Wikidata:Property proposal/ratified by
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
ratified by[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization
| Description | used to specify that a treaty has been ratified by a given state |
|---|---|
| Represents | ratification (Q193170) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | states or organisations |
| Example 1 | Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (Q28130514): ratified by → Austria (Q40), point in time (P585) → 8 May 2018 |
| See also | signatory (P1891) |
Motivation[edit]
For an international treaty to enter into force it must be signed and ratified. One already has signatory (P1891) for signature but no property yet for ratification. Pamputt (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Support. Tubezlob (Tubezlob) 17:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)- Question: isn't this relation properly modelled as a relationship between a treaty and a piece of national legislation? E.g. International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. -> ratified -> The Anti-Apartheid (United Nations Convention) Act 1981 for https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Anti-Apartheid_(United_Nations_Convention)_Act_1981 . Then the date and territory can be inferred. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- @MartinPoulter: I am not sure I understand your point. Do you mean this property should be used on another way? Pamputt (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Pamputt: The example given links a treaty to a country, with date as a qualifier. I am suggesting that the property is best used to link the treaty to its ratification. The ratification should link to the country and date. It's more strictly correct and informative to say that the treaty is ratified by a piece of legislation rather than by a country. It also cuts down duplication, in this example duplication of the date. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @MartinPoulter: Strictly speaking, under international law, ratification is an act by a state, and no domestic legislation is necessary. So "the treaty is ratified by a piece of legislation rather than by a country" isn't correct; see Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), article 2(1)(b). Now, from the perspective of the domestic law of some countries, ratification may require domestic legislative action; but, from the perspective of international law, that is mostly irrelevant – ratification involves the diplomatic representatives depositing a legal instrument with the depository, and what domestic legal or constitutional procedures might be required in order to do that are mostly ignored by international law (except to the limited extent provided by VCLT article 46.) It is also worth noting that in domestic US law, people sometimes call the Senate approving a treaty "ratification", but strictly speaking that isn't ratification, it is merely consenting to ratification–the actual act of ratification is performed by the State Department. Also, for the purposes of international law, "ratification", "acceptance" and "approval" are synonymous, but for the purposes of some countries' domestic law can differ in meaning. For an example of ratification without legislation, consider the UK – treaties in the UK are ratified by Royal Prerogative, not legislation. (Legislation may sometimes be required to give effect to the treaty in domestic law, but that is strictly speaking separate from ratification.) Now, it is true that from 1929-2010 there was a convention that Parliament would be consulted before the Royal Prerogative was exercised, and since 2010 that convention has been enshrined in statute–but, if Parliament does nothing, the treaty is ratified; Parliament can veto ratification but isn't required to actively consent to it. Under Australian law, treaties are ratified by the Executive, and consultation with Parliament is a convention, but Parliament has no formal power to prevent ratification (unlike the UK). SJK (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @SJK: Thanks for patiently clearing up my misunderstanding and for sharing your expertise on this topic. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- @MartinPoulter: Strictly speaking, under international law, ratification is an act by a state, and no domestic legislation is necessary. So "the treaty is ratified by a piece of legislation rather than by a country" isn't correct; see Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), article 2(1)(b). Now, from the perspective of the domestic law of some countries, ratification may require domestic legislative action; but, from the perspective of international law, that is mostly irrelevant – ratification involves the diplomatic representatives depositing a legal instrument with the depository, and what domestic legal or constitutional procedures might be required in order to do that are mostly ignored by international law (except to the limited extent provided by VCLT article 46.) It is also worth noting that in domestic US law, people sometimes call the Senate approving a treaty "ratification", but strictly speaking that isn't ratification, it is merely consenting to ratification–the actual act of ratification is performed by the State Department. Also, for the purposes of international law, "ratification", "acceptance" and "approval" are synonymous, but for the purposes of some countries' domestic law can differ in meaning. For an example of ratification without legislation, consider the UK – treaties in the UK are ratified by Royal Prerogative, not legislation. (Legislation may sometimes be required to give effect to the treaty in domestic law, but that is strictly speaking separate from ratification.) Now, it is true that from 1929-2010 there was a convention that Parliament would be consulted before the Royal Prerogative was exercised, and since 2010 that convention has been enshrined in statute–but, if Parliament does nothing, the treaty is ratified; Parliament can veto ratification but isn't required to actively consent to it. Under Australian law, treaties are ratified by the Executive, and consultation with Parliament is a convention, but Parliament has no formal power to prevent ratification (unlike the UK). SJK (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Pamputt: The example given links a treaty to a country, with date as a qualifier. I am suggesting that the property is best used to link the treaty to its ratification. The ratification should link to the country and date. It's more strictly correct and informative to say that the treaty is ratified by a piece of legislation rather than by a country. It also cuts down duplication, in this example duplication of the date. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- @MartinPoulter: I am not sure I understand your point. Do you mean this property should be used on another way? Pamputt (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support Ederporto (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment there is some discussion about this at Wikidata:Property_proposal/parties. --- Jura 14:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)- Support. I know it is a mouthful, but the full name of the property has to be "ratification, acceptance, approval or accession" if we want to be accurate to international law. (See Article 1 of Vienna Convention of Law of Treaties.) The first three are synonymous for international law purposes, but the synonyms are kept because some countries use them to refer to different domestic law procedures, so depositories will use whichever term the ratifying country used. "Accession" is usually reserved for ratification of a multilateral treaty after it has entered into force. SJK (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Support I now support this and withdraw my above concern thanks to SJK's explanation. I don't think the name of the property needs to spell out the four different words that SJK suggests, but it is essential that we have them as aliases. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ederporto, Pamputt, SJK, Tubezlob, MartinPoulter, Jura1: 
Done: ratified by (P6193). − Pintoch (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)