Talk:Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction

Budapest Memorandum not a Treaty

The final sentence of the introductory paragraph says, "However, there is a dispute whether Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is anything more than a general statement of intent, lacking the rigor of an international treaty and accompanying ratification procedure". This claim, while almost certainly true, seems fairly vague (ie who disputes the claim) and not immediately verified. Does anyone have a source for it? Okapi296 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

A memorandum is not technically a treaty. However it is binding international law. Interestingly the pledge to assist Ukraine in the event of aggression is the same term as in the Entente Cordiale treaties, which led to WW1.101.98.175.68 (talk) 07:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This sentence should be removed, there is no dispute, the fact that Ukraine was invaded is backed by UN resolution, proposed by Ukraine and voted by 100 countries against 11: [[1]]. (Gena (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC))

The statement in the introduction that "However, there is a dispute whether Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is anything more than a general statement of intent, lacking the rigor of an international treaty and accompanying ratification procedure" is wrong. International law comprises a number of different binding elements, including customs, treaties and other agreements. The Budapest Memorandum is not a treaty, and does not purport to be one. That does not mean that it is not binding. At law [I am bye-the-way a lawyer], a memorandum entered into between duly authorized national representatives is binding. Notably the agreements which formed the networks which led to WW1 - the Triple Entente amongst others - were all formed by agreements not treaties.101.98.175.68 (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)