I was "informed" via comment to a question that Treaties are not appropriate for this site.

This seems at odds with various other posts and comments I have seen.

For instance, cpast's Answer would imply that Treaties are on topic.

... On the other hand, international-law should be for questions about international law: treaties, conventions, the UN, and similar things, including maybe "which countries have jurisdiction in these cases".

And the definition states the following, which would further support Treaties as being on topic:

For questions about the interaction of two or more sovereign states, including agreements and laws between them, and disputes of jurisdiction for civil or criminal matters.

The argument against treaties as being on topic here, but should instead be on Politics.SE, seems to be that Treaties are not laws until they are ratified by the signatory countries.


1 Answer 1


You were misinformed, which happens. FTAA is not an actual treaty, and isn't concrete enough that it can be discussed as anything other than a political ideology. Any actually-finalized treaty is discussable in terms of its legal interpretation. The ICAO documents are also not treaties. Model laws are like those ICAO documents, and we don't treat model laws, UCC as being "off topic".

  • Just to make sure I am understanding you, are you saying that the FTAA is on-topic even though it is not a treaty or concrete?
    – Andrew
    Jun 22, 2020 at 21:56
  • 2
    No, I'm saying that it is so nebulous that there's nothing resembling a point of law that could be discussed.
    – user6726
    Jun 22, 2020 at 22:56
  • Good examples of on-topic international Treaties: Geneve and Hague Convention (both regarding war) the treaty regarding statelessness and the convention on the succession of states.
    – Trish
    Aug 14, 2020 at 6:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .