Edge Rewrite
Jump to content

Talk:Treaty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 20 hours ago by CaribDigita in topic Grey area.

Grey area.

[edit]

The lead paragraph stating ... "Treaties are binding through the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda (Latin: "agreements must be kept"), under which parties are committed to perform their duties and honor their agreements in good faith. Accordingly, treaties are only binding on the parties that have signed and ratified them. A treaty may also be invalidated, and thus rendered unenforceable, if it violates a peremptory norm (jus cogens), such as permitting a war of aggression or crimes against humanity."

Is partly true. If a government is convened by a Constitution. Signing the treaty is usually an act by Head of Government or the Legislature itself agreeing that the nation will be bound by the treaty. HOWEVER an ambiguity can arise when a legislature decides we are NO LONGER binding our nation's constitution to recognize jurisdiction of the tribunal, or treaty, or its provisions, or its powers etc. well then who has final say inside that nation? The Constitution will still prevail! And if the legislature no longer is swearing to abide by the judgements of the treaty the treaty enters a sort of un-enforceable limbo. Treaties still need to adherences of the legislature and or judiciary at least to remain relevant within a nation's borders. I.e. Trump has shown he can exit bound treaties all the time. Other countries will start doing it too eventually. CaribDigita (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply