From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Ratification is the act of making something valid by confirming it; for example, international threaties are often confirmed by vote from national parliaments or other national institutions.

(-> I suggest that the text about the project of a constitution for the European Union is moved to another article, probably about European Union)

The lengthy discussion of modern US ratification issues, particularly surrounding the Law of the Sea, seems to belong more in an opinion piece or a law review article than in an encyclopedia entry. The multiple citations to the writings of a single individual, even if an expert, suggest that someone is advancing a specific point of view. I claim no special expertise in the topic of US Senate treaty ratifications, but strictly from the viewpoint of form, I would argue that the discussion of this Law of the Sea example should be shortened or deleted entirely. Goldfish-silverfish (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment and have deleted that section. If someone wants to revert and rework it that would be fine with me, but as it is now it is basically a rant against environmental treaties. Doesn't seem appropriate for this article. Greatersam (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Deez Nuts Goteem

U should get a life — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinstokes (talkcontribs) 20:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


The sentence in reference needs to be ratified. You know the one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What is this article talking about?[edit]

This article is extremely ambiguous - it talks about "the Convention and its resulting constitution", "the text", and "the treaty", without giving any indication of what might be meant.

I suppose this is intended to be part of another article?

It certainly doesn't seem to talk about ratification in general.

-- pne 17:09, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • It was a part of European constitution, in a section that is now removed [1]. Right now, it's effectively orphan, since none of pages pointing here is about European constitution. Incorporate into some article about EU? Or just delete? Andris 20:35, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ratification of the European Constitution[edit]

I've updated this section now to take account of the fact that the European Constitution wasn't ratified. It needs to be watched, though, just in case the constitution is revived. Daduzi 22:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

i still don't get what


A ratifuing; formal confirmation.

there is ratifcation european constitution but not one on the u.s. history constiution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets talk about.......... George Read![edit]

Why did he ratify the constitution? i don't really know from the article written.

It's a pretty poor example.

lets talk about the ratificaton of the constitution!!! this information doesn't really talk about it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

ratification, acceptance, approval, and accession[edit]

The UN seems to differentiate between ratification, acceptance, approval, and accession; yet it treats them all as ratification. Could someone please add a section explaining the difference between these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

so we think??[edit]

What does the -so we think- mean on this sentence in the article? The application of the treaty or legislation is not possible until it has been ratified, so we think. In addition to the suggestion above, I note in a UN document the term succession which could also be explained as well as ratification and accession. Ray3055 (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

rhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhffffffffffffffffjjjjjjjjjjjjjekdifehyufrehfuyqerfgerwuyfgequfyrhferuf this is dumb —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the following report from page 47: it explains all these terms, as used by the UN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Instruments of ratification[edit]

Apparently ratification is not completed (at least for the UK ratification of EU treaties?) until the instruments of ratification are deposited in Rome by the British government - . 18:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a generalized definition of the term added to the article? That's half of what I came to look for. MrZaiustalk 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Holy See & monarchs[edit]

Is there a line to be drawn between signature and ratification of an international treaty in the Holy See or historically in countries ruled by absolute monarchs? I see several sources that mention treaty ratification by the Holy See, but does that mean more than "the Pope signed and an instrument of ratification, made a paper airplane out of it, and threw it out the window to a waiting courier?"MrZaiustalk 08:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)