Christa Pfister mail@c-pfister.ch wrote:
"One important thing to keep in mind is that signatures under international treaties are *not* a commitment to do what the treaty says, they are only a declaration of intention to consider for ratification that particular version of the treaty." That's an interesting thesis, but I don't agree 100 %.
I wonder if you would maybe be willing to help me find a formulation which you would support 100%, but which is nevertheless a reasonably short explanation of how the Swiss government can sign treaties such as this Convention on Cybercrime, which requires changes to the law that the government does not have authority to decide on its own?
I believe that in order to agree to be bound to a treaty of this type, there must be approval from Ständerat and Nationalrat and the possibility of a referendum!
[ As I see it, the challenge here particularly with regard to this particular treaty is that at least upon casual reading of the treaty text, I get the impression that (unlike e.g. the WIPO Internet Treaties) this would be one of the those treaties where signing the treaty is intended to be a form of expressing consent to be bound by the treaty, just like ratification. However, if for this treaty, that is the meaning of signing it, how can it be that Switzerland signed it in 2001, but only in 2008 it was proposed in parliament that Switzerland might ratify this treaty, and it is only this proposal of ratification that leads to discussion of the changes to the law which are necessary for implementing the treaty? As you are certainly aware, the international law of treaties, as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, foresees both possibilities: Signature of a treaty can have the meaning of committing to do what the treaty says, but it isn't necessarily so. ]
Greetings, Norbert