Contents

Talk:Ratification

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law High‑importance 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.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Foreign policy of the United States#Law]] The anchor (#Law) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Article helps to spread racism by ignoring the ratification process in all of Africa, the Caribbean, South America. Academic racism is part of why racism keeps spreading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:DDD1:4900:B5FC:4ED7:8687:22F9 (talk • contribs)

Be bold and add it. 162.23.30.5 (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratification is the act of making something valid by confirming it; for example, international threaties are often confirmed by vote from national parliaments or other national institutions.

(-> I suggest that the text about the project of a constitution for the European Union is moved to another article, probably about European Union)

The lengthy discussion of modern US ratification issues, particularly surrounding the Law of the Sea, seems to belong more in an opinion piece or a law review article than in an encyclopedia entry. The multiple citations to the writings of a single individual, even if an expert, suggest that someone is advancing a specific point of view. I claim no special expertise in the topic of US Senate treaty ratifications, but strictly from the viewpoint of form, I would argue that the discussion of this Law of the Sea example should be shortened or deleted entirely. Goldfish-silverfish (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comment and have deleted that section. If someone wants to revert and rework it that would be fine with me, but as it is now it is basically a rant against environmental treaties. Doesn't seem appropriate for this article. Greatersam (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in reference needs to be ratified. You know the one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.8.36 (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely ambiguous - it talks about "the Convention and its resulting constitution", "the text", and "the treaty", without giving any indication of what might be meant.

I suppose this is intended to be part of another article?

It certainly doesn't seem to talk about ratification in general.

-- pne 17:09, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• It was a part of European constitution, in a section that is now removed [1]. Right now, it's effectively orphan, since none of pages pointing here is about European constitution. Incorporate into some article about EU? Or just delete? Andris 20:35, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

I've updated this section now to take account of the fact that the European Constitution wasn't ratified. It needs to be watched, though, just in case the constitution is revived. Daduzi 22:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i still don't get what

A ratifuing; formal confirmation.

there is ratifcation european constitution but not one on the u.s. history constiution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.14.2 (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did he ratify the constitution? i don't really know from the article written.

It's a pretty poor example.

lets talk about the ratificaton of the constitution!!! this information doesn't really talk about it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.14.2 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UN seems to differentiate between ratification, acceptance, approval, and accession; yet it treats them all as ratification. Could someone please add a section explaining the difference between these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.164.116 (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the -so we think- mean on this sentence in the article? The application of the treaty or legislation is not possible until it has been ratified, so we think. In addition to the suggestion above, I note in a UN document the term succession which could also be explained as well as ratification and accession. Ray3055 (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the following report from page 47: it explains all these terms, as used by the UN. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet30en.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.45.5 (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently ratification is not completed (at least for the UK ratification of EU treaties?) until the instruments of ratification are deposited in Rome by the British government - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7465665.stm . 18:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a generalized definition of the term added to the article? That's half of what I came to look for. MrZaius^talk 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a line to be drawn between signature and ratification of an international treaty in the Holy See or historically in countries ruled by absolute monarchs? I see several sources that mention treaty ratification by the Holy See, but does that mean more than "the Pope signed and an instrument of ratification, made a paper airplane out of it, and threw it out the window to a waiting courier?" MrZaius^talk 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ratification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203013055/http://164.100.47.134/intranet/CAI/1.pdftohttp://164.100.47.134/intranet/CAI/1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Ratification" is an important enough concept in the international law of treaties that it should be spun off into a separate article. The stuff about "Ratification" in other legal contexts – such as ratification of constitutions or constitutional amendments – can stay here. Any objections? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For most readers in most of the world, "ratification" is a word that applies to the process of creating or acceding to an international treaty. It is the other meanings that are obscure. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, I think the treaty sense of "ratification" is important enough to deserve its own article. Maybe, we move the other senses of "ratification" into another article(s), and make this one just about the treaty sense? SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection in principle but it is not a very long article that really needs to be split, does it? And it gives you the pain of tryung to come up with distinctive disambiguators. Proposal? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It discusses "ratification" in four senses: (1) private law, (2) international law of treaties, (3) constitutional law, (4) parliamentary procedure. So, one approach might be to have: (1) ratification (private law); (2) ratification (this article covering the international law of treaties sense as primary); (3) ratification (constitutional law); (4) ratification (parliamentary procedure). And then of course, ratification (disambiguation), with a hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page.

The parliamentary procedure aspect is super-stubby–only two sentences; maybe that is an argument against creating an article for it, and just leaving a note about it on the disambiguation page. That said, if we create ratification (parliamentary procedure), someone else may come along and merge it to some other article on parliamentary procedure–which would be fine.

The private law aspect is two whole paragraphs, yet with zero citations. But it is easy to find citations for it, e.g. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ratify (albeit that covers the constitutional law and international law senses too), https://www.jstor.org/stable/25763184 (covering contract and tort law) – those are both US sources, but here's a source which discusses it in English contract law – https://olrl.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law/9780198784685.001.0001/law-9780198784685-chapter-6

One reason for splitting: I don't like articles which cover multiple topics with the same name. They can't be linked cleanly to Wikidata. Relatedly, they pose problems for interlanguage links (other language versions may split them, or they might not even all share the same name in other languages). Categorisation and navigation templates are messy since you have one page for multiple concepts and it can be categorised/nav-templated based on those different concepts. When links are made from other articles, it can be unclear in which sense the link is intended; section links can help there, but they are fragile (someone innocently changes the section title and suddenly all the section links are broken). SomethingForDeletion (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, IMO you can go ahead on that basis. I can't see that you need to go through the full consultation phases of WP:SPLIT. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]