Re: Abrogation Wordings

[Jason Trice <tricejas@pilot.msu.edu>]

>Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 19:42:44
>To: DSRADER@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU
>From: Jason Trice <tricejas@pilot.msu.edu>
>Subject: Re: Abrogation Wordings
>
>>One possible expansion of the magic number 48 just showed up. How about
>>changes in already existing treaties? Are those topical? On April 7,
>>Clinton made a speech to Congress asking for ratification of changes
>>that had been made to the 1991 CFE treaty to account for the breakup of
>>the Soviet Union. Press accounts are calling it a "new accord". Is the
>>set of unratified "treaties" bigger than we thought if it includes any
>>pending amendment?
>>
>Not an expansion, look at the list in the topic paper.  This ammendment to
the CFE treaty was submitted to the Committee on April 7, 1997.  Several
things on the list are protocols or ammendments and may or may not be
topical depending on the topic wording.  So long as the resolution didn't
include protocols the aff would face an uphill T battle, but even under the
most expansive list of the treaties pending ratification in the senate your
still only looking at 53 cases possible and not all of those being
strategically viable.
>
>Jason
>
>

---

• Prev by Date: J.W. Patterson or anyone who has his address
• Next by Date: Re: Abrogation Wordings (fwd)
• Prev by thread: Re: Abrogation Wordings
• Next by thread: Domestic terror
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page