Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:15, 5 February 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Fiscal Compact article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the European Fiscal Compact article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about European Fiscal Compact. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about European Fiscal Compact at the Reference desk.

Compliance table

The table still states on the top left it holds 2013 values of the winter 2013 report. But the values appear to be mostly 2014 values from the spring report, and some 2013 values from the spring report mixed in. Ambi Valent (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

EDP

"Excessive Deficit Procedure" and the abbreviation "EDP" don't seem to be introduced very clearly. I find the appropriate explanation of the abbreviation "Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP)", but only after the term and the abbreviation have already been mentioned separately several times. And both are mentioned in passing before there is any sort of explanation of what is meant. I haven't been following the development of this article, so I don't know if this came about by subsequent re-arrangement or other editing. --Boson (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"constitutional amendment"

At the moment, if a constitutional amendment is planned, that cell of the table is colored green, whatever its implementation status. This might have to do with the fact that constitutional amendments don't have the 1 year deadline… Now that most of the implementation laws present, shall we use the red (implemented)-green (not implemented) or something else (yellow-green)? L.tak (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, which of the states listed as having a constitutional amendment haven't implemented it yet? TDL (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No idea, I just assumed they wouldn't as constitutional amendments often take a lot of time; and we have no references to the projects changing the constitution…. But maybe I am seeing something wrong? In that case it is just a referencing requirement maybe…. L.tak (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I checked… Some had it already in; some implemented, but for Spain its unclear and for slovakia it seems to be just a plan… L.tak (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, of the linked sources at the top of the column, this says Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, and Spain have the provisions in their constitution. (We don't list Austria or Poland, but do have Italy, Slovakia, Slovenia.) This gives (of the eurozone states) Germany, Italy, Malta?, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. There might be some useful info in this. TDL (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The dbresearch source and the european parliament agree on: Germany, Italy, Hungary, Spain. Slovenia and Slovakia may have passed the constitutional amendment laws, as indicated by dbresearch and this. Malta is supposed to have a constitutional amendment, too, but no source supports it has been implemented, hence the red. Austria has an ordinary law and may get it in the constitution, too, but again no source shows that this has happened. Poland has it in the constitution but during the discussion for ratifying the treaty it was noted that the existing constitutional passage does not implement fully the treaty provisions, hence the "no".

It's quite difficult not only to find out if the countries have passed relevant laws (this will become easier as time passes by and there's more interest), but also to judge if these laws are adequate enough or not... And, I don't mean for us to judge it, but even for the experts or the sources. Essentially, it's again up to the treaty's safeguard clauses to be used to judge this. Again, because this is essentially how almost-EU legislation is put into national laws, some variation is allowed. For these reasons, I'm also against the change into "More stringent rule already in constitution", as it will not be easy to judge for other countries if their future constitutional amendments are more stringent than the treaty requires or not. This became known publicly for Germany and Hungary for different reasons, however, I am not sure what's the case with the other countries (Italy, Spain, Slovenia, Slovakia). Again, no one is entirely sure that their constitutional amendments fully implement the treaty or what the exact situation is. This is obvious for me from here from the entries of Slovakia and Slovenia. Apart from this, it is mentioned for example, that the debt-to-GDP ratio limit for Slovakia is constitutionally bound to be lowered from 60% to 50% over a period of 10 years starting from 2018. Wouldn't this qualify it to be tagged as "More stringent rule already in constitution"? However, other provisions may or may not have been implemented, or may have been implement in a country specific way... Therefore, I suggest we revert to using only "no", "ordinary law" (with ratio of majority) or "constitutional amendment". Heracletus (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

But if it is already in the constitution, the result is not a constitutional amendment. Could you suggest a wording that does not have this term? L.tak (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Uhm, no, not off the top of my head. However, it would still be a prior constitutional amendment. The other element is the degree of stringency, which I argued against saying it's not easily definable or measurable. Furthermore, I mostly intended to clarify the status of the implementation laws. I could think of such a phrase as "Already/Previously implemented ( law / constitution/constitutional amendment)". Another thing is that Portugal, for example, seems to not have made a law binding constitutionally, but passed with a 2/3 majority, which requires a 2/3 majority to be repealed... So the law has not an increased validity, but cannot also be repealed as an ordinary law would. :P And, this is why we include the majority used for the law in the table. Heracletus (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless the provisions were embedded in the first revision of the constitution, then it would not be a constitutional amendment. (I'm not saying that this is the case for any states, but in theory it is possible.) Why not avoid the issue by changing the heading of the column to "Implementation status" or "Implementation method" and use "constitutional"/"ordinary"/"none". Personally, I don't think that whether the provisions were implemented prior to or after the Fiscal Compact came to exist is significant enough a distinction to justfy cluttering the table.

And I agree with Heracletus' suggestion to drop the "more stringent" description of the law, as it is rather murky to decided what qualifies as "more stringent" and it really isn't all that important to the subject of the Fiscal Compact. TDL (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well; this implementation with organic law/ordinary law/constitutional law is good as far as I am concerned! L.tak (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Implementation column

Related to the topic above: wouldn't it make sense have the implementation column moved to the lower table with entry into force date; so all actions regarding implementation (form and date) is in a single table? L.tak (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This may make sense, but let's wait for the opinion of other editors, too, before it's implemented. Heracletus (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree that this is a good idea. I've been thinking about doing this for a while now, but never got around to it. If nothing else, the first table is much bigger so moving it to the lower table would make the article more manageable for smaller screens. TDL (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I went ahead and implemented it. Feel free to make additional changes. Heracletus (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bulgaria

So there are a couple wrinkles with Bulgaria's ratification that I'd like some input on:

• They have declared themselves bound by Title III, but not Title IV. This raises the question of how we deal with them on the map. Do we just leave them yellow because they haven't declared themselves bound by the entire treaty, or do we use a separate colour? I'm leaning towards yellow for simplicity as there is already a lot going on in the map (though we should be exhausting the pink soon).
• The proposed declaration also says that they will apply Title III from January 1, 2014, and the depositary lists their entry into force date as 1 Jan 2014 even though they didn't deposit their instrument of ratification until a couple weeks later. Could this be an error, as the declaration doesn't mention anything about applying the full treaty from 1 Jan 2014? Looking at the relevant paragraphs from Article 14 we see:

"2. This Treaty shall enter into force on 1 January 2013, provided that twelve Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro have deposited their instrument of ratification, or on the first day of the month following the deposit of the twelfth instrument of ratification by a Contracting Party whose currency is the euro, whichever is the earlier."

"4. By derogation from paragraphs 3 and 5, Title V shall apply to all Contracting Parties concerned as from the date of entry into force of this Treaty."

"5. This Treaty shall apply to the Contracting Parties with a derogation, as defined in Article 139(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or with an exemption, as referred to in Protocol (No 16) on certain provisions related to Denmark annexed to the European Union Treaties, which have ratified this Treaty, as from the date when the decision abrogating that derogation or exemption takes effect, unless the Contracting Party concerned declares its intention to be bound at an earlier date by all or part of the provisions in Titles III and IV of this Treaty."

So a literal reading of that would suggest that the treaty entered into force for everyone on Jan 1 2013, Title V applied to everyone on Jan 1 2013, and the rest applies after ratification upon either the abrogation of their euro exemption or a declaration. So in that case, the rest of the treaty had already entered into force for Bulgaria and the ratification/declaration's sole purpose was the application of Title III. But if that interpretation is correct, then for non-euro states which didn't make a declaration nothing entered into force when they ratified. Interestingly, the treaty makes no provisions for anything applying/entering into force on the 1st of the following month for non-euro states (only for euro states), which is what the depositary has been using as the entry into force date (see Hungary for example). TDL (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I would stay with yellow.

And, your point is valid. According to the treaty's rules, and as it just dawned on me, the full governance provisions column on the implementation table could be 1 January 2013 for everyone as Title V is the governance provisions.

However, after a more careful reading, I think what the treaty says is that Title V applies to all euro states from 1 January 2013 (the day the treaty took effect), as well as the non-euro states which have already ratified the treaty. I base this on paragraph 4 reading:

"By derogation from paragraphs 3 and 5, Title V shall apply to all Contracting Parties concerned as from the date of entry into force of this Treaty."

Paragraph 3 concerns only euro states, while paragraph 5 concerns the non-euro states "which have ratified this Treaty". Paragraph 3 concerns first euro states which have ratified the treaty before its date of entry into force, and then euro states who have not ratified the treaty before its date of entry into force. All these, I believe, are the Contracting Parties concerned in paragraph 4.

Therefore, there is the question of whether Title V applies to all euro states since 1 January 2013, to which, I think, the answer is yes. There is the question of whether Title V applies retroactively since 1 January 2013 to non-euro states after they have ratified the treaty, to which again, I think the answer is yes. And, finally, the international law question of whether Title VI, which says that Title V can apply to countries which have not ratified the treaty, can apply to countries who have not yet ratified and which do not even apply the treaty provisionally.

Since Title V concerns governance actions, it's a bit hard to imagine how these past actions can be applied retroactively for non-euro states after they have ratified the treaty, but, yeah... It is certain though that Title V does not apply to non-euro states before they ratify the treaty...

Always referring to signatories/acceders... Heracletus (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It does make sense that Title V was applied for all euro states from the entry into force of the treaty, as otherwise a two-speed eurozone would have been created. And it could be supposed that, by signing, the euro members had implicitly agreed to such a (provisional) application. Furthermore, there is no inconsistency for non-euro members. However, the obvious retroactive de jure application of Title V for non-euro states, combined with an ability for a de facto application only after they have ratified the whole treaty, could also be a weird point. (I think this is why art. 12 reads "The Heads of State or Government of the Contracting Parties other than those whose currency is the euro, which have ratified this Treaty, shall participate in discussions of Euro Summit...", which means that even if this article applied for non-euro states from 1 January 2013, but they had not yet ratified the treaty, it would in fact not apply to them. Moreover, the non-euro states are not mentioned elsewhere in Title V.)

Obviously, the governance provisions column of our implementation table has to be changed. I do not know however how we should address the fact that Title V took effect retroactively for non-euro states from 1 January 2013, on the day that they actually ratified the treaty. For all euro states, the date must be made 1 January 2013. And, finally, I suggest we include a column about actual ratification date.Heracletus (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The declaration having taken effect before the actual ratification is a much simpler thing to explain. Any signatory country may declare itself (provisionally) bound by a treaty or any of its articles before they actually ratify it. For example, if there's an article about seas and an article about mountains, a signatory country may declare that it is bound by the mountains article a good 10 years before it actually ratifies the whole treaty. The same can happen with non-signatory countries, but then the actual effect of such a declaration in law is more complicated, as that country may not actually be bound to hold its declaration. Of course, any such declaration has to have been approved accordingly internally, otherwise although it may be valid internationally, it could be declared as odious or null and void internally first and in a second level be also consequentially invalid internationally. This would be similar to a case of Belgium having ratified something without one of its many parliaments ever noting their (needed, for this case to be valid) consent, then, someone starting a legal case against the ratification.

Finally, for Bulgaria, the treaty was ratified on 14 January 2014, with Title V taking effect on 14 January 2014, with an effect of having retroactively taken effect since 1 January 2013, while Title III had already taken effect on 1 January 2014.

Because Title VI took also effect on 14 January 2014 and triggered the retroactive effectiveness of Title V for Bulgaria since the day of entry into force for the treaty, which is 1 January 2013.

Heracletus (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It is also an interesting case that of euro signatories who ratified after 1 January 2013, as there are two ways to interpret what happened:

1. signature -> ratification -> Title VI (and all other Titles, including V) takes effect -> Title V takes effect retroactively from 1 January 2013

2. signature (interpreted as implicit acceptance of Title VI indicating a application of Title V before full ratification, if treaty has been put into force before) -> Title V takes effect on 1 January 2013 -> ratification -> Title VI (and all other Titles, including V) takes effect

Essentially, the result is the same, but....

Basically, this is equivalent to this question: Is Belgium today already bound by Title V of the treaty since 1 January 2013, or will it be already bound by Title V of the treaty since 1 January 2013 only after it ratifies the treaty? Heracletus (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I see how you're reading the text, but I'm not sure I share your interpretation. I believe that 14.4 says that ALL signatories are bound by Title V from the date of entry into force of the treaty (ie 1 Jan 2013). Your point about 12.3 supports this interpretation: why would they have added "which have ratified this Treaty" if the entire Title V only applied to non-eurzone states that had ratified the treaty? And I believe that the signature acts as consent to the provisional application of Title V prior to ratification. States can always withdraw their signature if they decide not to ratify.

Basically, as I read the text, the situation for eurozone states: a) 1 Jan 2013: entry into force/Title V applies b) Date of ratification: "Nothing of importance happened today" c) 1st of the month following ratification: the rest of the treaty applies

Meanwhile, for non-eurozone states is: a) 1 Jan 2013: entry into force/Title V applies b) Date of ratification: "Nothing of importance happened today" c) Date of declaration: declared content applies from that day (not the 1st of the next month) d) Date of abrogation of derogation: the rest of the treaty applies

It seems a bit strange that if a eurozone and non-eurozone state had ratified on 2 Feb 2013, and the non-eurozone state declared itself bound by Title III-IV, then these Titles enter into force immediately for the non-eurozone state and only on 1 March 2013 for the eurzone state.

As for the declaration, I agree that a state can declare themselves provisionally bound, but my understanding is that this is different than it's formal entry into force, which would occur later. The treaty doesn't seem to have any provisions for early entry into force. As an example that I am familiar with, Syria ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention with a declaration, dated 14 September 2013, that said "...applying the Convention provisionally pending its entry into force.." and yet the same source from the depository says "The Convention will enter into force for the Syrian Arab Republic on 14 October 2013." TDL (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

for me also the provisional application came to mind; but if that were the case the formal entry into force is later as that is linked to ratification... My guess is that there is an error in the table indeed... L.tak (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems to support my interpretation of Title V: "According to Article 14(4) of the Treaty, the provisions relating to inter-parliamentary cooperation apply to all the signatory states as of the date of entry into force of the Treaty, regardless of whether they have completed the ratification process or not." TDL (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

After re-reading the treaty a lot of times, I think that indeed art. 14.4 applies to all contracting states. This would however lead in the following situation:

Country Date of application - Entry into force for country is deposition date - Entry into force for treaty is 1/1/2013

Austria 1 January 2013 (ratified ....)

Cyprus 1 January 2013 (ratified ....)

Denmark 1 January 2013 ...

Estonia 1 January 2013 ...

France 1 January 2013

Finland 1 January 2013

Germany 1 January 2013

Greece 1 January 2013

Ireland 1 January 2013

Italy 1 January 2013

Latvia 1 January 2014 (1 January 2013 - Title V; (rest of) treaty did not apply until 1 January 2014; ratified 22/06/2012)

Lithuania (1 January 2013 - Title V; (rest of) treaty does not apply; ratified 06/09/2012)

Portugal 1 January 2013

Romania 1 January 2013

Slovenia 1 January 2013

Spain 1 January 2013

Slovakia 1 February 2013

Hungary (1 January 2013 - Title V; (rest of) treaty does not apply; ratified 15/05/2013)

Luxembourg 1 June 2013

Sweden (1 January 2013 - Title V; (rest of) treaty does not apply; ratified 03/05/2013)

Malta 1 July 2013

Poland (1 January 2013 - Title V; (rest of) treaty does not apply; ratified 08/08/2013)

Netherlands 1 November 2013

Bulgaria (1 January 2013 - Title V; 1 January 2014 - Title III; (rest of) treaty does not apply; ratified 14/01/2014)

Belgium (1 January 2013 - Title V; (rest of) treaty does not apply; not yet ratified)

Date on which the treaty is enforceable under national legislation.

Provided that the deposition date is after 1/1/2013, otherwise the entry into force date for the country is 1/1/2013.

So, the treaty is in force for everyone, since 1/1/2013 but does not apply to everyone in the same fashion.

A euro state that ratified before 1/1/2013 ratified the treaty and applies all of it, from 1/1/2013.

A euro state that ratified afterwards, applied Title V from 1/1/2013 and ratified and applied the whole treaty (and legalised this (provisional) application of Title V) from the 1st day of the next month after deposition of ratification.

A non-euro state that ratified before 1/1/2013 ratified and legalised that Title V would apply to it after the entry into force (1/1/2013), but the rest of the treaty does not apply to it.

A non-euro state that ratified afterwards, applied Title V from 1/1/2013 and legalised this (provisional) application of Title V, still now applying only this Title.

A non-euro ratifier that joins the euro will automatically apply the whole treaty, from the date it joins.

A non-euro ratifier that chooses to apply Titles III and IV will automatically apply the whole treaty, from the date it chooses to do so (if the treaty has entered into force, thus from 1/1/2013 for DK and RO).

A non-euro ratifier that chooses to apply Title III (Bulgaria) or IV, but not both, will also apply this Title, on top of V, from the day it decides to do so.

This provisional application of Title V by signing is probably not enforceable until the treaty has been ratified, as it has not been signified in the normal way of it being approved by the Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and then communicated to the depositary who must notify the other Contracting Parties. In a few words, it's legally dubious, even though I introduced it here. Heracletus (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with your summary at the bottom. (Haven't looked though the dates for each country.) The only thing I'm still confused about is why does the depository lists non-euro states as entering into force on the 1st of the following month? For example, Hungary: Notification (15/05/2013) and Entry into force (01/06/2013). Reading the treaty, I can't see any mention of anything that should happen for non-euro states on the 1st of the following month... TDL (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Because they keep failing... they still have a single date for the signature of the Unified Patent Court treaty, they list DK and RO as applying only Titles III, IV and V, while application of III and IV means application of the whole treaty, and so on... You can email them at coordination.accords@consilium.europa.eu.

But also art. 14 is a failure... It is pretty clear that its paragraphs were put together in a haste, and 14.5 seems to have been added after the rest of the article had been finalised. Of course, in recollection of what had happened, with the euro-sceptics of the UK never wanting to join and trying to pull the whole thing apart, it's only natural that this came to be so. But, it now provides some room for argument to euro-sceptics, as some provisions apply without having been ratified. Heracletus (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Enforcebility of treaties is complicated anyway, but there is no requirement for treaties to only be valid once ratified. Several easier treaties take effect upon signature alone (not provisionally: but really). So if a treaty indicates: if you sign, title V applies even if you didn't ratify; then the onus is on the individual countries if they sign such a treaty; but if they willingly did so: there is no reason they are not bound by it. I think the error is really this entry into force date for Bulgaria. The fact that the depositary says "only Title III, IV and V" for certain countries may not be materially different from "the whole treaty applies", but is technically correct as the following reasoning is Title VI

1. the treaty applies only to Euro-countries after ratification
2. for non-eurocountries the treaty applies from the introduction of the euro
3. but title V applies to all
4. non euro countries can decide to be bound by (part of) titles III and IV (but formally not: I, II, VI, that's not a failing depositary; that's sloppy treaty drafting).

Anyway; the implementation as it's done now is ok; although I find a single column with the same date a bit… overdone… but at least it is not incorrect… L.tak (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of an international treaty taking effect only by signature? And, it's not stated that Title VI or V take any effect just by signature... Heracletus (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, on the failing depositary: The treaty says that if a non-euro ratifier says it will also apply some OR all of Titles III AND IV, then, the whole treaty will apply for them. It also says that if they don't say so, then the treaty will not apply for them until they join the euro. The ratifiers accept the whole treaty by ratifying it. Therefore, there are the following options for non-euro ratifiers.

They only ratify: only Title V is applied by the provisions of the treaty (they have fully accepted), and its title VI.

They ratify and declare they apply III OR IV: Title V is applied as above, plus III OR IV.

They ratify and declare they apply III AND IV: The whole treaty is applied on them by art. 14(5).

So, "only III, IV and V" is obviously a scenario that cannot happen, indicating a failing depositary.

A scenario that could happen is like case 2 above, but where someone applies other Titles than III or IV. What if a state submits a notification of application of article 1, Title II and the first paragraph of art. 14, 14(1), just for the lolz? And a provisional application of 14(5), along with a reservation/declaration against 14(4), saying it was never bound by it and Title V never applied to it so far? And then an application of the first article of Title III and the last article of Title IV, just to complicate things a bit more. Heracletus (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There are also two ways to achieve application of "only III, IV and V", state you apply them without ratifying the treaty, so that provision 14(5) never takes effect for you, or state you apply III and IV and art. 14(4) and not ratify, but, in this case, you would apply III, IV, V AND art. 14(4). Heracletus (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"an international treaty taking effect only by signature" - It's called a "Definitive Signature": , .

"The treaty says that if a non-euro ratifier says it will also apply some OR all of Titles III AND IV, then, the whole treaty will apply for them." - I don't think that's what 14.5 is saying, I read it the same way as L.tak and the depository. What it says: "This Treaty shall apply to the Contracting Parties with a derogation ... as from the date when the decision abrogating that derogation or exemption takes effect, unless the Contracting Party concerned declares its intention to be bound at an earlier date by all or part of the provisions in Titles III and IV of this Treaty." So default application date of all the provisions is the date of abrogation of the derogation, but states can declares themselves to be bound by some portion of Title III and/or IV prior to then. But they would only be bound by the portions which they declare. And 14.5 only allows declarations of applicability about Titles III and IV, so a state can't declare that they will apply Article 1 or only portions of Title VI. It is a bit clearer in the preamble: "may be bound ... only by those provisions of Titles III and IV of this Treaty by which they declare ... that they intend to be bound;"

Also, Article 25 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties governs the provisional application of treaties: "A treaty or a part of a treaty is applied provisionally pending its entry into force if: (a) the treaty itself so provides;" That's exactly what Title V does: provides for the provisional application of Title V prior to ratification. The VCLT goes on to say: "Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the negotiating States have otherwise agreed, the provisional application of a treaty or a part of a treaty with respect to a State shall be terminated if that State notifies the other States between which the treaty is being applied provisionally of its intention not to become a party to the treaty." So they are bound only in that they can get out of it at any time they wish by notifying the depository. TDL (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No, no and no. The definitive signature sources you provide say a much different thing than what has happened with this treaty.

First source:

"9. Definitive Signature

When the treaty is not subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, "definitive signature" establishes the consent of the state to be bound by the treaty. Most bilateral treaties dealing with more routine and less politicized matters are brought into force by definitive signature, without recourse to the procedure of ratification.

"

For the last 2 years we have been tracking what? the ratification process, you say? how about, acceptance? approval? How about the treaty having article 14(1):

"1. This Treaty shall be ratified by the Contracting Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union ("the Depositary")."

Definitive signature is out of the question. Not to mention it would apply to the whole treaty and some of its application would start by the date of signature.

Second source:

3.1.4 Definitive signature

"Some treaties provide that States can express their consent to be legally bound solely upon signature. This method is most commonly used in bilateral treaties and rarely used for multilateral treaties. In the latter case, the entry into force provision of the treaty expressly provides that a State can express consent to be bound by definitively signing the treaty, i.e., signing without reservation as to ratification, acceptance or approval.

Of the treaties deposited with the Secretary-General, this method is most commonly used in certain treaties negotiated under the auspices of the regional Economic Commissions, for example, article 4 (3) of the Agreement concerning the Adoption of Uniform Conditions for Periodical Technical Inspections of Wheeled Vehicles and the Reciprocal Recognition of Such Inspections, 1997:

Countries under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article may become Contracting Parties to the Agreement:

(a) By signing it without reservation to a ratification;

(b) By ratifying it after signing it subject to ratification;

(c) By acceding to it.

Also the Agreement on International Railways in the Arab Mashreq, 2003, provides in its article 5 (2) that members under paragraph 5 :::(1) may become parties by:

(a) Signature not subject to ratification, acceptance or approval (definitive signature);

(b) Signature subject to ratification, acceptance or approval, followed by ratification, acceptance or approval; or

(c) Accession."

There's no mention of a definitive signature in the entry into force provisions, Title VI, of the Fiscal Compact.

For provisional application, this explains things pretty adequately, but, in any case, the Vienna Convention says this:

"1. A treaty or a part of a treaty is applied provisionally pending its entry into force if:

(a) the treaty itself so provides; or

(b) the negotiating States have in some other manner so agreed."

while the Fiscal Compact does not include a provisional application, but a definitive application clause, of Title V by all contracting parties, which also takes effect after its entry into force. One could argue that this is about provisional application, but one could certainly argue that it is not, based on your own sources: 3.4 here and par. 237-241, with emphasis on 240 AND 241 here. There was no declaration of provisional application by the depositary or any other related party concerning Title V, nor is the word "provisional(ly)" included in Title VI. A definitive application clause would have to have been ratified per art. 14(1) of the Compact. And, in any case, the provisional application would have to have been approved internally in the state or somehow stated explicitly in the treaty. You may find in par. 240 (as mentioned above) that this very implicit inclusion of provisional applicability of Title V is not even customary part of the international law (and could quite certainly fail before particular courts) - even the exception mentioned in par. 240 states the provisionality of the application and that a party may explicitly decide not to take part into it.

Finally, the last paragraph you mentioned (art. 25(b) of the Vienna Convention), also says a different thing:

If a party that applies provisionally a treaty (or a part of it) says that it will not ratify the treaty, the provisional application ceases (unless other explicitly written rules govern this issue). The example here is Russia and the Energy Charter (Energy Charter Treaty#Russian participation).

So, to sum up, the Fiscal Compact does not explicitly provide for any provisional application. It also does not provide for any explicit rules for ceasing any provisional application.

A related article from the Vienna Convention would be 28:

Article 28. Non-retroactivity of treaties

Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established, its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before the date of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party.

The Fiscal Compact does mention that Title V is applied to all parties from 1/1/2013. Therefore, when a party ratifies and the Fiscal Compact treaty enters into force for it, Title V is applied retro-actively. The date of the deposition of the ratification for every party after 1/1/2013 is its entry into force date for the treaty. Therefore, at this date, Title V is applied retro-actively, according to the treaty. Before that, Title V does not really apply, as it does not mention a provisional application.

Even if we consider a signatory who has not ratified as a third party to the treaty, art. 35 says:

"Article 35. Treaties providing for obligations for third States

An obligation arises for a third State from a provision of a treaty if the parties to the treaty intend the provision to be the means of establishing the obligation and the third State expressly accepts that obligation in writing."

So, in any case, the non-ratifiers cannot be bound by something they have not really consented (provisional applicability of any part of the treaty) unless they consent in writing, which also requires some internal approval.

Art. 17 of the Vienna Convention states:

"Article 17. Consent to be bound by part of a treaty and choice of differing provisions

1. Without prejudice to articles 19 to 23, the consent of a State to be bound by part of a treaty is effective only if the treaty so permits or the other contracting States so agree.

2. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty which permits a choice between differing provisions is effective only if it is made clear to which of the provisions the consent relates."

Which implies that a state needs to consent even for a part of the treaty to be applied to it.

It could be argued that art. 24(4):

"Article 24. Entry into force

4. The provisions of a treaty regulating the authentication of its text, the establishment of the consent of States to be bound by the treaty, the manner or date of its entry into force, reservations, the functions of the depositary and other matters arising necessarily before the entry into force of the treaty apply from the time of the adoption of its text."

may refer to Title VI, but the articles defining the application of the treaty have to be given consent to, and are not mentioned to apply before the treaty enters into force (for a particular signatory), or to be consented upon signature.

Finally for Titles III and IV, the preamble reads:

"NOTING that are Contracting Parties whose currency is the euro and that, as such, they will be bound by this Treaty from the first day of the month following the deposit of their instrument of ratification if the Treaty is in force at that date;

NOTING ALSO that are Contracting Parties which, as Member States of the European Union, have, at the date of signature of this Treaty, a derogation or an exemption from participation in the single currency and may be bound, as long as such derogation or exemption is not abrogated, only by those provisions of Titles III and IV of this Treaty by which they declare, on depositing their instrument of ratification or at a later date, that they intend to be bound;"

which means that the non-euro countries are bound only by those provisions of Titles III and IV to which they consent, and does not mean that non-euro countries will not be bound by any of the other Titles' provisions. Art. 14(5) reads:

"This Treaty shall apply to the Contracting Parties with a derogation, as defined in Article 139(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or with an exemption, as referred to in Protocol (No 16) on certain provisions related to Denmark annexed to the European Union Treaties, which have ratified this Treaty, as from the date when the decision abrogating that derogation or exemption takes effect, unless the Contracting Party concerned declares its intention to be bound at an earlier date by all or part of the provisions in Titles III and IV of this Treaty."

So, this treaty, including all its titles, will apply to non-euro states, when they join the euro, unless they consent to applying part or all of Titles III and IV before this. Which means that if they consent to applying Titles III and IV or parts of both, the whole treaty applies to them. If they don't, nothing but Title V (per 14.4) applies to them. Which is consistent also, by our designation as "full (declaration)" and not "Titles III, IV and V (declaration)", in the "sections applied" column of the application/implementation table.

What the Fiscal Compact says is that the treaty shall apply to a non-euro signatory when it joins the euro, unless this signatory declares it's bound by Titles III AND IV, in full or partly, before it joins the euro. I assume that in this case, the whole treaty applies at the date when it becomes bound by Titles III and IV. Even without my assumption, such a state would have ratified the treaty and there would be no article stating when the treaty applied to it, thus, it would apply from the date of the deposition of its ratification, IN FULL, unless it declared it is not bound by some of the treaty's provisions. So, if a state declares it is bound by only article 8 in Title III and only art. 11 in Title IV, the treaty will apply to it in full, apart from art. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. Heracletus (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Heracletus, I never suggested that the Fiscal Compact utilized a definitive signature. You asked "Can you provide an example of an international treaty taking effect only by signature?" and I gave you sources and evidence that yes indeed it can and is done. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just because the exact word "provisionally" isn't used in the treaty, doesn't mean it isn't provisional application. There are many ways to say the same thing. The UN Treaty handbook defines provisional application as "A State provisionally applies a treaty that has entered into force when it unilaterally undertakes, in accordance with its provisions, to give effect to the treaty obligations provisionally, even though its domestic procedural requirements for international ratification, approval, acceptance or accession have not yet been completed." That's precisely what the Fiscal Compact calls for, whether they explicitly use the word "provisionally" or not. 14.1 says the agreement is subject to ratification, but 14.4 says that Title V shall apply prior to ratification. And provisional application is used for treaties already in force:

"the provisional application would have to have been approved internally in the state " - How do you know it wasn't? It certainly wouldn't need full parliamentary approval (that would defeat the whole purpose of provisional application) but it certainly could have (and likely was) approved internally by some committee or something.

"There was no declaration of provisional application by the depositary" - How do you know? Just because nothing was posted on the website doesn't mean there hasn't been a notification circulated.

"It also does not provide for any explicit rules for ceasing any provisional application" - Precisely, so the VCLT dictates that they can get out if they notify the depository.

"Title V does not really apply, as it does not mention a provisional application" - Yes it does. It just doesn't use the word "provisionally".

"Which implies that a state needs to consent even for a part of the treaty to be applied to it." - They did consent by signing the treaty.

"Which means that if they consent to applying Titles III and IV or parts of both, the whole treaty applies to them" - No, I strongly disagree with your interpretation of this. Bolded is your error. Nowhere does that sentence say that the whole thing applies if they declare themselves bound by III and IV. It simply leaves open the possibility that they can apply these titles prior to the rest of the treaty applying. If your interpretation was correct, there would be no such thing as Title III and IV declarations. Any declaration of early applicability would automatically make they whole treaty apply. There is really no justification for drawing a line between Title III or IV declarations and Title III AND IV declarations.

Anyways, I find your interpretation of the treaty and suggestions of retroactive-applicability to be quite extreme. Perhaps you're right and I'm wrong, but I have read it over and over again and I just can't see how a reasonable person would interpret the text the way that you do. Even if you are correct, we still must follow what sources say (WP:VNT). Even if the depository is wrong, we still need to report what the depository says because the depository is reliable while you and I are not. You listed the depository's email above, so perhaps you should contact them and try and get them to change their note. But as long as the only reliable source we have says that Denmark and Romania only apply Titles III, IV, and V, our article needs to reflect that. If you have other sources that mention what titles these states apply, then I'm happy to discuss that. But I don't see much benefit in continuing a conversation on our personal interpretations of the treaty, as this has ventured well into the realm of WP:OR. TDL (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

But definitive signature does not apply for this treaty. It is also stated that it is rather rarely done for multilateral international treaties.

Also, the word "provisionally" should have been there. Otherwise it's a definitive application and is not consistent with international law customs and practices.

If it was provisional application and was approved internally and was communicated to and by the depositary, we would have seen all kinds of papers being published, mentioned and communicated through announcements all these months. It is pretty clear this was not the case. It was treated as somehow legally binding application, but it is not entirely clear how this took place legally, which means that only if it's ever tested before a court, it will be clarified.

The Vienna Convention just says what happens if a signatory states it will not ratify, regarding its provisional application (which ceases). It doesn't say this is a/the way to cease provisional application; it merely indirectly indicates this is a way. Another way is just declaring it and doing so in accordance with the treaty considered.

Again, the signature was not a definitive one so the consent was given pending ratification. In the same matter one could argue they consented to the whole treaty, which in principle they did. What legal results this produces is again a matter for a court to decide.

Well, in the last part you distort what I write AND you come through with your own interpretation, as I wrote in the end that I believe it means the whole treaty, save for the parts of Titles III and IV that they didn't declare they were bound by, applies. Which in plain English is a correct interpretation. (If you say: A doesn't apply until B happens, unless C happens, it pretty much means usually that if C happens then A applies before B happens.) The reasoning behind my view that the articles that weren't included in those declared as binding wouldn't also apply is also based on logic.

Which brings us to the very last part, where you first note your dissent over my arguments, saying they wouldn't fit a legally reasonable person, and then conclude that this is all original research. I really do wonder if you have ever managed to debate anything on wikipedia without accusing the other person (and yourself) of original research. Heracletus (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And I often wonder if you have ever managed to debate anything on wikipedia with personalizing and attacking. (The two most recent threads on your talk page involve you engaged in just such behaviour.) My comments focused exclusively on the weaknesses of your arguments. Suggesting that your arguments are based upon original research (and hence inadmissible) is an entirely valid debating point. I understand you don't like hearing such criticism, but the solution is to either back up your arguments with reliable sources rather than personal opinions or go write a blog. Misplaced Pages is a serious encyclopedia, WP:NOTAFORUM to discuss personal opinions. Yes it can be frustrating to be involved in content disputes, but it is quite childish to resort to personalizing disputes just because people disagree with you. Back to the content:

Yes, it is not a definitive signature. I thought I made that clear above? Can we move past this point now?

"the word "provisionally" should have been there" - Should have according to who? What source supports your assertion that the word provisionally must be used to make a treaty provisionally applicable? This is a very dubious claim.

"Otherwise it's a definitive application" - Uh, but I thought we agreed that it wasn't a definitive signature? How could a non-definitive signature lead to definitive application? That's logically impossible.

"we would have seen all kinds of papers being published" - Well, it is a quite obscure point so I disagree with your assumptions here. Perhaps you just haven't looked hard enough for sources. Or perhaps you're correct, but in the absence of sources it's purely speculation on your part.

"It doesn't say this is a/the way to cease provisional application; it merely indirectly indicates this is a way." - The VCLT says: "the provisional application of a treaty or a part of a treaty with respect to a State shall be terminated if that State notifies the other States between which the treaty is being applied provisionally of its intention not to become a party to the treaty." So one way to cease provisional application is to declare that they will not ratify the treaty. This seems quite direct to me so I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.

"consent was given pending ratification" - Precisely, but it was only consent to the provisional application which we were discussing. Obviously ratification isn't necessary for provisional application. That's the entire point of provisional application.

"one could argue they consented to the whole treaty" - Yup, consented pending ratification as per 14.1. And as per 14.4 they only apply Title V prior to ratification.

"in the last part you distort what I write" - No, you've just not understood my argument. Please see a more detailed explanation below. TDL (talk) 07:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your second line of defence is accusing the other person of making it personal, and then of making it a forum. Please, do continue to make all your points again and again as you make everyone else you disagree with you do. I'm mildly tempted to continue arguing just for the sake of this, and also seeing more wikipedia policies being mentioned, but, I've decided I may have other things to do. Heracletus (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, more ad hominems. The standard fallback when one doesn't have an intelligent argument to make or sources to back up one's opinion.

PS: if you'd like to shorten debates I'd suggest looking in the mirror. You've generated more posts and almost twice the kb that everyone else in the discussion has combined. Epic walls of text don't help move the discussion along. Nor does your habit of repeatedly misunderstanding my comments and making dubious declarations of fact that are unsupported by any sources. Here's a tip: if you're going to make a dubious claim, back it up with a source first. That way I don't have to ask you for a source, and you don't have to ignore my request or attack me for asking for a source. TDL (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I cannot be feeding the diva any more. Heracletus (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy break

Title III/IV

Heracletus, you are right in your reading of that it is logically: when the declaration regarding "all or part of the provisions in Titles III and IV of this Treaty" has been delivered (wehter it is one paragraph of III and IV or the both titles; no grammatical distinction is made), the effectiveness only upon Euro-adoption is not the case anymore. Our question is: what happens then, if a declaration is made? Logically, we have the options:

1. the first part of the sentence applies: so by the declaration re Titles III/IV, entry into force upon Euro adoption is rendered mute
2. All parts apply (the whole treaty applies, including of course all provisions of Titles III/IV)
3. The parts apply which have been declared

I don't see how if (part of) III (n)or IV is declared, only those provisions will apply (interpretaion 3), but if III and IV are declared, all parts apply (interpretation 1). That seems logically not to follow from the sentence. Regarding option 1: that seems contrary to the purpose of the treaty, while interpretation 2 seems contrary to the purpose of making declarations. That's why I come to interpretation 3, and more importantly, the depositary does…. The Dutch government has the same interpretation (Voor de toepassing op andere partijen maakt het verdrag nog een belangrijk onderscheid: voor een partij die de euro als munt heeft en die op een later moment bekrachtigt, geldt het hele verdrag vanaf de eerste dag van de eerstvolgende maand na de bekrachtiging. Op een partij die de euro niet als munt heeft is het verdrag daarentegen in beginsel niet van toepassing zolang deze partij geen euroland is. Deze partij kan wel aangeven al voor die tijd geheel of gedeeltelijk gebonden te willen zijn door titels III (begrotingspact, zie deel 3 b) en IV (coördinatie van het economisch beleid en convergentie, zie deel 3 c)).) I suggest we follow therefore thé interpretation of the depositary, backed up by the Dutch government…

Title V

Regarding Title V, also the interpretation of the Dutch government may help: "Titel V (bestuur van de eurozone, zie deel 3 d) heeft ten slotte nog een bijzondere positie: deze titel wordt vanaf inwerkingtreding van het verdrag toegepast door alle partijen. Dat wil zeggen ook door die partijen waarvoor het verdrag nog niet in werking is getreden maar het verdrag wel hebben getekend." L.tak (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for a much clearer explanation than my bumbling effort L.tak! Though just a small point for clarity, I think your first reference to "interpretation 1" after your numbered list should be "interpretation 2". TDL (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, for Title V, yes, it is agreed by pretty much everyone that it applies to all contracting states since the treaty came into effect. I still question the legality of the clause, but, this matter is pretty moot.

For the non-euro parties, however, I am not sure if I agree with you. Regarding your excerpt, it says that the treaty does not apply in principle for the non-euro parties until they join the euro and these parties may indicate they are bound partially or fully by Titles III and IV. However, the treaty says that it does not apply to non-euro parties until they join the euro, unless they indicate they are bound partially or fully by Titles III and IV. This "unless" seems to be the same in all languages of the treaty, and is open to interpretation if it means "unless...., in which case the treaty applies to them.", "unless...., in which case only the articles they declared they are bound by apply to them." or, "unless...., in which case the treaty applies to them apart from the parts of Titles III and IV they have declared they are not bound by." I would side with the last interpretation. The Dutch government sides indirectly with the second one. And most legal experts rather don't touch this potential issue, which again is pretty much moot, as non-euro parties so far have indicated they are bound by articles affecting them, thus leaving out either general introductory articles or articles that wouldn't apply to them.

However, the use of "unless" probably supports my interpretation... Otherwise, it should have been "however" or "but"... Heracletus (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

But from a pure logic perspective options 3 can be ruled out. Firstly, the treaty doesn't allow for states to "declared they are not bound by". The treaty allows for opting-in to provisions, but not opting-out. Read Bulgaria's declaration: they opted in to III but didn't mention anything about IV. Using your simplification of "A doesn't apply until B happens, unless C happens" means that "if C happens A immediately applies", I can see no logical reason why different declarations would have different effects. C = "the Contracting Party concerned declares its intention to be bound at an earlier date by all or part of the provisions in Titles III and IV of this Treaty." So ANY declaration of applicability of Title III or IV, partial or full, would mean that C has occurred (because the "all or part of" clause is a logical OR) and hence by your interpretation A would immediately be triggered. So option 3 is a logically impossible interpretation. Option 1 is a logically consistent interpretation of the article, but it leads to the nonsensical conclusion that states that declare themselves bound by Title III are immediately bound by Title IV even if they didn't declare this. C is true for Bulgaria (they declared Title III), so interpretation 1 demands that A (="This Treaty shall apply") has been triggered. So while I agree that there is some ambiguity in the wording, and a "but" would have been clearer, there is really only one sensible way to interpret the article. TDL (talk)

TDL, you're re-writing international law. With a little search, you can easily and surely find declarations of any sort for a lot of treaties, while the treaties do not explicitly provide for such declarations. (This could serve as a start.) The EU treaties are no exception. Just when some party wants to apply or not apply something, the other parties have to pretty much agree to this. This principle holds for provisional applications, too, btw... Obviously by opting in to certain articles in certain Titles, the rest of the articles in those Titles do not apply to this party. (Which is my reasoning as to why while the whole other treaty would apply, these articles, of these specific Titles, to which the state has not opted in wouldn't apply.)

And, finally, all or part of the provisions in Titles III and IV... Papapam... If, in all or part, "or" is a logical OR, in Titles III and IV, what would "and" be? A logical AND. Heracletus (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As for that last point… yes, but so what? with the OR's and AND's in place as you suggest, "Article III", "Title IV", "Title III and IV", "Article xxx of Title III and Article yyy of Title IV" are valid declarations. The point is that in my view they will not make Title I apply formally; and declarations beyond what is given are often not allowed…. But let's approach this a bit differently; I see Heracletus, that you interpret this in a different way from TDL and me; as we seem to agree on the analysis and it seems not useful to continue the discussion. I rewrote a key-section in a way the caters for both interpretations; is that the way forward? Or are there specific lines of text that we should discuss? L.tak (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not rewriting anything. You've just confused declarations with reservations. The former is what I was speaking of, while the latter is what you are. You can learn the difference at . Specifically: "Unlike reservations, declarations merely clarify a State's position and do not purport to exclude or modify the legal effect of a treaty." However, "An optional declaration is a declaration that a treaty specifically provides for, but does not require. Unlike an interpretative declaration, an optional declaration is binding on the State making it." The Fiscal Compact only provides for an optional declaration for III and IV. Any other declaration would be an interpretive declaration and thus can't modify the applicability of the treaty.

"Obviously by opting in..." - Yes, you keep saying things are "obvious" when you can't back them up with sources. I (and the depository, Dutch govt, etc.) think it's obvious that only Titles III, IV and V apply to non-eurozone states, but clearly it's not so obvious to you. If it is so "obvious" then surely someone else on the planet has noted this obviousness in a reliable source?

Well, if it were a logical AND then C could never be true. "Titles III AND IV" = null set since there is no intersection of III and IV; they are disjoint. So if you insist on a logical AND as well, then no declaration would have any impact on the timing of A. Nothing would apply early. So your interpretation is still not logically possible. I can't believe this has descended into a logic101 lesson...

@L.tak, my objection is to what is listed in the table. Bulgaria/Denmark are erroneously listed as full, rather than III-V, which is what all the sources say. Given Heracletus's admission above that s/he is considering "arguing just for the sake of this", I'll probably start some sort of DR to get some outside help explaining NOR if we can't resolve this shortly. TDL (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

L.tak, my first reply to this section stated that for me the whole point is (legally) moot. So, I wasn't asking for revisions of any sections, I was just stating my opinion. Heracletus (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

TDL, I will copy what is said here http://www.bayefsky.com/docs.php/area/reservations :

"Reservations and declarations entered by a state (both current states parties and states which have subsequently withdrawn their ratifications)

When a state party either signs or ratifies a treaty, that state may enter reservations or declarations regarding provisions of the treaty. The text of these reservations and declarations are listed under the heading "Reservations and Declarations".

The nomenclature of "reservation" or "declaration" is taken directly from the source document."

and stop here. You keep reading stuff the way you like it and I'm tired of explaining. My position is that a treaty does not need to allow for declarations, reservations or whatever else for them to be made by its parties. In case it does not allow for them or they go against the treaty's purpose, they are not allowed. Another party may also issue an objection against a declaration or reservation. This presentation explains it pretty adequately: http://treaties.un.org/doc/source/training/regional/2003/7-9October-2003/reservations.ppt .

Let me teach you some Logic 101: (all the provisions of Title III or part of the provisions of Title III) AND (all the provisions of Title IV or part of the provisions of Title IV).

I really do not have time to feed you, or play dumb. When I write "I'm mildly tempted to continue arguing just for the sake of this, and also seeing more wikipedia policies being mentioned, but, I've decided I may have other things to do." I mean it and obviously doesn't mean I will argue for the sake of it. We disagree and you cannot accept it. Heracletus (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it was mentioned above, but do we have a ref backing up this way of reading it? and is it consistent with the recital? L.tak (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No there are no sources. And besides, Heracletus's interpretation is still logically incorrect. If we write the article as the statement would be true if a state declared any PART of III AND PART of IV (ie Article 3 and Article 9), and hence the entire treaty (including the undeclared parts of Title III and Title IV) would necessarily apply. That is inconsistent with Heracletus' interpretation and obviously doesn't make any sense. TDL (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right on that I didn't provide a source backing what I wrote, as this was my personal opinion. On the other hand, there is a source backing your position, which I sent to L.tak. Of course, you didn't need to find this source yourself, because it was me who didn't provide any source and it didn't matter for you what the "truth" about the content is, as long as you could provoke me into repeating my position time after time, as you do above, and as long as you could try to prove me wrong. I'm sorry, but I find this sick. I have already stated my opinion as to what my interpretation of the treaty would mean and why. And, you just keep distorting it. What else can I say, apart from that I find your need for provocation sick? I really don't want to reply anymore. Not because I have no arguments, but because even though my position was explained, you just keep trying to find some way to keep this going. The only reason why I didn't look for a source before is because you kept acting as you didn't understand my arguments and you hadn't called me to find one. Again, you act the same. It's sick. In the end, if I call you to find one proving the opposite, you will say that the depositary is enough or that you don't have to find one and I have to prove my point and not you and blah blah blah... Heracletus (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I provided a source (the depositary). Another source that is "dependent on written and/or electronic notifications supplied by the depositaries" doesn't change anything. If you think the depository is "failing" then how does a second source which merely reports what the first source has said convince you otherwise? We're at 1-2 sources for my interpretation, and 0 for yours, hence why I asked for a source. (As did L.tak just above by the way...) Trust me, I have no desire for you to "repeating my position time after time". And I certainly was never "acting as you didn't understand my arguments". I understood your argument perfectly well from the very start, but your interpretation is illogical. You've repeatedly (whether intentionally or not) not comprehended what I've said. And I certainly do care about the truth. It's just that the truth isn't what you think it is, and I don't think we should provide false information to readers. I want the article to reflect reality and the sources.

What you have said is that you think the treaty says "unless they consent to applying (all the provisions of Title III or part of the provisions of Title III) AND (all the provisions of Title IV or part of the provisions of Title IV)" and that this means the "whole treaty, save for the parts of Titles III and IV that they didn't declare they were bound by, applies". As explained above, these two statements mean different things. Another contradiction: if a state declares ONLY Title III, the AND statement is false and hence the entire treaty doesn't apply early as you claim. That isn't a distortion, that is a fact. This is what we should be discussing, not your opinion of my health. Do you accept changing the table entry for Romania/Denmark to III, IV, V? If so, then there's no need to continue this delightful discussion. If not, then as I suggested above DR is a way forward.

As for the rest of your nonsense, keep an eye on ANI. TDL (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to quote, I've read your source, though it appears you haven't read mine. You've once again completely misunderstood the point and responded with more strawmen. I agree with everything you've written about declarations and reservations, and haven't said anything to the contrary. What I said (and what the source explains) is that ONLY reservations can unilaterally limit the applicability of a treaty. Declarations can't unless the treaty explicitly allows for it. My original statement referred only to declarations, and that is what you disputed. Of course a state can make a reservation about ANY part of the treaty, but that is a completely unrelated issue from the optional declarations defined by A14.5. TDL (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "Firstly, the treaty doesn't allow for states to "declared they are not bound by".". Furthermore, as a tribute to you, I should make a completely unidentifiable account and just comment in the way you do, provoking arguments and not caring what the actual situation (the "truth" as you put it) is, but just looking for sources which may invalidate some details of the other side's arguments, and then, when the argument is completely derailed, I should be calling "original research" or whatever other wikipedia policy may have the slightest connection, as it's not about the content, it's not even about the content's quality, it's about the rules, and not the rules concerning the actual subject, but the rules themselves. I should also be making copyedits and write neat edit summaries, instead of caring about the actual content and how to enrich it, the content doesn't matter; it's all about my personal manual of style and way of expressing things, because I can always back this by correctly claiming that the rules say "quality not quantity". On the other hand, it would be a waste of time, for me. Heracletus (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but did you actually read my quote? I said DECLARED! not RESERVED! They are DIFFERENT! THINGS! READ! THE! SOURCE! TDL (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class European Union articles
• Mid-importance European Union articles
• WikiProject European Union articles
• Unassessed Economics articles
• Unknown-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles