Legally, a peace treaty is a thorny question. South Korea did not sign the armistice, and the United Nations, represented by U.S. Gen. Mark Clark, signed for the coalition which fought the war. It is unclear if the United States could sign alone; if the UN would need to sign in some way; if other UN coalition members would need to agree; if China, which technically sent “volunteers” to fight, would sign at all. As a result, there has long been talk of notions like a “war-ending statement” or “peace regime,” rather than a peace treaty itself. The legal debate here is tangled.
I had a course in international law in grad school and gained no respect for it at all, if it is considered a replacement for American law and policy.
Get real. If America signs a peace treaty with North Korea--and we should not do it short of actual peace, as an incentive to a nuclear deal--there will be peace.
What's the UN going to do, go to war with North Korea without America?
Is China going to say it is still at war with the United Nations?
Good grief, the legal tangle is easily cut by the bloody reality that if America and South Korea on the one hand, and North Korea on the other sign a peace treaty, there is a peace treaty.
The tangle is in the minds of people who value paper international law more than reality.
