Talk:Multilateral Agreement on Investment
Latest comment: 3 months ago by Ictinos4 in topic Neutrality
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Category | The following sources contain public domain or freely licensed material that may be incorporated into this article:
|
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Neutrality
editThis article about a legal topic, a draft international agreement that failed to be adopted, is not neutral and contains incorrect and inaccurate information. It needs the input of people with legal knowledge of the issues discussed. Ictinos4 (talk) 09:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Ictinos4 I see that, without due explanation, you've removed longstanding lede content including an apparently respectable source. The subject is a controversial one which, for neutral treatment requires consideration of opposing viewpoints. I'd suggest that you need to develop your arguments on this talk page before making those sorts of edit--which I'm reverting to establish that opportunity. Details of the MAI's purposes and provisions are dealt with in neutral enough fashion in the article's first two subsections. Please explain in detail why your placement of a neutrality template is justified. Bjenks (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- The phrase "It sought to establish a new body of universal investment laws that would grant corporations unconditional rights to engage in financial operations around the world, without any regard to national laws and citizens' rights." is a criticism of the MAI without a source. Can a criticism be the opening of an article? What does it mean "unconditional rights"? What does it mean "without any regards to national laws and citizens rights"? Who is the source for this and is the source reliable? How likely is it that OECD governments would sign an international agreement that would give anyone "unconditional rights" and have no regard for citizens rights? Already the term "unconditional" is not an objective term - it can't be measured. Would any of the governments who signed the agreement agree with this description? And, if not, neutral language would be "some consider that". In addition, the MAI is not a set of "universal investment laws" - it was a draft "multilateral" investment "treaty". The language is incorrect legally speaking. I am only raising the questions. I don't have the answers. I leave it up to you. You can leave it as is. Ictinos4 (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)