Thai man fined and sentenced to prison over craft beer review
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Topics
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
Latest posts...
-
209
The Boy Who Cried Wolf aka TACO
Trump needs no help from anyone in looking bad and its not pretend, its fact -
22
LTR Visa- Ive got questions. Please help !!
This was a BIG advantage for me, even thou my LTR-WP took a rather long time to get. I had MANY information requests, and in the most part (with on major exception) I was able to address them from the comfort of my condo, sitting on the balcony with my laptop computer, with a sea view and sipping a glass of wine. -
24
Crime Police Called After Indian Tourist Climbs Onto Taxi in Pattaya
Quote of the day. -
209
The Boy Who Cried Wolf aka TACO
You represent the decline of the left’s mental condition to a T. Since losing the election in a landslide. -
477
So Long And Thanks For All The Fish - Ukraine bombs Russian Nuclear Bombers
Yes, both the US and Russia may be legally bound by the terms of the New Salt Treaty, but Russia has a different point of view. Agin, from Perplexity: "Russia’s suspension of the New START Treaty is widely regarded as legally invalid for several reasons rooted in the treaty’s text, international law, and historical precedent: 1. Absence of Suspension Provisions in the Treaty The New START Treaty contains no clause permitting suspension . Article XIV outlines a formal withdrawal process requiring written notice and a six-month waiting period, which Russia has not invoked . By unilaterally suspending participation without following these procedures, Russia violated the treaty’s explicit terms. 2. Misapplication of the Vienna Convention Russia justified its suspension under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), which allows suspension due to a “fundamental change of circumstances” . However: • U.S. support for Ukraine does not constitute a “fundamental change” affecting the treaty’s obligations, as arms control is distinct from geopolitical conflicts . • Article 62 cannot be invoked if the suspending party has breached other international obligations (e.g., Russia’s aggression against Ukraine) . 3. Continued Treaty Obligations Suspension does not terminate obligations. Under the VCLT’s Article 72, parties must refrain from acts obstructing the treaty’s resumption . Russia’s refusal to facilitate inspections, share data, or attend consultative meetings directly violates New START’s requirements (Articles VII, IX, and Part Four of the protocol) . The U.S. State Department has documented these violations, confirming Russia’s noncompliance . 4. International and Expert Consensus • The U.S. and arms control experts, including treaty negotiators like Rose Gottemoeller, unanimously reject Russia’s suspension as “irresponsible and unlawful” . • Russia’s similar suspension of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) in 2007 faced comparable legal challenges, establishing a pattern of invalid treaty actions . 5. U.S. Countermeasures While the U.S. has halted data exchanges and inspections in response, these are proportionate countermeasures under international law, not a withdrawal . The U.S. maintains compliance with the treaty’s central limits and remains open to resuming full implementation if Russia returns to compliance . Conclusion Russia’s suspension lacks legal validity under both New START and the VCLT. Its actions are widely viewed as a politically motivated maneuver to gain leverage, rather than a justified legal step . Until Russia formally withdraws or the treaty expires in 2026, it remains bound by its obligations." Sounds to me like Russia has indicated plans "to exceed treaty limits..." In any event, ask yourself this: if you were in charge of the US Air Force and the strategic defense assets of the USA, would you continue to park your bombers and other attack aircraft in nice little rows in the middle of a field somewhere, simply because a treaty that Russia is illegally violating requires it? Or would you recommend that the United States act in its own best interest? Do you think adherence to recognized treaty legalities trump the act of self-preservation? And let's not forget who's in the White House these days. It's a real mess. -
209
The Boy Who Cried Wolf aka TACO
Never heard of BEA. What is next? Bono claims 300,000 dead because of USAID exposure of fraud, waste and abuse. Naturally you believe the drug addict.
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now