Timeline for answer to How could the US promise, without a vote in Congress, not to expand NATO? by QuestionablePresence
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 2, 2025 at 7:38 | comment | added | QuestionablePresence | I also added another sentence about international pressure, which can elevate a signed treaty to the de-facto force of a ratified one by major powers simply asserting that it is valid since it's signed. | |
| Sep 2, 2025 at 7:36 | history | edited | QuestionablePresence | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 412 characters in body
|
| Sep 2, 2025 at 7:33 | comment | added | QuestionablePresence | @MWB What is a signed treaty but a treaty that was signed (and implicitly: not yet ratified)? What are negotiated treaties (aka pre-signature)? Do they even exist? Is the act of ratification magically and retroactively creating the formulated, negotiated and signed treaties in the past? No it's not, they're all treaties and always have been. Just as proposed treaties, rejected treaties and also ratified treaties are. They just hold varying amounts of value/respect. Is the Rome Statute not a treaty because the US hasn't signed (or ratified) it? | |
| Sep 1, 2025 at 19:49 | comment | added | MWB | "the US broke surprisingly few ratified treaties" -- Are they really "treaties" if they are not ratified? | |
| Sep 1, 2025 at 10:11 | comment | added | QuestionablePresence | Good catch on the 3-4 categories though, I added the "significantly changing situation" a bit later in the writing process and forgot to update, thanks, I thought about not updating it because the list breaking the promise of having 3 entries is kinda funny | |
| Sep 1, 2025 at 10:10 | history | edited | QuestionablePresence | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Sep 1, 2025 at 10:10 | comment | added | QuestionablePresence | Also note how #1 said "signed treaties" as opposed to ratified, as the US broke surprisingly few ratified treaties, but it's political system systematically ignores expectations of ratification and has done so for a long time: qz.com/1273510/… thus the nation can easily be categorised under #1 because you cannot trust that it will uphold (or even ratify ratify) a signed treaty. If you're a native tribe you can't even count on them upholding ratified treaties, although that has improved recently. | |
| Sep 1, 2025 at 10:06 | comment | added | QuestionablePresence | @MWB en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… just as a first one from the top of my hat. Sure, legally they "withdrew" instead of violating it but this question is in regards to promises made and through that lense, both actions are equal. Then there's the ton of treaties with the varying Native American tribes which were frequently broken on a whim or replaced by new ones signed under heavy duress. | |
| Aug 31, 2025 at 6:02 | comment | added | MWB | Which signed treaties has the US violated? | |
| Aug 27, 2025 at 12:27 | history | edited | QuestionablePresence | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 78 characters in body
|
| Aug 27, 2025 at 11:49 | history | answered | QuestionablePresence | CC BY-SA 4.0 |