Talk:Legal status of Germany

Note from original creator of English article

This article is a mostly-faithful translation of the German article Rechtslage des Deutschen Reiches nach 1945 (Legal status of the German Reich after 1945). Please feel free to add to, comment on, or correct this translation. (Patrick 14:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

State of war with Germany

The sentence Germany, however, remains without the normal protection of the UN charter along Italy and Japan due to articles 53 and 107 in the charter, which has not been amended since the end of the war. needs to be supported by secondary sources, since it involves a legal interpretation of the UN charter. For instance, since Germany, Italy, and Japan are also signatories, we need an expert in international law to interpret whether their enemies are also included (in which case, the present statemant would be misleading). Also, it could be argued that the current protection is the normal protection, since it is the protection which is specified in the treaty. The treaty provisions do not, by themselves, support the statement as it stands. --Boson (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong statement about UN carta enemy state status?

I can find no proof for ′...but these articles [...] were formally recognized as irrelevant by a UN General Assembly resolution[20] in 1995.[21]′.

The mentioned UN source [1] does not contain this.
Instead, it mentiones: ′3. Expresses its intention to initiate the procedure set out in Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations to amend the Charter, with prospective effect, by the deletion of the "enemy State" clauses from Articles 53, 77 and 107 at its earliest appropriate future session;′

So, does the enemy state clause still exist, as Christof Lehmann asserts [2]? --Meriones (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source uses the word 'obsolete', rather than 'irrelevant', as indicated by the quotation from the resolution given in the footnote. I have changed the article accordingly. So yes, apparently the clause still exists, and, though declared obsolete, it remains relevant for historians. --Boson (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal status of Germany. 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/20100515180907/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com:80/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1

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) 20:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Legal status of Germany. 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) 12:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Legal status of Germany. 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) 15:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reunification

the following unreferenced para has been added to the reunification section;

"An Article 146 unification would have entailed protracted negotiations that would have opened up festering issues in West Germany. Even without that to consider, East Germany was in a state of near-total economic and political collapse. By comparison, an Article 23 reunification could be completed in as little as six months. For this reason, when the two Germanies agreed to an emergency merger of their economies in May 1990, they also agreed to pursue reunification via the quicker Article 23 route."

I am not sure this belongs here rather than the German Reunification article; but in any case, I suspect the narrative of being tendentious. Do you have a reference? It is not in dispute that attitudes to the choice of process were dominated by party political affiliations; the CDU wanted Article 23; proponents of Article 146 were mainly SPD. By 1990, the Basic Law of the Federal Republic (as interpreted by the Federal Constitutional Court), was widely seen (on all sides) as favouring the CDU; so Kohl wanted to retain it unchanged, while the SPD would have welcomed changes, especially in respect of allowing affirmative actions to promote gender and sexual orientation equality. So, the key determinant was that CDU's allies decisively won the first free GDR elections in 1990. East Germany was in 1990, economically at least, in a rather stronger position than Hungary or Poland; the key difference was that East German voters could see the prospect of a 'get out of jail free' card in the form of Unification. But had they been more willing to wait a bit; Article 146 unification could have happened just as well (and East German universities would not have had to sack almost all their female professors). But it came down to the choice of East German voters. TomHennell (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]