Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
No. It is not unusual to ratify an international treaty with reservations and declarations.

As an (unrelated) example the UK and the convention on the right of the child:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#United_Kingdom

"The United Kingdom ratified the Convention on 16 December 1991, with several declarations and reservations, and made its first report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in January 1995. Concerns raised by the Committee included the growth in child poverty and inequality, the extent of violence towards children, the use of custody for young offenders, the low age of criminal responsibility, and the lack of opportunities for children and young people to express views. The 2002 report of the Committee expressed similar concerns, including the welfare of children in custody, unequal treatment of asylum seekers, and the negative impact of poverty on children's rights. In September 2008 the UK government decided to give up its reservations and agree to the Convention in these respects"

by IM on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:27:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but veto power through a unilateral declaration after everyone else has signed?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:30:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's see. Germany has veto power anyway.

But let's assume the german representative is absent or he votes yes. And then a decision of the ESM obligates Germany to pay more then the 190 billion.

As far as the ESM is concerned, its decision is valid.

As far as Germany is concerned, German is not obligated to pay until the Bundestag concurs.

by IM on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:43:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series