Signing a non-binding declaration is not really the same as promising to do anything. If you "declare" that poverty is a bad thing, it does not mean you are going to actually do anything about it. However if you declare that poverty is a bad thing and then sign a contract stating you will give 10% of your income to fight it, that creates a different situation.
The situation we are faced with in regards to our international agreements are basically a "declaration" and not an actually contract.
The United States has always negotiated in this manner in terms of binding international agreements. In terms of non-binding declarations that becomes less important.
However, it is a different situation with North Korea since North Korea has violated legally binding Security Council resolutions, whereas if anything the United States has violated a non-binding declaration.
I think a better example to capture what is happening with the law here is to think of it as a non-binding arbitration. In that case when either party decides they do not like the deal they got they can call off the entire thing.
As it does with me. But I think this is exactly the reason why the United States made sure that it never actually gave its word in any legal sense in this regard. Given that laws are the framework of our society, I think this amounts to the US never having given its word on this particular issue.
Again, we broke none of our international legally binding agreements.
I'll convince you one of these days. 
Haha yes well, that is what hunger does.
I appreciate the vote of confidence.
His being a Republican clearly explains why the company is so successful. 
