The conference on legal status of the ABM Treaty
Article Abstract:
This article summarizes a conference by the National Institute of Public Policy regarding the status and legality of the 1972 Anti-Ballisitic Missile Systems Treaty between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, which some experts believe ceased to exist when the Soviet Union disolved in December 1991, while others disagree. Issues include the U.S. desire to build a national ballistic defense system despite provisions in the treaty specifically forbidding such actions, the Senate approval of Bill Clinton's National Missile Defense Act of 1999, and the influence of the Rumsfeld Commission report.
Publication Name: Comparative Strategy
Subject: International relations
ISSN: 0149-5933
Year: 2001
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
The Conference on the legal status of the ABM Treaty: proceedings
Article Abstract:
This article provides the proceedings of a conference on the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty signed by the U.S. and the Soviet Union in 1972, sponsored by the National Institute on Public Policy and conducted by a panel of experts in the field. Issues include the legal status of the ABM Treaty and whether it is still legally binding since the Soviet Union no longer exists; however, the Russian Federation has been acknowledged as the successor to the USSR and responsible for all treaties it signed.
Publication Name: Comparative Strategy
Subject: International relations
ISSN: 0149-5933
Year: 2001
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
The conference on the legal status of the ABM Treaty: Memorandum of law, June 1, 2000; did the ABM Treaty of 1972 remain in force after the USSR ceased to exist in December 1991 and did it become a Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation?
Article Abstract:
This article argues that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty between the U.S. and the Soviet Union ceased to exist when the USSR became extinct in December 1991. The authors cite precedents to the view that the extinction of a State is followed by the abolition of all treaties pertaining to it, and suggest that President Clinton's acknowledgement of the Russian Federation as the successor to the Soviet Union and its treaties is not legally binding.
Publication Name: Comparative Strategy
Subject: International relations
ISSN: 0149-5933
Year: 2001
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: