Talk:Derogation

Couldn't this be worded better?
 subsequent law imports the abolition of a previous one.--Filll (talk | wpc ) 23:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but It seems a suitable paraphrasing of the Latin If not litteral. I'm not a Latin subject matter expert.Seanwong (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Examples ?
Some Examples in context may assist the casual reader ( me ) to better understand this relatively obscure Latin derivative.

Derogate in the Australia US Free Trade Agreement Article 17.1 Paragraph 7 "A Party may derogate from paragraph 6 in relation to its judicial and administrative procedures, including requiring a national of the other Party to designate an address for service of process in its territory, or to appoint an agent in its territory, provided that such derogation is:  " In my view this means in plain-speak that the previous paragraph 6, provisions can be ignored IF the requirement is for a "local address or Agent to be appointed".

As an off topic comment it is interesting to not that the Article 17.1 authors were not aware of the exact wording used in Article 10.5 which specifically commits that neither party will require a local presence ie an address or agent for a cross border service provider. I expect he Legal eagles would argue that commerce involving an intellectual property is a special NON service to the extent that a copyright or patent requires a physical location for the paperwork to be sent! Seanwong (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Using the original source
Please do not revert references to original source material. The fact that the original source makes more clear that it the content relates to a specific jurisdiction, as opposed to a website where the same material is replicated, is not a basis for reversion. If your concern is that sources be global, it is better to identify sources that are associated with a particular jurisdiction so that you know where supplementation is needed, as opposed to removing that information such that the issue is not visible to editors or readers. Arllaw (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * you did not check the original source, you simply added the source TFD claimed to use. You should only add sources you have checked in those cases. Moreover, if you use "derogation" in its 19-century meaning in the USA, then you have to mention it and no state it as a general definition. This is why I prefer to use the contemporary source such as TFD. Veverve (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not accurate, as you would know had you actually checked the original source. I am not clear you prefer to cite websites that quote material rather than the sources that they are quoting, if that is in fact your objection. If not, your objection is unclear. Arllaw (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)