Violation of Vienna Convention

William S. Lear rael at
Sun Apr 4 23:24:56 PDT 1999

On Sunday, April 4, 1999 at 21:40:35 (-0700) Sam Pawlett writes:
>> It makes sense when you think
>> about it -- valid treaties are consented to, and there is no consent under
>> duress. But this sort of threat seems to be regarded these days as the
>> soul of international uprightness. Does anyone know if there wiggle room
>> in this convention the Nation didn't mention?
>Is the Vienna Convention and the U.N. charter legally binding at all? It may
>just be a gentlemen's agreement. Of course, law means nothing unless there is
>a body to enforce it. In this case, the U.S. is no doubt the strongest
>military power in the world and as such is free to act as it pleases without
>fear of retribution. The rule of force not the rule of law is usually the
>rule in international relations.
> The Pawlettbureau

Article VI

Section 2. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States

which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made,

or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,

shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every

State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws

of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list