Talk:Sweden–NATO relations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Accession?

I'm not yet ready to propose this as a formal rename request, but should this be renamed to "Accession of Sweden to NATO" a la Accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina to NATO? 331dot (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm inclined to think the current name is more appropriate. Bosnia has been on the somewhat formal track to join NATO since 2008, and so all of its relations with NATO in the recent past have been in the context of membership. Sweden, on the other hand, was explicitly not interested in joining NATO until very recently and took no concrete steps toward membership until 2022. Yet, Sweden has had a developed relationship with NATO for a long time. This article addresses all of that, so I think it should not just be called accession. Ergo Sum 18:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the name change is appropriate once it's completely part of NATO, since at that point it's undeniable that the previous relations all take on a different context preliminary to accession. But I agree with Ergo's reasoning that until it's confirmed, much more of this page is about overall relations without specifically being related to an accession track. Jerodast (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ratification

Please be careful in inserting ratifications by each member State. In particular, try to avoid confusing "support" with actual "ratification". E.g, Canadian Parliament did NOT ratify the Protocol, but simply voted on NATO to accept Sweden's application. The Government ratified it on 5 July 2022. Hetsre (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Some of these are technical procudural votes/processes that are necessarly to ratify the protocol, even if they dont concern the procol dirctly (as they were done before it was finalized in the interest of expediancy). In Norway, Sweden and Denmark's case the required procedural steps to ratify the protocol were done in advance so the protocol could be signed by those states foreign ministers as soon as it was signed by Sweden and Finland.🌈  4🧚‍♂am KING 👑  15:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying that the process in Norway is not complete, simply that the source provided for Royal Assent is the wrong one. Hetsre (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Finland–NATO relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Netherlands

The vote in the Senate will be on 13 July. source: itself --2A02:908:C33:A180:CB8E:237E:7F79:360D (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ratification in Norway

I quote from Ber Stortinget godkjenne Sverige og Finland som nye Nato-medlemmer (Asks Storthing to accept Sweden and Finland as new NATO members):

« .... En kongelig resolusjon om undertegning av Finlands og Sveriges tiltredelsesprotokoller ble vedtatt i statsråd fredag 20. mai.»

which means:

« .... A royal decree on the signing of Finland's and Sweden's accession protocols was adopted by the Council of State on Friday 20 May.»

The ratification process in Norway is finished. --Ranværing (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, but I didn't want to keep edit warring. 🌈  4🧚‍♂am KING 👑  15:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying that the process in Norway is not complete, simply that the source provided for Royal Assent is the wrong one. Hetsre (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

As I explained when editing the page, that Decree relates to the signing of the Protocol, not its ratification. Again, as previously explained, the Royal Assent is given after a law is approved. Agree in not going into an editing war. Hetsre (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Procedurally, Denmark, Norway and Iceland kinda bundled it together (the signing and ratification), the parliaments voted ahead of time on the Draft Ascention protocol, with the vote also providing the consent required to it's ratificiation without another vote afterwards, This way once it was signed by Finland and Sweden (and the other 30 ministers), the ratification documents only had to be signed by the foreign ministers of these countries and deposited with the US State department. Norway additionally requires a "royal Resolution/Royal assent" to ratify treaties whatever you want to translate it to, but this was also done early and allowed for both. There is no other Storeting vote/royal assent on this to my knowledge so i dont know what your looking for.🌈  4🧚‍♂am KING 👑  17:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the confusion stems from the fact that the process is pretty fast. What we need is a confirmation of Royal Assent (again, that I think it has been given) to the Storting vote on ratification of the Protocol on 16 June 2022.

What you are proposing as a source is instead a Royal Resolution on signing of the Protocol. I cite from the source "A royal resolution on the signing of Finland's and Sweden's accession protocols was adopted by the Prime Minister on Friday 20 May. This means that we on the Norwegian side are ready to sign the protocols as soon as the accession talks have been completed in NATO." In fact, the Protocol has been signed on 5 July, immediately after the completion of the accession talks.

I understand that Denmark, Norway and Iceland pre-ratified the Protocol, and in fact I am not contesting the Storting vote, but the Royal Assent date: it cannot be before the vote (this is simply not how the legislative procedure works).

I propose two solutions: remove the line (as it has been done for Denmark) or find the correct source (as it has been done for Iceland). Hetsre (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think your confusing Norway's process this is layed out in two steps based on article 26 of Norways constitution. Under the constitution, the King of Norway has the power "to conclude and denounce treaties". However treaties on matters of "special importance", which includes NATO, they "are not binding until the Storting has given its consent thereto."

Importantly those are the two steps, but it doesn't matter what happens first. Constitutionally, The king can give royal assent to the treaty before the Storeting votes on it. 🌈  4🧚‍♂am KING 👑  13:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but it is not what I am referring to.

Under Norwegian Law, every law approved by the Storting is then signed by the King and Prime Minister [1] [2]. This is a common practice to many countries around the world: the Parliament makes the laws, which then are signed by the King/Queen/President.

What we need is the date of the approval by the King of Norway to Prop. 119 S (2021-2022), Innst. 464 S (2021-2022) [3]. As an example, see the ratification for North Macedonia's accession to NATO [4]: it has been approved by Storting on 5 June 2019, and Royal Assent was given on 14 June 2019.

I'm still stating that 20 May 2022 cannot be the date of Royal Assent to a law approved on 16 June 2022. In any case, when a similar document will be available, all of this will be sorted. Hetsre (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Finally, the correct date for Royal Assent is 22 June 2022. Hetsre (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Romania

Found this news: On Monday, President Klaus Iohannis signed the decree for the submission of the two protocols to the Parliament for ratification, after last Wednesday the Government approved the draft law in this respect.

Will this count as ratification from the Romanian Presidential Assent? Daniel Sirensjo (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like he signed a decree for the protocols to be considered, not that he signed the protocols themselves. It would help if they gave dates. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The date must have been 18 July, but I guess you´re correct. We´ll wait for an announcement or news about a ratification by the president. Daniel Sirensjo (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Belgium Royal Assent

Could it be possible to verify if Royal Assent has been granted by the Belgian king? Hetsre (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Assuming he has, at this rate we might find out when it's deposited. — kwami (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure that this https://twitter.com/belgiumnato/status/1550095949887946756 is the correct source for Royal Assent, since the one signing is the Minister of Foreign Affairs and clearly not the King. Anyway, since Belgium has deposited, let's stick with that for lack of a better source. Hetsre (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

This tweet https://twitter.com/BelgiumintheUSA/status/1557790197940723713 showed that the King signed the instrument of ratification on 21 July. --Mike Rohsopht (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that settles it. Thanks. Hetsre (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Vote German Bundestag per Party

Hi, I'm new here. Just wanted to correct the part "The vote was taken by party rather than as a full recorded vote. In favor: SPD, The Greens, FDP, CDU/CSU, AfD. Against: The Left."

This is not correct. The AFD did not vote en bloc. Two AFD Members abstained from voting. Two voted against. In the Bundestag it is not possible to vote as a party because we only have free mandats.

Source: Follow the link "Fundstelle im Plenarprotokoll" in https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2022/kw27-de-nato-freitag-902590 page 20. 83.135.24.130 (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Czech Republic's ratification

Please do not change to green until *after* the ratification has been confirmed as approved and a count is available. Hetsre (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Ratification process table appearance

There is currently a dispute going on between Thrakkx and me about how the ratification process table should look for both Finland and Sweden. I prefer the current way with the flags as I believe it's easier to keep track of progress on the process with the individually colored boxes and that the flags make it easier with the identity of nations. Thrakkx believes that it should be simplified without the flags and that the colors should be universal for the nations, as he believes it violates several guidelines, with it being MOS:ICONDECORATION and MOS:XMASTREE, despite the fact that this has been the case for countless pages on Wikipedia. So I believe we need a consensus from the community on which edit is for the best. Creepershark77 (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Thrakkx, the flag icons are clearly decorative and should be omitted. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't much of an argument. MrOllie (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see them as decorative, they serve more as visual cues, which according to MOS:FLAG is okay for things like lists and tables, especially long ones. This is pretty standard practice on Wikipedia when it comes to listing nations. Not to mention that the current way is easier to read with the green coloration. Creepershark77 (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Like MrOllie said, the content of other pages does not inform how to structure the content on this one. Consistency as a rational argument has been thoroughly debunked by WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's not just ICONDECORATION and XMASTREE that argue the flags be removed, but also MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE. The flags are often unrecognizable in their small size, don't actually transmit useful information (readers are not searching for their country flag in tables, they're sorting alphabetically and searching by country name), and are overused all over the place on this site.

In our editing, I agreed that the green color tracking approvals is better than the red color tracking those yet to approve, so I'm only here to protest the flags.

Also, at the end of the day, this table has major accessibility issues both for readers and editors, and Creepershark77 reverted those edits.

Also also, what's with this editor's block? This explains why they were reverting back and fourth as an IP address... Thrakkx (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yet they do make it easier for finding a nation, as it is easy to miss it when it comes to a list or table, yet the flags are more noticeable and don't really get in the way, and the only time that I'd say that flags are decoration is when they are used in the general article prose, which isn't the case here. Besides this isn't the exception but the norm in this case, as every article with a list or table involving nations tends to include the flags as well, and I mean all of them. Creepershark77 (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, arguing that other pages do x is not a valid argument for structuring this or any other page. And to to counter your point, this, this, this, and this page don't have table flags. Just because most pages fly in the face of major policies and guidelines, doesn't mean this one should too. Thrakkx (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yet I don't see how it does, it feels like it doesn't violate the icon policies one bit. No matter what you say about it being distracting or decoration, I still see it as useful in making the article more readable, as having both the flag and nation makes it easier to identify with than otherwise, even when alphabetized. Creepershark77 (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• When icons are added excessively, they clutter the page and become redundant.
• Pages with excessive icons can also cause loading problems for some people.
• Icons should not be added only because they look good: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction.

You really believe none of these sentences could apply to the article at hand, or any of the articles with 30, 60, 90+ flags in a table? Thrakkx (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I do. But it's really up to the community to decide, and I say that flags are helpful when there are more nations, as it makes them easier to identify than without them, but that depends on the consensus of others for that to matter, not just you or me. Creepershark77 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

It really seems like you simply like flags and refuse to acknowledge the guidelines that govern them. Anyway, the only other editor to contribute to this discussion has spoken out against the flags. Thrakkx (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I could say the same for you, and we need more than just one extra person for a consensus. Creepershark77 (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

That's all fine and good, but let's keep your flag disagreement here. Please do not hunt down my edit history to revert all the flag changes I've made. Those were stable edits that were implicitly accepted by the other editors. Thrakkx (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I also didn't edit the Commonwealth page last time, that was somebody else who did that. Creepershark77 (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is a matter of added usefulness with no harm: If you're familiar with the flags, they're useful when scanning a table. If you're not, then they're merely decorative but do no harm. OTHERSTUFF isn't much of an argument when something occurs on thousands of articles and has been debated many times, and use here follows FLAG. It's therefore reasonable IMO to keep the flags. — kwami (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I concur Orca6771 (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  • If ever there were a situation in which it would be appropriate to display flags next to the name of a country on WP, it would be here: in a table format on an article concerning international relations. Ergo Sum 02:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

    • I concur. I understand the arguments about overuse of icons and distracting decoration, but the flags are useful for scanning and identifying countries for many readers including me. This seems to be precisely the sort of function that is appropriate for flag icons. Holy (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. The flags are useful for finding specific countries at a glance in a large table, and don't create any meaningful visual clutter. I would go so far as to say that they don't create anything that a reasonable person could imagine anyone confusing for visual clutter. Lambsbridge (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Merging ratification dates in institutions that are the same

Is it possible to merge ratification dates in institutions as long as they're the same? FireDragonValo (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion in one place: Talk:Finland–NATO relations#Merging ratification dates in institutions that are the same. Ergo Sum 17:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Spain

Spain signed Bayek TheDingus (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bayek TheDingus: I have been unable to verify this. Please provide a source that says the King of Spain signed the accession protocol. Ergo Sum 20:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum the Atlantic council 74.221.156.152 (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hungary ratification

I added December 2022 as a tentative ratification date for Hungary, according to https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-to-ratify-sweden-and-finlands-nato-membership/. Feel free to discuss and remove it if necessary. Hetsre (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Removed it. Officlal schedule of Hungarian parliament through December was published, no mention of it. Tdunsky (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes sense. Here's the link to the schedule [5] Hetsre (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Hungary now states that they should ratify the treaty early in January next year. Just look at Tristan Fiedler: Orbán: Hungary will approve Sweden, Finland NATO bids next year, 24. november 2022, 7:51 PM. Ranværing (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

But that is not the Hungarian Parliament putting approval on their formal calendar. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree the box should be empty until there is a formal entry for the vote in the Hungarian Parliament calendar. Hetsre (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is February now in the table, without any source? XA1dUXvugi (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe the reference is EU strikes deal to lift Hungary's block on Ukraine aid. It was written on dw.com on December 13 2022: «The EU has pledged to free a part of the funds earmarked for Hungary in exchange for Budapest allowing joint funding for Ukraine. Hungary has also announced it would start debating Finland's and Sweden's NATO membership. ... Meanwhile, Orban's chief of staff, Gergely Gulyas, said the Hungarian legislature would start debating the ratification process of Sweden and Finland's NATO accession on February 20» Ranværing (talk) 2:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

There is now a date in the parliamentarian calender. Is it the first reading, final debate with voting, or how is the process working? --2A02:908:C38:D3A0:0:0:0:121C (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Muslim, Islamophobic sentiment a reason for recent events

A reason for the recent row with Türkiye should be included in the article. The fact that Swedes are the irreligious type today who have little to do with Christianity and envy Muslims and Islamic culture for standing up to their values. Hence the recent increase in attacks and hate crimes on Muslims, their values, and those who represent it, vis a vis President Erdogan and the Turkish people. This surely does not mean it will go on like this or that everybody in Sweden thinks as such. However, the fact that a far-right party is in power is worth mentioning.

Citation: Muslims Target of Most Hate Crimes in Sweden 46.31.118.91 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It is an irrational situation. Türkiye criticize Sweden for attacking Islam. First of all, the right wing Rasmus Paludan, causing the situation by burning the Quran, is not even Swedish, but Danish. Second, his right wing party is not even representative for Denmark. His party got 1.8 % during the national election in 2017 and was not represented in the parliament. It has no representants in the parliament after the 2022 election either. It is a fringe phenomena.

Also connected with this, is the story of an Erdogan puppet during a protest in Stockholm. A puppet of president Tayyip Erdogan was hung from its feet. Just like the fascist Bennito Mussolini was in Italy. This demonstration was organised by Kurds in Sweden. Kurdish militants and the organisation called Erdogan a fascist dictator.

However, this was activists and not the Swedish government. Sweden is a democracy, and in a democracy they are allowed the rights of free speech. The problems with Erdogan is that he seems to oppose the right of kurds in Sweden to criticise Turkey. Pitty for Erdogan, but that is allowed in western democracies. Ranværing (talk) 9:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he's quite the politician, isn't he? That's another problem with Sweden's bid for entry into NATO. You just cannot allow EU-recognized terrorist organization members to act freely as they like on the streets. That is not freedom of expression. How would you feel if a group of al-Qaida or Daesh supporters wanted to demonstrate on the streets of Stockholm?! It doesn't make sense, but Sweden is using extremist Kurds - not all Kurds agree with PKK/YPG policies and aims - to pressure Turkey politically. Erdogan is not a man to tread on. Perhaps we're going off on a tangent but these can be included in the article too. 46.31.112.222 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Stop it! Wikipedia is NOT a forum for discussing political views. The discussion pages are for discussing how to better the articles. 2A02:908:C38:D3A0:0:0:0:121C (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

History

I think this section requires expansion like Finland article. This is the reason why there's "translate from Swedish" tag. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

NATO map out of date

The NATO map under subject "NATO–Sweden relations" is now out of date. Either Finland should be added to NATO countries, or a date should be added to indicate when the map was still correct. 195.197.254.3 (talk) 06:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The map is correct. — kwami (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Finland ratification

If Finland joins before Sweden, will Finland have to ratify swedens application? StevoLaker (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Probably, but I would not add Finland until they are formally a member. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Finland has ratified Sweden already - 23 March 2023.

https://www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000009490552.html

https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/KasittelytiedotValtiopaivaasia/Sivut/HE_315+2022.aspx Samuli (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

If Finland's ratified, I think it's worth adding that to the table now. Something people will be interested in. — kwami (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a good way to format it. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Those links are about the Finnish ratification of the NATO charter, not Sweden's accession. One of the documents linked to by them says "The goal is for Finland and Sweden to deposit their instruments of accession at the same time, so that Finland and Sweden do not accept each other's instruments of accession separately." (using Google translate) so unless something changes I don't think Finland should be in the ratification table.Dakane2 (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Assuming Finland becomes a full NATO member tomorrow, it will have to ratify Sweden's accession protocol. If the existing data refers to something other than the accession protocol, as Dakane2 says, then it should be removed, but a space for Finland should still be kept in the table. Ergo Sum 18:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. — kwami (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Finland has already ratified Sweden. In https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/Mietinto/Sivut/UaVM_16+2022.aspx it is stated: "Decision proposal of the Foreign Affairs Committee: The Parliament approves the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on April 4, 1949, referred to in the Government's proposal HE 315/2022 vp, as amended by the accession protocols signed by July 5, 2022, and the agreement on the status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, national representatives and international personnel signed in Ottawa on September 20, 1951 . The Parliament approves without change the 1st and 2nd draft laws contained in the government's proposal HE 315/2022 vp."

Finland has agreed to join NATO with the accession protocols signed by July 5, 2022, in which Sweden is included. (Sweden did the same so that the approvals would be mutual if the countries were approved at the same time.) --Samuli (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dakane2: The article https://www.is.fi/politiikka/art-2000009490552.html has the title (in translation) "Finland has already ratified Sweden's NATO membership, this is how it was done: The foreign affairs committee's report contains the magic words." It quotes the staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee of Finland's parliament, saying that Finland's Parliament approved Sweden's membership at the same time as it approved Finland's. It does however state, that while Finland has already completed the parliamentary ratification of Sweden's membership, it will still need to lodge a formal ratification instrument with the treaty depositary, after joining. So basically it gives the US two separate pieces of paper, first one ratifying its membership, and then the second ratifying Sweden's too. We know it will submit the first piece of paper today; we don't know if the second piece of paper is also being handed in today, or if it will wait a little longer. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

In a reply to a question about Sweden's NATO process, Pekka Haavisto said today that the ratification of Sweden would be their first task as a new NATO member, "perhaps even as soon as today" (although in Swedish). So at least the foreign minister of Finland doesn't think that Finland has ratified Sweden's accession yet. 94.254.62.88 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Finland's Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto said as soon as Finland's membership was officially confirmed and the hand was shaken: "We have an important task. This is our first task as a member country" and handed over the ratification documents for Sweden's NATO membership for Finland to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. —Samuli (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps that was what he meant by that statement. I interpreted "ratification" as the parliamentary, legislative process, which would happen in Finland. But if all he meant was the handing over of the already prepared documents, then yes, that could be it. Either way, it's done today or within the next week or so. 94.254.62.88 (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Legislative process was completed in Parliament on 1 March and Presidential assent on 22 March 2023. All the needed documents regerding Sweden’s membership were handed over to Stoltenberg after Finland being a full member for 1-2 minutes. --Samuli (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Technically, "ratification" is the actual handing of the ratification document to the depositary. Although people often call the parliamentary process "ratification", technically that isn't ratification, it is consent to ratification. Ratification is always done by the executive through its accredited international representatives (head of state or government, ministers or diplomats). In some countries, there is an internal rule saying the executive must get the legislature's consent before doing that, at least for more important treaties. Other countries don't have such a rule – in most Westminster system countries, it is customary for the executive to notify Parliament of its plan to ratify a treaty, but it doesn't need Parliament's formal consent, and even that notification is a customary convention as opposed to a legal requirement. As far as international law is concerned, this is all the internal affairs of each state, which other states (in normal circumstances) don't need to concern themselves with – the ratification document passed to the depositary is the only thing that actually counts, at the international level. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that at the moment of joining NATO Finland has in fact made accession to all the existing NATO treaties, so also to the protocol on joining Sweden. Therefore Finland accepted and joined as a party to the already signed protocol and no additional ratification would be needed. When several countries where joining NATO at the same day the country which signed accession protocol few minutes before next country did not need to ratify joining the following states. SwPawel (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Link with quotes from the deposition: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_213598.htm. Znuddel (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I was watching that and indeed they mentioned ratification for Sweden. But Finnish law linked in this article does not mentioned Sweden, it approves all existing modifications to original treaty made by accession protocols (so seems similar to my expectation). SwPawel (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Turkish presidential assent

Why does Erdogan have to sign it twice? Shouldn't we just count the last one? 331dot (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Macron signed twice too.[6] 203.218.95.246 (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the explanation is that there are two stages to "ratification": the domestic approval process for ratification, and the international act of ratification (the document deposited with the treaty depositary, in this case the US State Department). Technically only the second is ratification per se, the first is just a domestic legal process – required in some countries (not all) to authorise the second. In some countries, like Turkey or France, the first takes the form of domestic legislation, which has to be signed by the President. Hence the President has to sign twice – first sign the domestic legislation authorising the ratification, and then sign the actual instrument of ratification. I am wondering if the article should contain some note briefly explaining this, because I'm sure you are not the only person confused by it. On the other hand, this is probably not the place to explain it in detail – probably, detailed explanation needs to be added to the article Ratification#Ratification_of_an_international_treaty, and linked to from here. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)