Talk:Treaty/Archives/2013

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Removed from end of main article:

Define these fiiah rockzz paulas world terms: Adoption, signature, ratification, declaration, accession, acceptance, approval.

213.202.157.149 23:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I notice there are few or no references. I started the denunciation article which has some refs. Rad Racer 05:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

this section is misleading, by ommission. an important issue left out is whether, or not, a treatry is 'self-enacting'. If a treaty is not self enacting, addition legislation, in addition to ratification in the Senate, is needed from Congress {includes the House} to authorize funds, or provide additional authority to enforce the domestic aspects of a treaty. --CorvetteZ51 08:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In the United States, the provisions of international treaties are automatically incorporated into domestic law under the terms of Article Six of the United States Constitution, which says that:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; [...]"

Of course, that is not true in Britain or Canada, where treaties are not self-enacting and require additional legislation to be passed in order to be incorporated int domestic legislation. In the case of Canada in particular, that might even require legislative action on the part the provincial Legislative Assemblies, whenever the provisions of a treaty affect matters that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces under the terms of the Constitution Act, 1867. 161.24.19.82 (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add to the above that treaties (in the US constitutional law sense) are self-enacting [so says the constitution, and so the Supreme Court has ruled], but sole executive agreements and congressional-executive agreements are not. Thus, we conclude that some treaties (in the international law sense) are self-enacting under US constitutional law, and others are not. I would suggest that the US thus constitutes more of a mix of the dualist and monist systems, whereas say Britain is more purely dualist. That said, I think in practice it functions in a very dualist manner; I think that the intention of the drafters of the US constitution was more monist, but the subsequent evolution of constitutional law has been more dualist in effect. --SJK (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that the second paragraph of the introduction is specific to the law of a single country only, I don't think it belongs in the introduction of an article about something that is of global significance. No other country gets such special treatment.

Although clearly the unusual meaning of the word "treaty" in US national law maybe needs some mention in the introduction, just to avoid confusion, this could be reduced to a single sentence surely: "Note that the term 'treaty' has a special meaning in US national law, different from its normal meaning in international law -- see the section on US law below." or something similar. --SJK (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no one objected to my proposal, I have now deleted the second paragraph and replaced it with a single sentence which refers the reader to the section on United States law later in the article. --SJK (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The article defines a treaty as "an agreement [among] states and international organizations". This appears to be contradicted later in the article, where treaties with indigenous people are mentioned. In particular, this definition does not include treaties with native american nations. These treaties appear to be recognized under US law, although it seems that Indians are not recognized to form states. (They are recognized as nations, see, e.g., Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, [[1]].) Thus, the definition of treaty given does not appear to be universally valid. Should it be augmented? 129.27.237.78 (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the problem is that the word "treaty" has a few different meanings. Treaties between Indian tribes and the United States are not treaties within the international law meaning of the term. US domestic law does recognize them, but they don't have the status of international agreements even under US law, but rather are internal arrangements. (I think the explanation is that under US law the Indian tribes are a bit like states, even though they don't have all the rights of states, and agreements between them and the states or federal government are more like interstate compacts than international treaties.) So I don't think the article is contradicting itself, because the two sections are talking about two different things with the same name -- maybe somehow it could be made clearer. --SJK (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just added a link to manrent that is an exception to treaties being international. While it is true that the definition of treaty is not always international, the exceptions to this are sufficiently rare to only really be mentioned as a curious side note.Czar Brodie (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just at a glance, I saw this. For instance, reservations don't belong under a heading of "Adding and amendment treaty obligations", and that's not even getting into the wording of the title. I don't believe the procedures written in amendments are even generally accepted in treaties, so it should either be sourced or fleshed out more. At the very least it should be mentioned that the treaty itself may specify a manner of amendment. IMHO (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In the "Treaty" article the plural of "state party" appears variously as "state parties," "states party," and "states parties." Capitalization is also inconsistent. I'm not sure what the standards should be, but there should be one form used consistently. The UN human rights treaties use "states parties," I believe. A World Health Organization document (http://www.searo.who.int/LinkFiles/Towards_a_Better_Tomorrow_glossary.pdf) states the plural is "states party." Obama's national security strategy uses "State Parties."

This article also has inconsistent usage (and I imagine other articles do as well): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

Based on Google searches, "states parties" appears to be by far the most common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.222.197 (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this section of the article really necessary? As written, a discussion of the precise meaning of the term "treaty" as a abstract concept vs. literal piece of paper is confusing and entirely tangential to an encyclopedic entry. I'd suggest it be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.57 (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

At a glance, fairly literally at the moment, I agree. It is confusing. I'm thinking a restructure up and down the article would be good. Maybe something taken from the current section could be used, but a history or early development section at the top might be best, starting with early versions of treaties, or if there is disageement as to how early "real" treaties started, then even "proto-treaties". re-signed IMHO (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This section is essential, necessary. It may need to be re-written, but blanket deletion of the sourced text is like

talk

) 21:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

How is it even useful to an article on treaties generally as opposed to linguistic trivia as examples metonymy? As far as the point that they are named after places they are signed, I could see a quick sentence about that, but it's either confusing in some cases, or wrong in others (the word treaty does not refer to the process of signing or ratification itself), or obvious in the English language (the treaty refers both to the document and the agreement the document is the subject of). IMHO (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 19:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In a reasonably

• diff 18:23, 6 January 2011 Blue-Haired Lawyer (34,505 bytes) (→Conflation: deleted this nonsensical section)

Compare

• diff 18:24, 6 January 2011 (19,536 bytes) (→Conflated meanings: deleted section - a rather poor example, poorly explained)

In the edit summary, the adjective "poor" implies that the illustrative example was marginally understood as relevant and that it was minimally explained. This suggests that something other deletion is arguably possible. If we accept as axiomatic that the section is drafted with sufficient clarity, what else can be done?

IMO, the

That a treaty can commonly have two names, one of which is based on the name of the nearest town, is not an example of a metonymy. Neither is the use of the treaty name for the agreement it contains. "Schengen" cannot to said to be a trope, modern or otherwise. What do you mean by the "conflated meanings of customary international law on treaties"? What conflated meanings? How were they conflated and by whom? The only source you provide is a link to the text of the Vienna Convention itself which is not a source at all. As an English speaker the paragraph just doesn't make any sense to me. It is, literally, nonsense. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 01:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As a constructive response, I have removed the disputed section from the article; and it is now here:

Conflation

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is explicit; and many of its provisions are conflated with customary international law on treaties.<:ref>Organization of American States (OAS), Vienna Convention</ref> States that have not ratified it yet may still recognize it as binding in as much as it is a restatement of customary law.<:ref>United States Department of State, Vienna Convention; excerpt, "The United States signed the treaty on April 24, 1970. The U.S. Senate has not given its advice and consent to the treaty. The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties."</ref>

The sentences are here until the section can be edited so that it does make sense to

talk

) 03:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

First, I think that this should ultimately be shrunk and worked into a more general section, but although a more minor point, I wanted to check if anyone else has a basis for how a bilateral treaty, by definition, can allow for anything other than a treaty between two states. In a purely theoretical sense I could imagine someone thinking a treaty between two treaty organisations as bilateral, but I'm pretty sure no such label has ever been made in such a case. IMHO (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No offence Tenmei, but the edits you made confuse the matter more for me. The material you added switches between referring to states, parties, and countries. Moreover, even under the analysis presented, it's still wrong by definition to say that a bilateral treaty can have more than two parties. As for whether a treaty between an international organisation and a state outside the organisation is considered bilateral, can you post a link to the actual agreements between Switzerland and the EU on the articles talk page (Talk:Treaty/Archives/2013#Multilateral-Bilateral_treaty_section); or if not that, a cite; or if not that, the specific name of the treaty. I'm still looking at removing the section and working one or two sentences into other text as any more would be undue weight on the matter, but even shortened, I do want it to be correct. On a more positive note, I hope I can find the Nicolson work in the library. Great to have a reference. In this case a more general, modern replacement might be better in the future, but solid start. IMHO (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 21:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this reply initially. I'll need to look at the material at some point. 71.22.42.241 (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Treaty#United States law states: "congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President."

Foreign policy of the United States#Law states: "Congressional-executive agreements are made by the president or Congress. When made by Congress, a majority of both houses makes it binding much like regular legislation. ".

They contradict. The Transhumanist 04:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be removing the conflict tag after allowing a period for comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

There has been a tag indicating a conflict between treaty and foreign policy of the United States for a year. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Timing of RFC

The RFC may not be created within the next 24 hours, because the bot is currently malfunctioning and has been turned off until its maintainer fixes it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• RfC Comment - Little confused to why you are RfCing this. The tag is clearly explained the section above this, and I have to agree with the person who placed it there. This text is somewhat confusing. Someone needs to go through and rework it and add sources. NickCT (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the text is confusing and the reason for the tagging is clear. The tag has been there for a year. I was requesting assistance in getting the conflict resolved. I agree that an article on executive agreements in general is better than the redirect. For instance, the

Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe with more than 50 participating states is the result of executive agreements. Robert McClenon (talk

) 20:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Well kudos for trying to resolve the issue, but I'm not sure a RfC is the right approach. Frankly, given that none of the section is cited, I wouldn't mind if it was simply deleted and restarted.

Out of curiosity, have you looked back of the version history? Is there a better previous version? NickCT (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There had been previously a separate article on executive agreement, but it was then replaced with a redirect to Foreign policy of the United States. The talk page comment on the tag suggested that that action might not have been right. The revision history should provide the original article. I will check. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed "or" to "and" because Congressional-executive agreements, being legislation, are enacted by Congress and signed by the President. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)