Talk:Act of state doctrine

Sabbatino incomplete

The holding in Sabbatino was that the Act of State applied even though Cuba's actions had violated international law; hence, the Doctrine applies to an act of a sovereign state done within its territory, even if the act violates international law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.203.151 (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lacks Citations

This article is in dire need of case cites and removal of loaded paraphrasing, such as the Second Hickenlooper instructs courts to apply the doctrine "[the Executive] tells them to." That sort of statement really needs a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elreynolds04 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Act of State doctrine → Act of state doctrine –

It's at halfway house at the moment. There is no reason to upcase, even if some lawyers upcase just about every law-relate noun. Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support decapitalization, but I'm thinking it should probably be Act-of-state doctrine. That's how the term is listed in Black's Law Dictionary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Though I agree with Good Ol'factory that it should probably be hyphenated, as well. Jenks24 (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support decapitalisation but not hyphenation. I'm seeing quite a few legal sources omit hyphens, and I think properly so. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Act of state doctrine. 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/20070515005722/http://www.icj-cij.org/ to http://www.icj-cij.org/.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)