U.S. President Bill Clinton signed the agreement to protect Ukraine from a Russian invasion in exchange for it's nuclear weapons. However the agreement was never submitted it for ratification by the U.S. Senate. So in effect in the words of the Brooking institution it became a 'politically binding but not legally binding agreement.'
The tl;dr is not true however. There is binding international law affecting certain treaties, and some kind of treaties and parties do expect ratification from each signatories' internal legislative body.
(e.g. totally random example https://www.jta.org/archive/french-senate-ratifies-lausanne-...)
Your body is correct though:
Now why the US follows a counter-pattern and why Ukraine did not ask for ratification is another discussion, that I consider to be long term harmful.
From the Ukraine's side/pov: it will be politically not wise for the U.S.A. to back out of the protection treaty. There is good will capital that is lost, just for allowing this 8 year situation to occur.
The 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was specifically a memorandum, not a treaty. It was never intended to be submitted to the US Senate for ratification.
> Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was specifically a memorandum, not a treaty
Nobody in this thread claimed
it was. A signed memorandum is still a promise and an agreement, even if not ratified as a treaty. We broke an agreement with Ukraine, letting her get sacked. We didn’t breach a treaty.
Lies on a handshake may not get far in court. They’re still lies.
