Similarly, States reassess their compliance with international law when treaties fall into disrepute due to scandals or accession disputes. Rich countries like Japan, which are ”pro-whaling”, have been accused by some states and NGOs of ”buying votes from poor member states”. [36] As a result, the International Whaling Commission was forced to improve the transparency and efficiency of its operations. [37] If the allegations were true, states could be induced to comply with a law on immoral grounds (intentional corruption) (by becoming members of the treaty). Inland Switzerland can also vote on whaling issues for which it has little or no authority on the issue. Essentially, the principle that every sovereign state gets a vote is not necessarily democratic. For example, Nye calculated that a citizen of Nauru, a member of the UN, would have 10,000 times more voting rights than a Chinese citizen. [38] Ultimately, a treaty structure can motivate states for a number of reasons. The classic arguments of figures such as the political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau are often interpreted as describing international law as an ineffective restriction of international competition. [21] While Hobbes was a little more optimistic because he believed that the development of international law among states would allow them to live in a state that is concerned only with peace, but not with permanent war. [22] A dilemma illustrated by Goldsmith and Posner is that the state may have obligations under international law, but these obligations would have no impact on the behavior of states unless they are in the interests of citizens (in democracies) or autocrats (in autocracies). [23] Ultimately, states can respect international law, but the legal status of the treaty has no real influence on their decision.

Therefore, self-interest is likely to be a factor in how nations behave. ==References=====External links===A treaty is an agreement entered into ”by and with the Council and with the consent of the Senate” in accordance with Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution. To be considered a treaty under U.S. law, the document must go through a second set of steps during which it is approved by the Senate. These theories provide useful explanations of how states behave. However, there are many variables that a State must also take into account when deciding to follow international law and accepted norms. For example, in international law, the structure of a treaty may be a factor. Chayes and Chayes state that the non-compliance is due to the ambiguity in the wording of the contract and the actual fairness of the contract.

[32] The deliberate ambiguity of international agreements has been used to settle disputes. [33] Ambiguity is often based on the premise that vagueness is necessary to enter into contracts and that the resulting ambiguity may be clarified at some point in the future. Often, international agreements are drafted to allow for a number of interpretations concerning the commitments of the parties. [34] A state can be criticized for non-compliance with a treaty. However, depending on how the treaty was written, the same State could argue that it was adhering to it. Bruce Cronin`s article illustrates the dilemma that law enforcement and unilateral action are an equation that powerful states must overcome. [42] When hegemons act unilaterally, they undermine the international legal system. However, it is suggested that they cannot remain hegemonic if they undermine the system they are trying to manage. The tension between self-interest and international responsibility creates a phenomenon called the ”paradox of hegemony.” [43] If, for example, international law is as powerless as realists claim, why do powerful states follow it? If a contract does not contain any provisions for other agreements or actions, only the text of the contract is legally binding. In general, an amendment to a treaty is binding only on those States that have ratified it, and agreements reached at review conferences, summits or meetings of States parties are politically binding, but not legally. An example of a treaty that contains provisions for other binding agreements is the Charter of the United Nations.

By signing and ratifying the Charter, countries have agreed to be legally bound by the resolutions of United Nations bodies such as the General Assembly and the Security Council. Therefore, UN resolutions are legally binding on UN member states and no signature or ratification is required. In international law, a treaty is any legally binding agreement between states (countries). A treaty can be called a convention, protocol, pact, agreement, etc.; it is the content of the agreement, not its name, that makes it a treaty. Thus, both the Geneva Protocol and the Biological Weapons Convention are treaties, although neither of them has the word ”treaty” in its name. ==References=====External links===A treaty is in particular a legally binding agreement between countries that requires ratification and the ”advice and consent” of the Senate. .