Reply #13: What little the article does imply refutes you entirely

[Prism]

What other treaty provisions need congressional implementation is subject to argument. In a 1907 memorandum approved by the Secretary of State, it is said, in summary of the practice and reasoning from the text of the Constitution, that the limitations on the treaty power which necessitate legislative implementation may “be found in the provisions of the Constitution which expressly confide in Congress or in other branches of the Federal Government the exercise of certain of the delegated powers....”304 The same thought has been expressed in Congress305 and by commentators.306 Resolution of the issue seems particularly one for the attention of the legislative and executive branches rather than for the courts.

Emphasis mine.

Again from the article:

What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is, that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore the one of later date will prevail leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not diminish Congress’ constitutional powers.

Emphasis also mine.

What the article addresses are laws and treaties on the level of statutes - not delegated powers. The article is discussing treaty powers on par with Acts of Congress - not on par with delegated powers of the Constitution.

The Congress is delegated, by the Constitution, the power to weigh in on the war-making abilities of the President. No treaty - and certainly no international entity - can replace or supersede the constitutionally delegated power of Congress on matters of war.

Period.