[cotton1706]

http://modernsurvivalblog.com/security/un-arms-treaty-will-bind-us-despite-majority-senate-dissenters/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2907317/posts

There is some dispute of this. But I’ve no doubt that Obama will go through with enforcing its provisions without the senate. And I’ll be interested to see if he actually submits it to the senate for ratification and if the senate actually brings it up for a vote.

[apillar]

There is some dispute of this. But I’ve no doubt that Obama will go through with enforcing its provisions without the senate.

Well presidents can and have enforced treaties in the past before they are ratified, with the caveat that they can only enforce what is currently permitted under existing law. So for instance, Obama could not use a un-ratified treaty as justification to create a gun registry, because federal law already prohibits a gun registry.

[lepton]

Obama can always attempt to comply by Executive order...which can be overturned by the next President...as it’s not really accepted as a treaty. There are actually a number of times that has been done...like when we announce an attempt to act in accordance with a Geneva Convention, but decline to actually become a signatory (which requires Senate ratification).
u
Cotton linked to a claim which might say that the UN would consider us signatories to something, but doesn’t say we do.

[lepton]

That might say that the UN has decided to recognize us as signatories, but not that the US would recognize it.

[lepton]

From your FR link:

Is the United States a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?
It pretends to be, but no.