Talk:Kellogg–Briand Pact/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mdash

Who put an mdash in the title of this article? This is extraordinarily counterproductive. Change ASAP. Thx.

Hai guise

Actually it didn't. In neither case did the invading power actually annex the occupied country and in both cases one the invader went through a lot of explanation to justify its action.

This interdiction has been repeatedly by many countries, including USSR (for example invasion of Hungary) and United States (for example invasion of Grenada).

---

I have added the 2003 invasion of Iraq, since from a technical stand point (as well as statements by the US Department of State as well as the United Nations) it is in clear violation of the pact.--The Singularity 15:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The aforementioned text inserted by The Singularity was removed without any justification in the talks page. I have therefore undone this removal in August 2008 (forgot to mention it over here). 201.12.102.251 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

69.121.126.6 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC) I'm doing a project and I'm in the 8th grade........I'm guessing this is not in affect. Would I be correct? 69.121.126.6 23:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Introduction

It's somewhat poorly worded and confusing. Kellogg was indifferent to a pact that renounces war, then he makes a pact to renounce war? It seems like the author may not have understood the meaning of the word indifferent? Konamaiki 04:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

He was indeed indifferent but the Pact was very popular. Kellogg carefully crafted our agreement so as to protect US interest and to limit the scope of the pact to exclude a requirement of action by signatories if the pact was violated. Jim0305 (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? the "Kellogg-Briand pact" "is named after its authors, United States Secretary of State Carter R. Marschalk and French foreign minister Conner T. Marschalk."?? Makes no sense (wrong names/same surnames; somezing's rrrronk!] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8394:990:E180:3AA8:2E93:6B89 (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Where was it really signed?

Article calls it the pact of Paris, afte the city in which it was signed on 27 August 1928, then later "After negotiations, it was signed in London August 27, 1928". Anything to back up the latter?Ectoplasmical 01:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

---

The article currently states "It was signed by Germany, France and the United States on August 27, 1928, and by most other nations soon after.", implying that only 3 nations signed initially and then following some further negotiations others followed. Whereas a news report of the time (The Illustrated London News, 1 Sept 1928) indicates that 15 nations signed at the same time and place (Salle de l'Horloge, French Foreign Office, Quai d'Orsay, Paris, France)

For those interested it was signed by the following:

• America - US Secretary of State, Mr Kellogg
• Australia - Senator McLachlan
• Belgium - M. Hymans
• Canada - Mr Mackenzie King
• Czechoslovakia - M. Benesh
• France - M. Braind
• Germany - Herr Stresemann
• Great Britain - Mr Mackenzie (acting for Sir Austin Chamberlain, absent through illness) representing the King of Great Britain and the Dominions
• India - Mr Mackenzie, representing the King as Emperor of India
• Irish Free State - Mr Cosgrave
• Italy - Count Manzoni
• Japan - Count Uchida
• New Zealand - Sir J. Parr
• Poland - M. Zaleski
• South Africa - Mr Smit

Marshape (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference?

A year before, Poland proposed declaration of renounciation of war in League of Nation. WHat' the difference between Polish proposal a year before, and Briand-Kelogg pact, except that the latter ostensibly ignored LN, undermining its position and authority? Szopen (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember reading about it. Perhaps we should write more about it... when and by whom was this Polish proposal presented? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland

Wouldn't this be considered a successful use of the treaty since France and the UK declared war on Germany for invading Poland.

Nope, because France and UK decalred war from totally different reasons (hint: we were allies) Szopen (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

the bit at the end of the intro is biased bullshit

'diluting into utopian idealism'??!! come on, wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplepong (talk • contribs) 04:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignore Purplepong's language if it would cloud your judgement on the matter. It is a singular opinion on the part of the author and I will be removing it. LokiClock (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Negotiations??

Why is there no discussion of the negotiations under the negotiations heading? It begins, "After negotiations ...." --RedJ 17 (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War

I have removed unnecessary references to the Iraq War since the pact was effectively dead by the outbreak of the Second World War anyway. Although I must say that if anyone had posted any references to the Soviet invasion of Hungary or Czechoslovakia or the recent Russian invasion of Georgia, it probably would have been removed shortly thereafter owing to the increasingly biased nature of Wikipedia posters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.148.157 (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you're going to include the Iraq War, the article should at least other invasions as well (such as the ones I previously mentioned for instance) so as to not appear biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.148.157 (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The text of the treaty is vague as to whether war was renounced generally, or merely among the signatories. Since the US had an ongoing military occupation of Nicaragua at the time, it apparently went by the latter interpretation (even though Nicaragua is said to have adopted the treaty). As for Iraq, it was not an independent state until 1932. WillOakland (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lolwut

The article starts with:

American Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand, who drafted the pact.

Lolwut.  Aar  ►  01:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Tibet?

Name one sovereign (other than the crummy little theocratic dictatorship in Dharamsala, India) that has ever recognized Tibet as an independent state. Tibet was not annexed by China. Tibet like any other subdivisions of China was overtaken by the Communists in the Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.187.1 (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"One legal consequence of this is that it is clearly unlawful to annex territory by force. This has not prevented cases such as the annexation of Tibet by China.", has the following problems:

1. This is original research - neither sentence is referenced, and I doubt whether you'll find a credible reference to support the second sentence.

2. If it needs an example of annexation, perhaps it should use one of the widely excepted cases (quite easy to find in wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation). Perhaps one of Israel's?

3. As original research (in the context of information provided in this article) it fails:

...that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." One legal consequence of this is that it is clearly unlawful to annex territory by force. This has not prevented cases such as the annexation of Tibet by China. ....

The PRC wasn't a member of the UN when it "annexed Tibet" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.86.161.161 (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

China was a signatory to the treaty and the treaty existed before the UN did - it has nothing to do with the UN. 128.229.4.2 (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Both treaties were signed by the ROC and the ROC still existed and was recognised by the UN at the time of the PRC's "annexation" of tibet. Thus, this piece original research wasn't unrelated to the context in which it was given. However, this is beside the point, it's orginal research and shouldn't be there.

The original text has been modified to:

"Neither this, nor the original treaty have prevented cases such as the annexation of Tibet by China."

This is essentially a truism (You have laws but people still break them) which any five year old is aware of, and as such I doubt it should be included. However if it is to be included through use of an example, the example should be a generally accepted one, the case of Tibet isn't. There're plenty of (referenced) examples here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation. In fact, it would be better to just refer to the general act rather than specific examples e.g. "Neither this, nor the original treaty have prevented cases of annexation (ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.86.82.144 (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

One can not use the Wikipedia article "Annexation" as a source on this as some editors occasionally add Tibet and it remains for a time before it is again removed. However see the section currently on Talk:Annexation that discuses Tibet "Why Tibet does not belong" -- PBS (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Legal force within US

The article states that the pact "remains in force as federal law" without citation to a source. There's a link to Article VI of the Constitution, but that only makes self-executing treaties enforceable federal law. Is there a source to support this assertion, or is it just original research based on Article VI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.154.205 (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

How is "Briand" pronounced?

Please add pronunciation guide for for Briand 79.181.209.204 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Restored the lead section long standing content

Everything in the lead section is from the content and sourced, and pretty much npov, showing good and bad sides and success and failures. Changes need to get consensus especially the change of the lead section and I don't see any improvement and need for now. Period.Thank you. Peace. Nubia86 (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

To add, not mentioning that 10 years after signing of the pact the Second World War happened and to signing of this pact didnt stop it, and not just that one, before and after also happening without any problem, is strange. So its not a without reason why it was heavily criticized. It is also said "also helped to erase the legal distinction between war and peace, because the signatories, having renounced the use of war, began to wage wars without declaring them". That also can go to the lead. But I see the present lead section ok for now. There is a big difference between what was proclaimed in the pact, and what really happened in reality, and we can't pretend to that didn't happened and to try to hide it. Nubia86 (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Like any good law it enabled the punishment of people who violated it---the Nazis were hung because they violated K-B. Laws against murder do not stop murders, they enable the punishment of the murderers. Rjensen (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"The pact served as the legal basis for the concept of a crime against peace..." and "was the base for trial and execution of Nazi leaders in 1946." Already noted in the lead section. Nubia86 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

State count in paragraph 2, Signatories and adherents, appears inaccurate.

Paragraph 2 says that there were 62 signatories to the pact before the final signatory, Bardados signed in 1971. The listed states, including Barbados, total only 55.

What's the explanation?

The USSR was a signatory in 1928. Are states such as The Ukraine, formerly of the USSR, now separate signatories? Or other states that have seceded from other federations or signatory states? If so which?

Or are there simply some states not listed in the Wikipedia list? Or other errors in this article? Hedles (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)