Talk:Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons

International relations: United Nations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Military history: Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Any idea which three the US have not signed? I read in relation to the use of White phosporus as an incendiary " did not breach any protocol signed by the US" so I think Protocol III might be one.

Herne nz 09:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The PDF says they signed I and II (frag weapons and land mines). Ryan4314 (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

I removed the 'unsigned' tag from the References section, simply because it seemed painfully redundant. After all, it sat right above two links to the treaty text, one hosted at the UN website, the other hosted at a website dedicated to the treaty (also presumably run by the UN). I do not think the tag is needed anymore; what more references could one ask for? If I forgot something, some convention of references that caused the tag to be placed there, please inform. --Ourai 15:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List

I notice there is not a list of the signatories, has there been any opposition to this in the past? Ryan4314 (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a separate page linked in the box. DubleH (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constructing a table, you can help!

Hi guys, I'm constructing a list of all the signatories here, it'll have all the bells and whistles attached. The table is set up and now all that's needed is to input the data, I've added about 34 countries out of the total 108. If anyone wants to help me with inputting the data, I've created a simple tutorial at the top of the list's sandbox. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of conference

This article's infobox says the CCW was drafted between 15 Sep. and 10 Oct. 1995. I see various other sources (like this) give dates of 25 Sep. to 13 Oct. 1995 for the "review conference." Is there a contradiction here, or are the dates of the conference different from the dates of drafting? It would help if there was a citation on the infobox dates. Brian Tomasik (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map definitions

There's a map which shows which countries "signed and ratified", which "acceded or succeeded", which "accepted", and which "signed only". Other wikipedia pages on multilateral treaties with similar maps had some or all of these words as links, and from those I know (if I remember correctly) that the first and last categories are the parties whose representatives drafted the treaty, though the governments of those in the last category haven't agreed to follow through; and the second category are countries which joined later ,though I don't know the difference between "acceeded" and "succeeded". I don't know what "accepted" means. I'd guess it's similar to "acceeded" or "succeeded" in meaning countries that joined later, but I don't know what the difference is. In any case, there should be some clarification either as links to pages or as text explanations either in the caption on this page, on the list of parties page, or on the wikimedia page for the image.DubleH (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]