In international law, what status does a signed but unratified treaty have? Does it have any force in law?
What is the difference between an international treaty that has been signed and ratified (by a country's national legislature)and one that has been merely signed but not ratified between two or more countries? If one country signs and ratifies but another country signs but does not ratify, how valid, in international law, is that treaty - is a country still bound by its provisions?
First International law is not valid. It is only as valid as the size of your guns. The US has proven that time and time again...to protect our interests we have gone against UN law and violated the Geneva Convention as well as other international law violoations.
Not every nation has the ratification process that we do usually most nations once the executive leader signs it...it is ratified...we are pretty unique with out system.
But as with us we don't recognize a treaty as law until the Senate ratifies it. This is important as a treaty in essence becomes part of the constitution and we want to ensure we take full precautions with what we add to the supreme law of the land.
No. The United States Constitution require all treaties to be ratified by the United States Senate.
Nope, they are not.
Of course it would depend on the laws of each country.
Some countries might give their executive the power to both sign and ratify treaties.
But in countries like the US, the treaty must be both signed by the president and ratified by the senate to have the force of law.
If the treaty was between two countries, it would have to be legally signed and ratified by both countries to have the force of law.
For broder international treaties, they usualy have a minimum number of states that must ratify a treaty before it becomes law, but it only applies to those states which ratify the treaties.
IE: The Kyoto Accord has been ratified internationaly, but since the US senate has never ratified it, it has no bearing on the US.