As a general principle, countries are allowed to figure out how to implement the obligations of a treaty. Most treaties require not only that the treaty be ratified by whatever means a government may require, but also that implementing legislation be developed by the country so that its treaty obligations are met. Third parties (like other signatories) do not have the authority to dictate how a treaty is to be implemented if that’s not specifically laid out in the treaty itself.
So, for example, let’s say the world signs on to a treaty regulating the trade in dihydrogen monoxide. Country A might require that people install DHMO monitoring devices in their home; Country B might require DHMO distributors to comply with some regulations or inspections; Country C may rely on market surveys, public education campaigns, and other non-intrusive means to achieve the same. Unless the regulatory framework is specifically compelled by the treaty, all of those approaches are equally valid if the requirement of the treaty is being met – that does not mean that the DHMO treaty requires the most restrictive approach of home monitoring.
It’s the “implementing legislation” within the U.S. that makes taxpaying voters in the U.S. suspicious. In order for a member state like the U.S. to completely control it’s small arm sales, it’s going to have to register all of it’s small arm sales. And registration leads to confiscation.
If there aren’t enough votes to pass the implementing legislation within the U.S., why should the U.S. even bother with ratifying the treaty?
Given the apology and that this is a first offense, I’m going to change the warning to a moderator note. But please stick to factual information in GQ in the future.
The basic point here is that if the United States signs a treaty which commits to to achieve certain goals, treaties generally do not prescribe or require a country to achieve that goal in a precise way. Unless the arms treaty specifically requires gun registration, then the US could choose to implement the treaty in any way it wishes. Even if the treaty specifically required registration, the Senate could write a reservation into the resolution of ratification which would nullify that particular requirement, and approve the rest of the treaty. It’s a common procedure for countries to sign up to agreements with certain exceptions.
The main question of what the treaty does and how it may impact things like international transfers of arms to private parties is a factual question and also a topic of reasoned debate. But the proposition that treaties are sneaky devices that can be used to force countries to do things they don’t actually want to is where we go off into conspiracy theory territory. Quite simply, it is impossible for a non-self executing treaty to void portions of the Constitution, and it is totally implausible that a treaty will require unpopular laws to be adopted.
If you want to argue whether registration leads to confiscation, start a new thread in Great Debates. Let’s stick to the actual factual provisions of the treaty in this thread.
As one of the member states, the U.S. has an opportunity to influence the writing of “this” treaty. That’s a given. Reasonable debate doesn’t mean that one side starts by accepting the argument of the other as fact or even as reasonable. Each side makes it’s case, compromises are made, and the side with the most votes wins the day.
The U.S. 2nd Amendment isn’t the ONLY issue being discussed by the UN and there doesn’t seem to be overwhelming support for this treaty by the 192 member states.
What makes you say this? The UN General Assembly vote in 2006 to initiate negotiations on the treaty was 153-1, with 24 abstentions. The vote in 2009 to proceed further was 151-1-20. If anything, it seems that the only controversy among the international community is whether the draft treaty should be stronger, at least based on current press coverage.
The UN voted to discuss the issue. Hooray. The UN likes to discuss issues. All kinds of issues. Talk, talk, talk. However, the UN still hasn’t decided what “terrorism” is and how long have they been talking about that?. The UN doesn’t seem to have the votes to pass the resolution for this treaty.
Ha-ha. I don’t know that the proposed treaty is an eevil plot to U.N.-gun America; someone better than I am at reading treaty verbage would have to tell me exactly what it does or doesn’t mean. But gun owners are paranoid, and imho rightly so, about slippery-slope precedents and laws that can be interpreted any way the people in power want to interpret them. Exhibit One: we’ve gone from the Tenth Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Clause. Gun owners trust firearms laws the way African-Americans trust voter ID.