I'm going to write a book "The Iraq War For Dummies"

[patrone]

Article 102
1. Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.

2. No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph I of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by patrone

I don't dispute that at all.  However, it's completely different than what GScholtz claimed.

[patrone]

And there for, the UN-charter is a treaty, sorry Martlet

I like you anyway

[Martlet]

Originally posted by GScholz
http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp#introduction

"Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that "every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member State of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it". All treaties and international agreements registered or filed and recorded with the Secretariat since 1946 are published in the UNTS. By the terms "treaty" and "international agreement", referred to in Article 102 of the Charter, the broadest range of instruments is covered. Although the General Assembly of the UN has never laid down a precise definition for both terms and never clarified their mutual relationship, Art.1 of the General Assembly Regulations to Give Effect to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that the obligation to register applies to every treaty or international agreement "whatever its form and descriptive name". In the practice of the Secretariat under Article 102 of the UN Charter, the expressions "treaty" and "international agreement" embrace a wide variety of instruments, including unilateral commitments, such as declarations by new Member States of the UN accepting the obligations of the UN Charter, declarations of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under Art.36 (2) of its Statute and certain unilateral declarations that create binding obligations between the declaring nation and other nations. The particular designation of an international instrument is thus not decisive for the obligation incumbent on the Member States to register it."

"Charters

The term "charter" is used for particularly formal and solemn instruments, such as the constituent treaty of an international organization. The term itself has an emotive content that goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Well-known recent examples are the Charter of the United Nations of 1945 and the Charter of the Organization of American States of 1952."

So treaties must be registered with the UN.  Old news.

I'm still waiting for you to back up that the charter is a treaty.  It isn't.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by patrone
And there for, the UN-charter is a treaty, sorry Martlet

I like you anyway

BZZZZZZZZ.  Wrong.

Thanks for playing.

[JB88]

treaty.



not that the us has a great history of honoring those.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by GScholz
Don't be sorry, he's an ahole.

You're wrong, so that makes me an ahole?

I don't mind that you're an Amerihating tard, just be factual while you're doing it.

The charter isn't a treaty.

The US violated no treaties.

Your claim was bunk.

Cry about something legitimate.

[patrone]

Originally posted by Martlet
So treaties must be registered with the UN.  Old news.

I'm still waiting for you to back up that the charter is a treaty.  It isn't.

All new treatys must be registered, to make sure they wont interfere with the original treaty, the UN-Charter.

It is what it is saying.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by patrone
All new treatys must be registered, to make sure they wont interfere with the original treaty, the UN-Charter.

It is what it is saying.

BZZZZZZZ.  Thanks for playing.  Wrong again, though.  Not interfering with the charter doesn't make it a treaty.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by GScholz
Ok, I see you need it spoon-fed. Let uncle Sholzie show little Martlet:

"Charters

The term "charter" is used for particularly formal and solemn instruments, such as the constituent treaty of an international organization. The term itself has an emotive content that goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215. Well-known recent examples are the Charter of the United Nations of 1945 and the Charter of the Organization of American States of 1952."

Link please, Uncle Sholzie.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by GScholz
Look up you twit. You even quoted that passage.

May be a CONSTITUENT TREATY.

Again.  The UN Charter is not a treaty.

Guess again.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by GScholz
How stupid are you? Here let me post the same link AGAIN:


http://untreaty.un.org/English/guide.asp#introduction


You even quoted it.

You are a ****ing retard!

Perhaps, but I'm not claiming a constituent treaty is the same as the UN Charter.

I don't mind that you're an Amerihating tard, just be factual while you're doing it.

The charter isn't a treaty.

The US violated no treaties.

Your claim was bunk.

Cry about something legitimate.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by GScholz
Are there any limits to your lack of mental aptitude?

Apparenlty there aren't any limits to yours.

You cite a definition of charter, then when it says a well known example is the UN charter, and it also says it includes constituent treaties, you claim they are one and the same.

BZZZZZZZ.  Thanks for playing.  That isn't the case, though.

Heck, your own wikipedia quote  that you cited as an example proves you wrong.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by GScholz
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It didn't take you long to realize you were wrong.


I don't mind that you're an Amerihating tard, just be factual while you're doing it.

The charter isn't a treaty.

The US violated no treaties.

Your claim was bunk.

Cry about something legitimate.

[Martlet]

Still nothing, huh?  Well, better luck with your next "I hate America" troll.  Maybe it will be better thought out.