Talk:Montevideo Convention

Application

Does this treaty apply to all UN member states or only to the signatories? - Siyac

It only applies to its signatories. However, most of its contents is basically a codification of existing international law, and as such it applies to all states. - Mauco 11:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Who are the signatories?--MariusM 17:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Western hemisphere at the time. See MetaWiki for details: [1] or use a new tool called "Google", my friend.[2] . Note, however, that the convention is not (and was not either, at the time) a novelty but rather a codification of existing international law. As such, it applies to all states (except for rogue states who choose to not observe international law). - Mauco 03:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Meantime I checked the external link given in the article [3] - it seems there are only 19 states who signed this convention: Honduras, United States of America, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay, Paraguay, Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Cuba, some of them with reserves. It seems is not a relevant convention for international law, the big majority of countries never signed it.--MariusM 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The convention is merely a restatement of customary international law. It codified a set of already-existing legal norms and its principles are universal. They do not apply merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole. - Mauco 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) I don't think so, it's a different treaty, therefore it has to be treated differently.

I will be glad to add references if a fact-tag (request for citation) is placed. - Mauco 12:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have obliged. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Badinter Committee

And what do the other opinions state, not just "Opinion No 1., Badinter Arbitration Committee"?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about Article 1

Is there a clear definition of what "territory" is under international law? Or is the matter more open to interpretation? If anyone has an answer they can back up with evidence, I'd be happy to hear it. DerekMBarnes (talk) 02:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Anarchic states, rational Christians, and other oxymorons.

Furthermore, this clause effectively rules out anarchic states from existing legally.

"Anarchic state" is an oxymoron. An anarchic territory is not a state, and is not capable of entering into negotiations with other states. Any infrastructure which was implemented to do this would be... a government. By definition. --70.131.112.177 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)