Example collocations logo

Treaty in sentence

1054 examples of Treaty in a sentence

A fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT), long stalled in multilateral talks in Geneva, and a successful second Nuclear Security Summit next year in Seoul, will help secure dangerous nuclear materials.
But if these processes can be handled responsibly, if Europe unites, if the EU expands, if NATO expands, if the American-Chinese relationship is more cooperative, if there is greater sharing of political responsibility for the fate of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, particularly once there is a peace treaty between Israel and its neighbors, if there is triangular discourse, cooperation, security arrangements eventually in the Far East, if Russia realizes that its only destiny is not the recreation of an empire that claims the status of a global power but as part of a more closely integrated Europe, which will create for the Russian people the opportunity to become a truly democratic and modern state, then we'll have the makings of something which provides gradually an alternative to the present, rather unique, phase of American preponderance.
Still, proposals to de-escalate military tensions – perhaps accompanied by a peace treaty and a broader framework for managing relations in the region – represented a welcome development, especially in the eyes of the South Koreans and the Chinese.
Quick or easy Senate approval of the New START arms-control treaty is highly unlikely, given stated concerns about verification and the protection of US missile-defense programs; instead, we can expect delays and, possibly, attempts to amend what the two governments already agreed upon.
That strategy faltered – partly owing to US intransigence under President George W. Bush – and was abandoned when the 2009 Copenhagen conference failed to produce a treaty to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol (which the US never signed).
A 1994 free-trade treaty with the EU enabled Estonian products to find new markets, and Estonia eventually became one of the most successful postcommunist transition countries, joining the EU and NATO in 2004.
The Obama administration’s contradictory rhetoric – affirming that the US-Japan security treaty covers the Senkakus, while refusing to take a position on the islands’ sovereignty – has not helped.
But, after the Philippines withdrew, China occupied the shoal – and, despite a mutual-defense treaty between the US and the Philippines, the US did little in response.
After years of negotiation and numerous scientific-assessment reports, delegations had the highest expectations for concluding a comprehensive climate treaty.
Even if a country agrees to broad ranging IAEA inspections, it can legally accumulate enriched uranium (or reprocessed plutonium) under the guise of a peaceful energy program, and then suddenly declare that circumstances have changed and withdraw from the treaty - with the ability to produce nuclear weapons on short notice.
That plugged part of the loophole in the treaty without amending it.
Some say that, just as Egypt’s war of attrition eventually gave way to a full-scale war and then a peace treaty, Europe needs a major crisis to move forward.
The US has declared that the Senkaku Islands (administered by the Okinawa Prefecture when it was returned to Japan in 1972) are covered by the US-Japan security treaty.
The no-bailout clause that was included in the monetary union’s founding treaty is an indispensable corollary.
Yet, by the end of the talks, the European Union’s climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, was being applauded in the media for achieving a “breakthrough” that had “salvaged Durban,” and, most significantly, for achieving the holy grail of climate negotiations, a “legally binding treaty.”
Just a few days later, the Indian environment minister, Shrimati Jayanthi Natarajan, stressed that there was no legally binding treaty: “India cannot agree to a legally binding agreement for emissions reduction at this stage of our development.…I
According to that deal – which was, of course, much celebrated at the time – a legal treaty was supposed to be ready for the 2009 Copenhagen meeting.
In Kyoto in 1997, the treaty was acclaimed as “a milestone in the history of climate protection,” and President Bill Clinton declared that “the United States has reached an historic agreement with other nations of the world to take unprecedented action to address global warming.”
Of course, the treaty had already been rejected in the US Senate by a 95-0 vote, and thus was dead on arrival.
There would be a “fiscal treaty,” which would reinforce the Stability and Growth Pact and, importantly, entail automatic sanctions to ensure that eurozone members stick to those rules.
In March, having agreed on the fiscal treaty, the European Council turned its attention to reviving economic growth, which will be the key to long-term fiscal sustainability.
In Ireland, our attorney-general advised on the need to hold a referendum on the fiscal treaty, and we are now in the midst of the campaign.
The reasons we are backing the fiscal treaty are simple.
The treaty would promote stability in the Irish economy and contribute to stabilizing the euro, our currency.
Most importantly, the fiscal treaty promises to ensure responsible budgeting throughout the eurozone.
By voting for the fiscal treaty, we can guarantee that stability and support – and thus guarantee continued confidence and investment in the Irish economy.
The new treaty reflects clear recognition that the euro’s initial design was flawed.
This involves putting our public finances in order, which the fiscal treaty allows.
In the vital fight to slow down the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, imagine it were possible to subject a suspected violator to the most intrusive and continuous system of international inspections far beyond what any international treaty postulates.
And the government must also urgently reintegrate some 25,000 FARC guerillas and their families under the terms of the 2016 peace treaty that ended a half-century of brutal civil war.
BackNext