Talk:Public international law

Two histories, and other problems

I haven't done much on this page before. It's getting quite long though, and with far too much waffle.

1. Has anyone for instance noticed that there are two History of PIL sections?!?! It's nuts, anyone has to admit. History, I'd suggest, is best kept in one section.
2. There is a long section on the US view about international law. I really like Americans, but I really don't care what they think or what their view is on public international law, because inevitably there are different views, and this is an encyclopedia, which should be telling us information, not opinion. I want to know what the law is. It is far too long and needs a separate article - and not the 'US view', but the US law on foreign relations, for example. Moreover, it needs to be put alongside other countries. For instance, Germany has a number of sections (as is common) about PIL written into its constitution.
3. Having said that, this is about the only section which has material quoted from real life laws. This is a pretty poor state of affairs. There are 8 references in total. Most of them (apart from the US view section, as I say) are utterly peripheral. They do not give page references. They are useless. All new material should be referenced.
4. There simply must be a description of substantive law. The Vienna Convention. The Geneva Conventions. International Human Rights. The New York Convention. Law of the Sea. International organisations. I see little to none of this.

Hopefully someone agrees! On a positive note, I like the new photo of the UN chamber. Wikidea 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove the U.S. part

Or split the info up into other parts, or create a new page. Nothing seems to be done about it, and it is highly one sided. 72.140.80.212 (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Factually forgetful

This article is missing many developments prior to WWII. Paris Briand Pact plays a big part in modern PIL as it was the first treaty to heavily stigmatise the use of force for political purposes. Also the fact that the article jumps from 1940s to 1990s is poor. There were GA Resolutions that were cited by the ICJ during this period. Which under art.38 would make them binding international law. Further to this IMT Nuremberg, which spurred Rwanda and FYR tribunals.

What I should suggest is prehaps to write the article historically and show the development of PIL with more focus on 1900-today. This can then include topics broken down into,

• Development of IHL in PIL
• Development of HR in PIL
• Development of Individual Criminal Liability in PIL

These three distinct areas can highlight the growth of PIL in the way it has already been written here, more coherently.

Obviously then would need to also look at Law of the Sea and other areas where there may be good developments now Obama has declared he is cracking down on piracy

An International Legal Theory page?

Wikipedia still lacks an International Legal Theory page. The subsection under Public International Law has a good historical overview but does not include the most recent approaches. Approaches to International Law deals with the newer critical theories cryptically: it would be unclear for a reader unfamiliar with the topic; it glosses over the various nuances within the various approaches; and, in some cases, it does not even identify the main proponents of each approach. Perhaps the solution would be to create a new page on International Legal theory, covering both the classical theories and the critical ones, and separate pages for each theory giving greater details on their methods and explanatory models. --Bonifacius 07:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I transformed the old Approaches to International Law page into a main article on International legal theory; move some of the material on natural law, the eclectic school and legal positivism there, and simplyfied what remained here. --Bonifacius 14:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BonifaciusVIII (talk • contribs)

International law challenge

Who knows lots about international law? Who wants to restructure this page with subsections that reflect a good textbook? Come on, there must be lots of you! Wikidea 15:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

willienickled?!

What on earth does the phrase willienickled mean? I have not been able to find this term in any - any - other document online nor dictionary or database of any sort.

seems like someone's been playing with the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.5.232 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Public international law. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Migration to international law

I have in the past put a lot of material on this page, but now I think it's far more appropriate to move it to international law, and redirect this page there. The vast majority of people understand 'international law' as what this page was covering. There is a theoretical debate suggesting that "public" international law is the right term - but this is contested, and Wikipedia's "private international law" page uses the neutral terminology of "conflicts of laws". I'm happy to elaborate, but I think it should be non-controversial that the material develops on the international law page. Wikidea 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)