Talk:List of parties to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907

Montenegro

The Republic of Montenegro seems not to be a successor state of the Principality of Montenegro; although moraly and geographically they are similar... In that respect I think it is better to add the 2006 date with an explanation about the principality... Any other views? L.tak (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I agree. The depositary lists them as successors, but the 2006 succession would be from Serbia and Montenegro, not the Principality. TDL (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Serbia/Yugoslavia

We're getting quite complete I have the idea regarding the states parties... I still wonder on how to treat Yugoslavia and its predecessor Serbia. Did all treaties automatically apply to Yugoslavia? We have a 1969 declaration (in a Tractatenblad) of Yugoslavia that it considers itself bound by the third declaration of the 1899 treaties, but AFAIK not of the others... The Netherlands considered Yugoslavia a party to II, IV(2) and IV (3) (all from 1901 according to the depositary). Any views? L.tak (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I wondered about them as well. This says "The United States considered [the Kingdom of Yugoslavia] as the successor state to the Kingdom of Serbia."

IV(1) lapsed before Yugoslavia was unified, so we don't need to worry about that one. This (I think) says that Yugoslavia succeeded to Serbia's ratification of I (even though the depositary doesn't list them. There are some inconsistencies with the depositary list. For example, they don't list the Principality of Montenegro anywhere, and some of their signatories seem to be off relative to other sources: [1]/[2].). For II, III, IV(2,3), the 1981 treaty series says that Yugoslavia served notice that they were bound in 1969, but doesn't make any mention of the 1901 ratification by Serbia ([3], [4], [5], [6]).

So I'd say, add a "1901" to I for the "Kingdom of Serbia", change the name to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the last state that was bound by the 1901 ratification) and change the note to say "As the Kingdom of Serbia. Ceased to be a state on 27 April 1992." or something along those lines. Make sense? TDL (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems indeed the most sensible thing to do (This, which you though indicated Yugoslavia succeeded "I", actually even indicates it succeeded (as "South Slavia") all 1899 conventions and declarations.) The tractatenbladen are quite authoritative and we have no depositary notifications; and the addnl sources from Ucolorado, so I'll change.. L.tak (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

USA

Army Times reports "On the battlefield, the U.S. has generally observed the 1899 Hague Convention rule barring expanding and fragmenting rounds, despite the fact that it never has been signatory to that particular agreement, Russell said."

And later "The Hague Convention of 1899 included a declaration banning bullets that "expand or flatten easily in the human body." The premise of the convention – designed well before World War I – was that the bullets caused unnecessary and therefore inhumane injury unrelated to stopping a combatant from continuing to fight. The U.S. did not to sign onto that rule."

Wikipedia's page on Hollow-point bullets says that's part of declaration III, which this page currently shows the US as having ratified.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/07/09/handgun-system-solicitation-hollowpoint/29886907/

Mdnahas (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mdnahas:, not quite. Convention III was ratified, but not declaration3 (here depicted in column IV,3) L.tak (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)