Talk:Uti possidetis juris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Issues with the article

please make contributions to this article, and help to improve it. There are a lot of things that can be expanded upon so please help. Lucas(CA)

there are also a lot of links that need to be put in. Thanks-Lucas(CA)

[edit] Merge Proposal

  • NO , which will be the title ? Uti Possidetis Juris and Uti Possidetis ? Although have a bit similar name are two VERY different concepts --Jor70 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Done, no need to keep this here. Much more articles and interwikis point to Uti possidetis. Any differences should be pointed out in the merged article. -- Matthead discuß!     O       05:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You cannot merge white and black based on the number of links. They are two completety different thngs Jor70 11:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've researched both and find that these can be merged without incident. Fine by me. - G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.162.187 (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm no expert on this subject, but it appears to me that if we were to merge the two articles together, it should be called Uti Possidetis, and not Uti Possidetis Juris as suggested by the present merge tags. Based on what I've read in the two articles, though, I do see reason to agree with the argument that these are actually two separate concepts. However, without merging, Uti Possidetis Juris would become merely a stub, so I think merging them into one article and having the differences clearly laid out would be a reasonable compromise. 142.103.207.10 23:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Page Uti possidetis juris says "Uti possidetis iuris is a principle of international law that states that newly formed states should have the same borders that they had before their independence.".
Page Uti possidetis says "Uti possidetis (Latin for "as you possess") is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless provided for by treaty.".
These look like similar but not the same concepts. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I vote "NO". The one is for war between independent nations, the other for nations emerging out of colonial status. If you merge the pages, you will spend 2/3 of the new page pointing out the "any differences". Somercet (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)