Talk:Incorporation of international law

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

A reality check

This article seems to have wondered a long way from reality. As far as I know transposition is an EU legal term which applies to the implementation of directives. The implementation of treaties is referred to as incorporation.

Moreover the effect of treaties in domestic law always depends on domestic legal rules. No treaties ever automatically become part of the domestic law of a state unless the domestic law provides that they do (ie in monist systems).

I'm going to add some fact templates. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course ratification is governed by domestic legal rules (such as separation of powers) as well as by rules of public international law, did the article really say anything different? Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not longer sure, but the article confuses so many different ideas that it's difficult to be sure of anything. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, it's really the wrong terminology that's the problem. Transposition and Direct effect are EU law terms and don't really belong here. Even one of the sources refers to incorporation and not transposition. Transposition involves implementing EU directives, not treaties which can require incorporation in certain legal systems. In the UK, EU treaties must first be incorporated in domestic law by an act of parliament. Only then does the possibility of direct effect (another EU law term) arise. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article also confuses different kinds of treaties: self-executing and non-self-executing. In a pure monist system only the latter would require incorporation. While in a pure dualist system both require incorporation. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

While a split between EU law and public international law might well be desirable, I don't see the rush here, nor do I see any references for "Incorporation" over "Implementation", yet another word used in English for the process described here. Nor do I actually see how your edits have improved either of the articles. Perhaps your would like to take some time to explain your actions. Physchim62 (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit implementation is also commonly used but I think incorporation is used more often. And IMHO the latter has a technical meaning that the former lacks. Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporation of treaties, or Implementation of treaties, might be an even better title. I say that because, as you have pointed out, incorporation is an act of domestic law, while the equivalent in international law is ratification (with due respect for U.S. editors, where ratification means something similar, but slightly different). Physchim62 (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have just left it as "Incorporation (law)"? What about "Incorporation (municipal law)"? Otherwise we might end up with "Incorporation of treaties into domestic law". Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "incorporation" has several meaning in Common Law countries, as you're obviously aware! There's no rush on this one, the article was in a sorry state when I found it and would probably benefit from some quiet reflexion. Of course, I only changed the points which seemed wrong to me, you have indeed added more to the list ;) Physchim62 (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The United States

Is the US really half way between monism and dualism? As far as I can tell the only difference between the US and the Netherlands on this is that the Netherlands don't require a super-majority in parliament.

Is it true that treaties can be incorporated by a normal Act of Congress, if the super-majority cannot be achieved? Does anyone have an example? — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monism and Dualism

The links from both Monism and Dualism link to the philosophical system, which have nothing to do with international law. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Incorporation of international law. 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, 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) 03:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]