Talk:Public international law

message: I haven't done much on this page before. It's getting quite long though, and with far too much waffle.
#Has anyone for instance noticed that there are two History of PIL sections?!?! It's nuts, anyone has to admit. History, I'd suggest, is best kept in one section.
#There is a long section on the US view about international law. I really like Americans, but I really don't care what they think or what their view is on public international law, because inevitably there are different views, and this is an encyclopedia, which should be telling us information, not opinion. I want to know what the law is. It is far too long and needs a separate article - and not the 'US view', but the US law on foreign relations, for example. Moreover, it needs to be put alongside other countries. For instance, Germany has a number of sections (as is common) about PIL written into its constitution.
#Having said that, this is about the only section which has material quoted from real life laws. This is a pretty poor state of affairs. There are 8 references in total. Most of them (apart from the US view section, as I say) are utterly peripheral. They do not give page references. They are useless. All new material should be referenced.
#There simply must be a description of substantive law. The Vienna Convention. The Geneva Conventions. International Human Rights. The New York Convention. Law of the Sea. International organisations. I see little to none of this.
Hopefully someone agrees! On a positive note, I like the new photo of the UN chamber. Wikidea 16:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two histories, and other problems 

message: Or split the info up into other parts, or create a new page. Nothing seems to be done about it, and it is highly one sided. 72.140.80.212 (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove the U.S. part

message: Wikipedia still lacks an International Legal Theory page. The subsection under Public International Law has a good historical overview but does not include the most recent approaches. Approaches to International Law deals with the newer critical theories cryptically:  it would be unclear for a reader unfamiliar with the topic; it glosses over the various nuances within the various approaches; and, in some cases, it does not even identify the main proponents of each approach. Perhaps the solution would be to create a new page on International Legal theory, covering both the classical theories and the critical ones, and separate pages for each theory giving greater details on their methods and explanatory models. --Bonifacius 07:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: An International Legal Theory page?

message: Who knows lots about international law? Who wants to restructure this page with subsections that reflect a good textbook? Come on, there must be lots of you! Wikidea 15:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: International law challenge

message: What on earth does the phrase willienickled mean? I have not been able to find this term in any - any - other document online nor dictionary or database of any sort.
seems like someone's been playing with the article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.5.232 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  willienickled?! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Public international law. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/d_icerd.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have in the past put a lot of material on this page, but now I think it's far more appropriate to move it to international law, and redirect this page there. The vast majority of people understand 'international law' as what this page was covering. There is a theoretical debate suggesting that "public" international law is the right term - but this is contested, and Wikipedia's "private international law" page uses the neutral terminology of "conflicts of laws". I'm happy to elaborate, but I think it should be non-controversial that the material develops on the international law page. Wikidea 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration to international law