable global peace and prosperity. Like democracy, it’s the worst system except for everything else that has been tried. Now we’re seeing serious challenges to this hegemony and if they succeed, the world will get worse for almost everyone, not just for Americans. So if you think the US does more harm than good, we’re unlikely to come to an agreement.)

            Edit: accidentally deleted, reposting.