Sterngard Friegen wrote:You need to stop thinking in terms of "contract." MikeDunford mentioned that. A treaty is a treaty. It is subject to its terms. And the ability of interested parties to enforce it.
Contracts are voluntary agreements which include an object and consideration. A contract may also require certain kinds of performance or conduct or forbearance. While you believe you have self educated yourself, it would be best for you to spend the money and take a contract course at a law school. And also a course in constitutional law. When you have the tools and nomenclature from those courses you will see how, forgive me, silly all these questions and beliefs you have are.
Would something like this be a good starting point?
A. Originalism and Treaty Interpretation
The Constitution is silent as to the methods judges should use to interpret
a legal text. The originalist argument for textualism is based largely on
statutory interpretation cases in England and the colonies prior to the
Founding and therefore has little direct application to treaty interpretation.51
The surviving historical sources that discuss treaties emphasize their
contractual—as opposed to legislative—character. And to the extent that the
Framers conceived of treaties as contracts, it is reasonable to conclude that they
intended courts to interpret treaties using methods derived from the law of
That was the nineteenth-century view of Chancellor Kent:
Treaties of every kind, when made by the competent authority, are as
obligatory upon nations, as private contracts are binding upon
individuals; and they are to receive a fair and liberal interpretation, and
to be kept with the most scrupulous good faith. Their meaning is to be
ascertained by the same rules of construction and course of reasoning which
we apply to the interpretation of private contracts.52