Talk:List of treaties
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| List | This article has been rated as List-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| List | This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Comments
Shouldnt here be an Item like "Austrian Independence Treaty" in 1955? I actually don't know the english term for it, in german it is referred to as the "Staatsvertrag".
- Then click on the edit this page button and add it. - Alureiter 12:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ratification or....
Are the treaties ordered by that of signing or date of ratification? I know quite some treaties which have not been ratified, or for example the Kyoto Protocol form 1997, which will be ratified in 2005....
- There are really at least three dates involved: signing, ratification, and entry into force. The International Criminal Court statute, for instance, had a delay between the 60th ratification and its entry into force. Since some treaties have not been ratified, for purposes of comprehensiveness, it seems like the logical thing would be to put them by date of signing. From a legal viewpoint, though, the date of entry into force would be the most relevant. Perhaps there is some way to integrate all three types of information into the article, or split it into three articles. Anything is better than what we have now, which is a list of ambiguous dates. Rad Racer 21:58, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Treaties
This is to announce the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Treaties. Using the Template:Treatybox and other templates, we should be able to add dates of signature, ratification, and entry into force to the articles on the various treaties. 205.217.105.2 17:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Additional treaties
What's the purpose of this section? Seems to be abused by people to lazy to sort entries into the lists above. Also I don't see the value of adding just names here, e.g. current #2 of the list, Treaty of Ankara, it does't link to any article, no discription, no year, nothing. - Alureiter 12:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Verb Tense
Some of these treaties that came into force in the 21st century are still labeled "comes into force..." Shouldn't these be edited to read, "went into force..."? Joshua Friel 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- The present tense is consistently used to both summarize treaties and their respective dates of enforcement. If you (and others) insistently feel that the past tense is better suited in explaining a treaty's date of enforcement, then I would be happy to make the necessary changes. However, when it comes to tenses, consistency is key. Alternating between past, present, and future tenses can potentially confuse readers or merely disrupt the "flow" of a text. This is why the phrase "comes into force..." is used instead of "went into force..." Deucalionite 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edicts
Are the edicts of Paris and Pistres, found in this list, really treaties? I would say not. They are executive decrees. Srnec 06:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Some treaties on the list have "edict" in their respective names. Other edicts, which are in fact executive decrees, later become reinforced through treaties. If you wish to create a separate "List of Edicts" article containing only executive decrees, then by all means do so. However, the reason why I placed edicts on the list was because many of them were often associated with treaties. Again, I have no problem if you want to create a separate list of edicts. Of course, one could see an edict as a "one-sided treaty" where the king/queen "agrees" with himself/herself to follow a unilateral approach towards solving a diplomatic or social dilemma. Then again, I could be wrong. If, in the end, you decide to remove the Edict of Pistres or any other edict from this list, then please let me know ahead of time so that I can help. Thanks. Deucalionite 00:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
