How do conventions differ from treaties?

The distinction between conventions and treaties lies primarily in their nature and formality. Conventions are often frameworks that establish general guidelines or principles that countries can agree upon, focusing on broad areas of cooperation and common goals. They are generally designed to facilitate dialogue and cooperation among nations on specific issues without imposing strict legal obligations.

On the other hand, treaties are more formal agreements that are legally binding on the parties involved once they are ratified. They typically contain specific commitments and obligations that states undertake to uphold, thus reflecting a higher level of legal engagement than conventions. Therefore, stating that conventions establish general guidelines while treaties are more formal accurately captures the essential difference in their purposes and legal standings.

Other answer options misunderstand key aspects of how international agreements function. For example, saying that conventions are legally binding while treaties are not reverses the accurate legal status of these agreements. Moreover, the claim that conventions require ratification while treaties do not confuses their procedural requirements; typically, treaties require ratification, whereas conventions may allow for less formal acceptance. Lastly, the assertion that conventions are limited to environmental issues overlooks that conventions can span a variety of subjects beyond just environmental matters.