Wikidata:Property proposal/parties

parties (public international law subjects who consented to be bound by the treaty) edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Not done

Description	This property is intended to list the parties (countries or international organizations) of the treaty. It should allow adding several values.
Data type	Item
Domain	treaty (Q131569)
Allowed values	country (Q6256), international organization (Q484652)
Example 1	Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Q239768) → Nigeria (Q1033)
Example 2	Treaty on International Civil Law of 1889 (Q40449446) → Bolivia (Q750)
Example 3	Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Q277072) → Sweden (Q34)
Robot and gadget jobs	no
See also	signatory (P1891) (previous step in the process of adoption of a treaty) depositary (P2058) (after a treaty was ratified by a country, this country sends the instrument to the depositary)

Motivación edit

This property is needed, because currently Wikidata can show which subjects signed a treaty by property signatory (P1891), but there is no corresponding property to know if any of the signatories consented to be bound by the treaty.

The property should work as this:

 <P> parties/consented to be bound:    <Q> country/int org
                                              <qualifier> mean                              <Q> ratification, acceptance, approval, accession, ...
                                              <qualifier> date approved                     <date> YYYY-MM-DD (date when the country consented to be bound, such as when parliament voted for it)
                                              <qualifier> approved by law* (if aṕpropriate) <Q>/<text> number or name of the law
                                              <qualifier> date deposited                    <date> YYYY-MM-DD (date when instrument was deposited to the depositary)
                                            <references>

                                       <Q> country/int org 2...
                                              <qualifier> mean                              <Q> ratification, acceptance, approval, accession, ...
                                              <qualifier> date approved                     <date> YYYY-MM-DD 
                                              <qualifier> approved by law* (if aṕpropriate) <Q>/<text> number or name of the law
                                              <qualifier> date deposited                    <date> YYYY-MM-DD 
                                            <references>
* or approved by signature, etc.

Should also be taken in account to add end date, when the treaty is not binding to the country anymore due to withdrawal of the treaty. Zerabat (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support David (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this specifically for international agreements, or could it also be used for, say, agreements between organizations? --Yair rand (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This could be for agreements between any subject of international law: between states, between states and other interantional law subjets (e.g. international organizations), and between other international law subjects themselves. --Zerabat (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Zerabat: any reason this would be restricted to international law ? And not generalized to signed agreements like contracts or anything ? It seem similar to a contract in spirit, it bounds the different signers. author TomT0m / talk page 13:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if signatory (P1891) may be both for private law and international law, I don't think you need to "approve" a contract signed previously between two persons. In that case, the signature means approval or agreement. But in international law usually is commitment first and then obligation. --Zerabat (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Zerabat: Just checked fr:Traité_(droit_international_public) and it seem that the adoption procedure and is way more complicated than this : there is steps « negociation first, then adoption, authentication (formal) / signature / ratification (in french or english) / entry into force / and optionally adhesion for countrys that joins afterward (it seems they are then engaged after the signing) ». My first thought is « rename the property « ratified by ».
        It seems that in some countries (« dualist » one) there even is an afterward step to include the rules into the common law of the country (by opposition of « monist » one for which the ratification of a treaty makes it automatically included into the rules). I think this property is intended to register the countries in which the treaty has been ratified ?
        . We could also think of a property to register the status of the treaty like « adoption status » with possible values « negociation / adoption / ratification … ». Also I think we could create a property specific for signature as it seems to be a different thing, as you say, as a traditional contract signature. author TomT0m / talk page 15:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after a bit more thinking, I’d propose to model with significant event (P793)

, to make each step of adoption atomic and move the dates out of the qualifiers.

⟨ treaty ⟩ significant event (P793) ⟨ treaty signature ⟩
country (P17) ⟨ france ⟩
country (P17) ⟨ spain ⟩
country (P17) ⟨ … ⟩
point in time (P585) ⟨ thedate ⟩
to model the steps
⟨ treaty ⟩ significant event (P793) ⟨ treaty ratification ⟩
country (P17) ⟨ france ⟩
point in time (P585) ⟨ thedate ⟩
⟨ treaty ⟩ significant event (P793) ⟨ inscription in country law ⟩
country (P17) ⟨ italy ⟩
point in time (P585) ⟨ thedate ⟩
implemented by law Search ⟨ lawitem ⟩
(I think it’s best to create an item for the law)

Your property would nethertheless be useful to list all the country in which the treaty is fully active, with start/stop date and appropriate ranks. This is because I think the Wikidata way is not to « update » a statement about the status of a country but to use rank to make the most recent statuses be used in infoboxes and put an end date and normal rank to statuses that was valid at some date (per Help:Ranking, if the temperature change we don’t update the statement, we create a new one with a different date and change the rank, I think we should do something consistent for evolving statuses). For example we list the bound country after the step of « entry into force », qualified with a begin date, or after the adhesion step for the appropriate country, and we forget the other qualifiers (date approved and date deposited mostly). author TomT0m / talk page 15:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with having the country as a qualifier value is that it means one can't use further qualifiers like identity of object in context (P4626), which can be necessary sometimes. --Yair rand (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yair rand: Pardon me but looking at the examples I don’t really understand why we don’t use the value of identity of object in context (P4626) as the main value of the statement ?? author TomT0m / talk page 13:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is some discussion about this at Wikidata:Property_proposal/ratified by. --- Jura 14:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this duplicates ratified by (P6193). SJK (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]