The Legal Status of the ABM Treaty: Alive but under the Usual Political Attacks

In: Comparative strategy, Band 20, Heft 2, S. 203-213

Abstract

This article evaluates the validity of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty after the break of the USSR from the perspective of the president's foreign affairs powers as granted by the US Constitution, precedents set by President Bush, & international law. It asserts that the Republican senators who oppose President Clinton's recognition of the continuation of the treaty can find no basis in the Constitution or in international law. Russia is recognized as the continuing state in nearly all of several hundred treaties with the USSR. The decision as to whether Belarus, Ukraine, & Kazakhstan are also current parties to the treaty will become urgent when amendments to the ABM Treaty, which were suggested in June 2000 to allow for nationwide defense against "rogue" states, are submitted. If the ABM Treaty were considered a bilateral treaty as START II is, it would be inconsistent with the acceptance of the 1997 Memorandum of Understanding, which stated that Russia & three successor states were party to the ABM Treaty; the Demarcation Agreement; & the adaptation of the START I & INF treaties. L. A. Hoffman