Talk:Treaty
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. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
Removed from end of main article:
- Define these 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)
Contents |
[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Treaties
As a general notice, this Wikiproject has been started. SonicSynergy 22:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The United States Law section does not directly relate to treaties in the general sense. It should be moved to another page or given its own page. A reference to the new location can be left on this page. (Teryx 06:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC))
[edit] United States Law
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)
-
[edit] Bricker Amendment
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)
[edit] Second paragraph of introduction is too US-specific
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)
[edit] Treaties only include states & international organizations?
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)
