Return to Answer

[Completely ignoring your example and just answering the general question]

By making that empty promise

Now, a lot of countries and negotiations come to terms & treaties that technically need internal (re-)approval, this is common practice.

Why does it (usually) work? Because even moderately opposed politicians value the international integrity of their promises over minor disagreements, so this kind of promises/treaties has an incredibly high chance of passing. Additionally, any skilled negotiator or official will of course only promise what they know has a decent chance of getting passed.

This however requires a political system and landscape that cares in some way about it's international reputation, which is why a breaking of such promises pretty much always falls into 4 categories:

1. The promise was made by a nation known for ignoring signed treaties and promises like Russia and the US
2. The promise was made under significant duress or pressure
3. The country is highly politically unstable
4. the situation changes in an unpredictable way

Since all three of those are easy to ascertain it's upon the "receiving" nation to determine the validity and value of such promises. The important part is that it doesn't matter whether the internal approval happens or not, any of these criteria can lead to promises/treaties being broken anyway.

Option B: Lying

You can make all kinds of promises if you absolutely don't care (see category 1 in the list above)

[Completely ignoring your example and just answering the general question]

By making that empty promise

Now, a lot of countries and negotiations come to terms & treaties that technically need internal (re-)approval, this is common practice.

Why does it (usually) work? Because even moderately opposed politicians value the international integrity of their promises over minor disagreements, so this kind of promises/treaties has an incredibly high chance of passing. Additionally, any skilled negotiator or official will of course only promise what they know has a decent chance of getting passed.

This however requires a political system and landscape that cares in some way about it's international reputation, which is why a breaking of such promises pretty much always falls into 4 categories:

1. The promise was made by a nation known for ignoring signed treaties and promises like Russia and the US
2. The promise was made under significant duress or pressure
3. The country is highly politically unstable
4. the situation changes in an unpredictable way

Since all of those are easy to ascertain, it's upon the "receiving" nation to determine the validity and value of such promises, aka how much it can rely on these words. The important part is that it doesn't matter whether the internal approval happens or not, any of these criteria can lead to promises/treaties being broken anyway. Depending on the signer and point in time, a signed treaty can be as valuable as a ratified one and a ratified one can be as worthless as a post meal napkin. One additional factor is the international community whose pressure can elevate the value of a signature far above the ratification itself (or the other way around if major powers oppose the treaty signed/ratified).

Option B: Lying

You can make all kinds of promises if you absolutely don't care (see category 1 in the list above)

[Completely ignoring your example and just answering the general question]

By making that empty promise

Now, a lot of countries and negotiations come to terms & treaties that technically need internal (re-)approval, this is common practice.

Why does it (usually) work? Because even moderately opposed politicians value the international integrity of their promises over minor disagreements, so this kind of promises/treaties has an incredibly high chance of passing. Additionally, any skilled negotiator or official will of course only promise what they know has a decent chance of getting passed.

This however requires a political system and landscape that cares in some way about it's international reputation, which is why a breaking of such promises pretty much always falls into 3 categories:

1. The promise was made by a nation known for ignoring signed treaties and promises like Russia and the US
2. The promise was made under significant duress or pressure
3. The country is highly politically unstable
4. the situation changes in an unpredictable way

Since all three of those are easy to ascertain it's upon the "receiving" nation to determine the validity and value of such promises. The important part is that it doesn't matter whether the internal approval happens or not, any of these criteria can lead to promises/treaties being broken anyway.

Option B: Lying

You can make all kinds of promises if you absolutely don't care (see category 1 in the list above)

[Completely ignoring your example and just answering the general question]

By making that empty promise

Now, a lot of countries and negotiations come to terms & treaties that technically need internal (re-)approval, this is common practice.

Why does it (usually) work? Because even moderately opposed politicians value the international integrity of their promises over minor disagreements, so this kind of promises/treaties has an incredibly high chance of passing. Additionally, any skilled negotiator or official will of course only promise what they know has a decent chance of getting passed.

This however requires a political system and landscape that cares in some way about it's international reputation, which is why a breaking of such promises pretty much always falls into 4 categories:

1. The promise was made by a nation known for ignoring signed treaties and promises like Russia and the US
2. The promise was made under significant duress or pressure
3. The country is highly politically unstable
4. the situation changes in an unpredictable way

Since all three of those are easy to ascertain it's upon the "receiving" nation to determine the validity and value of such promises. The important part is that it doesn't matter whether the internal approval happens or not, any of these criteria can lead to promises/treaties being broken anyway.

Option B: Lying

You can make all kinds of promises if you absolutely don't care (see category 1 in the list above)

By making that empty promise

Now, a lot of countries and negotiations come to terms & treaties that technically need internal (re-)approval, this is common practice.

Why does it (usually) work? Because even moderately opposed politicians value the international integrity of their promises over minor disagreements, so this kind of promises/treaties has an incredibly high chance of passing. Additionally, any skilled negotiator or official will of course only promise what they know has a decent chance of getting passed.

This however requires a political system and landscape that cares in some way about it's international reputation, which is why a breaking of such promises pretty much always falls into 3 categories:

1. The promise was made by a nation known for ignoring signed treaties and promises like Russia and the US
2. The promise was made under significant duress or pressure
3. The country is highly politically unstable
4. the situation changes in an unpredictable way

Since all three of those are easy to ascertain it's upon the "receiving" nation to determine the validity and value of such promises. The important part is that it doesn't matter whether the internal approval happens or not, any of these criteria can lead to promises/treaties being broken anyway.

Option B: Lying

You can make all kinds of promises if you absolutely don't care (see category 1 in the list above)

[Completely ignoring your example and just answering the general question]

By making that empty promise

Now, a lot of countries and negotiations come to terms & treaties that technically need internal (re-)approval, this is common practice.

Why does it (usually) work? Because even moderately opposed politicians value the international integrity of their promises over minor disagreements, so this kind of promises/treaties has an incredibly high chance of passing. Additionally, any skilled negotiator or official will of course only promise what they know has a decent chance of getting passed.

This however requires a political system and landscape that cares in some way about it's international reputation, which is why a breaking of such promises pretty much always falls into 3 categories:

1. The promise was made by a nation known for ignoring signed treaties and promises like Russia and the US
2. The promise was made under significant duress or pressure
3. The country is highly politically unstable
4. the situation changes in an unpredictable way

Since all three of those are easy to ascertain it's upon the "receiving" nation to determine the validity and value of such promises. The important part is that it doesn't matter whether the internal approval happens or not, any of these criteria can lead to promises/treaties being broken anyway.

Option B: Lying

You can make all kinds of promises if you absolutely don't care (see category 1 in the list above)