Talk:List of parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Simplify
I recommend two simplifications:


 * Eliminate the distinction between ratification and accession on the map. It has no significance.


 * Eliminate the reference to multiple deposits of instruments of ratification or accession. You need only record whether the action was a ratification or an accession and the date of the earliest deposit.  That's when the state became a Party to the Treaty. NPguy (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I want to mention that I greatly appreciate the corrective edits you made to this article; they are all highly valuable, and you clearly very knowledgeable on this topic. So thanks very much. :)


 * To your comments: In both cases, I believe while it would probably make the article look better, it could also detract a bit from the available information on this topic, so I'd likewise recommend against it.


 * While the distinction between ratification and accession is certainly legally indistinguishable, I think there is some value to noting the difference between them on the map: to show the original states that signed on to this treaty, separately but similarly to those who seceded to it. In this case, I put both ratification and accession in shades of green, though, to denote that they've both given the 'green light' to the treaty. I also think there's some precedent with other maps out there showing the status of the signatories, like the Antarctic Treaty System.


 * As to the multiple dates of deposit, I would certainly agree that the only meaningful legal date is the earliest one, but I think it's useful and pertinent information to describe the other dates. As this article is entirely made for the list of parties to the treaty, I think it is not too much information to put here. If it were the main NPT article itself though, the table should certainly be condensed.


 * All that being said, if a consensus emerges in your favor, then it should certainly be changed. But as of now, with respect, I'd like to keep it as is. Best, --Allstar86 (talk) 06:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The information on multiple deposits of instruments of ratification or accession is just not useful to hardly anyone. I work on the NPT never use it.  As long as you include a link to the information on the UNODA web site you've covered the issue adequately.


 * Similarly, the distinction between accession and ratification is not one that most people have reason to care about. The distinction between NWS and NNWS is much more significant and should (IMHO) be highlighted with different colors. NPguy (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It states in the introduction that "The instrument of ratification, accession, or succession is deposited at the respective capitals of the depositary states: Moscow, London, and Washington, D.C. China and France later acceded to the treaty in 1992." Why are Moscow, London and Washington D.C. shown as capitals, where as France and China are shown as just countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.8.58 (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Name Change
In the name of the article, "signatories" should be replaced by "Parties" (capitalized). This is the accurate legal term for their status.NPguy (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're quite right; I've moved the article to List of parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty accordingly. I originally titled it …signatories… in an effort to copy List of Kyoto Protocol signatories. I didn't capitalize party, though, because I don't think it's a proper noun in this case. Best, --Allstar86 (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Colombia
From your edit summary: "There is no error on Colombia. The date of deposit (not the date of signature) is what distinguishes ratification from accession" --NPguy (talk)


 * I am a bit confused by this. These states all deposited their instruments after the treaty went into force: Greece, Maldives, Ghana, Lesotho, Ghana, Haiti, Kenya, Lebanon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, San Marino, Uruguay, Guatemala, Madagascar, Morocco, Senegal, Chad, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Philippines, Benin, Australia, Nicaragua, Côte d'Ivoire, Honduras, Sudan, South Korea, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Italy, Belgium, Gambia, Libya, Venezuela, Singapore, Japan, Panama, Switzerland, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Barbados, Turkey, Egypt, Colombia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Kuwait.


 * However, among this list, the UNODA site only lists Colombia as an acceding state. I assumed this was an error on their part, but are you saying that the entire UNODA site in error for every state BUT Colombia? Perhaps you could point me to a source that verifies the distinction between ratification and accession (for this treaty). I assumed the difference based on what I saw form the UNODA site, but if I am in error, the article should certainly be corrected. Thanks, --Allstar86 (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Colombia signed the treaty before it entered into force, but did not deposit an instrument of ratification and was not one of the original parties. It deposited an instrument of accession many years later.  Nothing wrong withe the UNODA web site, but you're focusing on the wrong date. NPguy (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious here, but I don't understand. What date am I focusing on that is wrong? When you wrote, "The date of deposit (not the date of signature) is what distinguishes ratification from accession", I found the many states with deposit dates after 5 March 1970 and created the above list.  I suppose my question is, what makes Colombia unique? Trinidad and Tobago and Kuwait, for example, both submitted their signatures and their deposits later than Colombia but are listed as ratifying states. Did Colombia specifically assert that they were acceding or is there still something about the dates I don't understand? Because I otherwise cannot see what distinguishes Colombia from the list of other late deposit-submitting states. Much thanks, --Allstar86 (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I take back what I said above. I thought I knew this stuff, but then I looked on the UN web site .  The definitions of ratification and accession make a distinction based on whether the state signed a treaty (in which case it must ratify) or joined after the treaty that had already entered into force (though it's not clear that this covers all possible cases).


 * But really, who cares? Ratification, accession, succession, acceptance - the end result is the same. NPguy (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just speculating here, but there are still ways the Colombia entry on the UNODA web site could be correct. For example, Colombia may have used the term "accession" in the legal instrument it used to become a Party to the treaty. I don't think UNODA would correct the decision of a sovereign state on how to characterize its action. Another, more far-fetched alternative is that Colombia could have withdrawn its signature (by sending a note to one of the depositaries that it no longer intended to ratify), after which it would have had to start over and the only option available was accession.

But as I keep saying, WHO CARES?? I still STRONGLY RECOMMEND deleting those insignificant distinctions and adding - by different colors on the map - the critical distinction between NWS and NNWS. NPguy (talk) 02:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, could we have a distinction in colors on the map between NWS and NNWS, Allstar? Poliphile (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Serbia
Has anyone checked Serbia's legal status with the treaty? The United Nations specifically stated that Serbia is NOT the successor state of Yugoslavia. Thanks. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well this isn't a UN treaty, so their position doesn't really matter. The UNODS describes it as succession, as does the UK, US and Russian depositaries.  TDL (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130311220936/http://dtirp.dtra.mil/pdfs/npt_status_2009.pdf to http://dtirp.dtra.mil/pdfs/npt_status_2009.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060412044216/http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/04/10_chaffee_korea-npt.htm to http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/04/10_chaffee_korea-npt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403031600/http://untreaty.un.org/cod/repertory/art102/english/rep_supp8_vol6-art102_e_advance.pdf to http://untreaty.un.org/cod/repertory/art102/english/rep_supp8_vol6-art102_e_advance.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Status of the Holy See
User:Raikstiger proposed to single out the Holy See in the lede as distinct from the other NPT Parties because it's not exactly a state. Those edits seemed to give undue prominence to an issue not particularly relevant to the subject matter of the article. But it might be reasonable to add a footnote explaining that the Holy See, while not formally a state, is recognized as a State Party to the NPT. NPguy (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that this is a WP:COATRACK to the subject mater of this article. We don't need to discuss the sui generis of the Holy See every time it is mentioned.  TDL (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I don't mean to discuss it but the previous version said something like "191 states" which is simply not correct. One could e.g. simply write "191 States Parties" which is the official term" without going into details of their characterization as subjects of international law. Raikstiger (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)