4

and each have 5 questions, and seem to cover the same kind of topics.

Should questions be retagged into ?

The "-law" suffix would probably apply to any tag on this site, so better not have it, I would say.

4

I actually prefer .

The word "law" is not automatically appended to all of our tags. For example, we should still have , etc., where as we have tags for countries (e.g. ) and concepts (e.g. ).

The tag is confusing. is certainly the better-sounding option.

4

The two tags are different in meaning; at the very least, several of the questions there should not have the tag, and others should.

As I understand it, could be for questions about how things are handled around the world. This is possibly too broad for this site; questions like that should be narrowed, and the tag could be removed. On the other hand, should be for questions about international law: treaties, conventions, the UN, and similar things, including maybe "which countries have jurisdiction in these cases". Only two of the questions are about that (Which jurisdiction applies in a vessel? and Claiming my own country). Restrictions on international data storage? shouldn't have the tag.

We should certainly not put treaties under ; that's not the term used to describe them. The "law" suffix doesn't apply to all tags by any stretch of the imagination, and even if it did we should use the phrase that someone would actually use instead of trying a this-site-specific contraction. For another example of where "-law" makes a massive difference, covers a subset of what might cover, because lots of stuff involving corporations isn't "corporate law".

  • This is undoubtedly right, and defines the difference between subject and jurisdictional tags. – Flup Jun 23 '15 at 8:03
-1

I would say yes, should be the tag we go with.

You must log in to answer this question.

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