To the Editor:
John R. Bolton and John Yoo assert that any Senate reservations included in the Senate’s resolution approving the New Start treaty would not be legally binding because they would not be part of the treaty itself.
When the Senate approves a treaty, it can condition its consent (by reservation, understanding or whatever — the label doesn’t matter) either by requiring the president to get the other party to agree to a change in the treaty’s text, or simply by including its condition in the resolution of ratification.
After the Senate acts, the president decides whether to bring the treaty into force. If he wishes to do so, he is constitutionally required to respect the Senate’s conditions, regardless of which method the Senate has used. Each is equally binding in international law as well as law of the land, and each has been used on numerous occasions for over 200 years without raising any legal concern.
Michael J. Glennon