Talk:International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

message: It may be considered unfortunate, but it's a fact that many people in the U.S. greatly prefer the protections of their own Constitution and Bill of Rights to agreements like this one, which are perceived as basically having been created by European socialists to restrain 3rd-world dictators, and therefore lacking any meaningful relationship to the legal and political traditions of the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: She actually died on Nov. 7, 1962, but point well taken. Pr4ever (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Just to add some info, this page on that cited ER Papers site and this nps.gov page say, "... As a result, it was only in 1992 that the U.S. finally ratified the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but even then it was accomplished with so many attached reservations that its implementation would have little domestic effect." (not represented as ER's words), citing supporting sources. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Supplying further info re the text you quote in your challenge, that text was added in this January 2008 edit, citing an unreliable source (a Wikipedia article) in support. Considerable additional material was added in that edit. No edit summary was provided. 02:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: attitudes underlying U.S. reservations

message: Perhaps a section could be written on the legal force of the Covenant and how this can be applied within international law. For example, is it possible for individuals to bring a case against the state where their CP rights have been violated?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.169.174 (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The appropriate place for such material would be on the page for the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  The OP has led to an extensive jurisprudence on the interpretation and implementaiton of the ICCPR, and it deserves a large section. --IdiotSavant (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal application of Covenant 

message: Hi,<BR>
<BR>
Who signed the treaty for each nation?<BR>
I am personally interested who signed for Iran,<BR>
but it would make a nice addition to the article.<BR>
<BR>
Jangirke (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en, linked from the article, gives dates of signing and ratification, but does not identify signing individuals. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who were the Signees of the ICCPR? 

message: Could whoever it is who is adding an exhaustive list of the contents of the Convention to the intro please stop.  This material is already in the body of the article, and it does not need to be reproduced in the introduction.  The intro should introduce, not replace the entire article.  If you want to improve the article, I suggest building and expanding its body. --IdiotSavant (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I reverted this block of four good-faith edits because I thought that the editorial interpretation done in the two which caught my eye went too far without support from a cited reliable supporting source. In retrospect, the interpretion for article 18 looked OK. A recheck of the article history at that point showed that my revert apparently intruded on a series of edits-in-progress by SMargen. Rather than confuse things further by intermixing my edits with SMargen's I'll just back out of the way at this point, expressing concern that the edits on articles 16 and 17 which caught my eye seemed to go beyond what should be done without citing a reliable supporting source. Sorry about the confusion. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of reversion of good-faith edits by SMargen 

message: The UN Websites (cited as footnote 1) states that the Treaty is as of 16 December 1966, but the Treaty itself is marked with "Adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 1966". Which is the right date? If it was on Dec 19, the text in the first paragraph and the info box should be changed. Thanks. --Dumont (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Adoption 

message: Hi,
what does "But except the criminal according to general principles of law recognized by international community.[45] (jus cogens)" mean? T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence in "Article 15" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 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/20121020234014/http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-12&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-12&chapter=4&lang=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100901184638/http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en
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) 18:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 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/20020323100412/http://www.article2.org/ to http://www.article2.org/
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) 00:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 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/20100517165209/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/274/274.F3d.337.99-4271.html to http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/274/274.F3d.337.99-4271.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100517171222/http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/287/287.F3d.1224.01-5014.html to http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/287/287.F3d.1224.01-5014.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110521092213/http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/sessions.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/sessions.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) 20:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To put the United States green as other countries makes the map next to useless, considering the United States has five reservations, and in any event does not see itself as bound in any way by the treaty (its ratification was only symbolic). It is not even possible to sue in any US court using the treaty as the cause of action. The United States made a mockery of the process and should not be green, a new category should be invented for countries which ratified but with reservations, and the number of reservations should be noted. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map is ''extremely'' misleading