Definitions
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
- noun A formal written agreement between two or more nations.
- noun The document in which such an agreement is set down.
- noun Archaic Negotiation for the purpose of reaching an agreement.
- noun A contract or agreement.
- noun An entreaty.
from The Century Dictionary.
- noun A discourse; account; document; treatise.
- noun The act of treating or handling; conduct; management; treatment; negotiation; discussion; diplomacy.
- noun An agreement; a compact; specifically, a league or contract between two or more nations or sovereigns, in modern usage formally signed by commissioners properly authorized, and solemnly ratified by the several sovereigns or the supreme power of each state.
- noun An entreaty.
from the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
- noun The act of treating for the adjustment of differences, as for forming an agreement; negotiation.
- noun An agreement so made; specifically, an agreement, league, or contract between two or more nations or sovereigns, formally signed by commissioners properly authorized, and solemnly ratified by the several sovereigns, or the supreme power of each state; an agreement between two or more independent states
- noun obsolete A proposal tending to an agreement.
- noun obsolete A treatise; a tract.
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.
- noun international law A binding
agreement under international law concluded by subjects of international law, namely states and international organizations.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- noun a written agreement between two states or sovereigns
Etymologies
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition
from Wiktionary, Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License
Support
Help support Wordnik (and make this page ad-free) by adopting the word treaty.
Examples
-
After flaring the opinion they had formerly cxprefled, that although the British government did not feel itfelf at liberty to relinquilh formally by treaty, its claim to fearch our mer - chant veflels foHJritilh feamen, its praflice would neverthelefs be eflentially, if not completely abandoned, they obferve — 11 That opinion has fince been confirmed by frequent confer - ences on the fubjed with the Britifh commiilioners, who have repeatedly affured as that in their judgment, we were made as feciire againft the exercife of their pretention by the policy their government Imd adopted, in regard to that very delicate and important queftion, as we could have been made by treaty*
Congressional Reporter, Containing the Public Documents, and the Debates [in Congress] 1812
-
"As to Mr Oswald's offer to make an acknowledgment of our independence the first article of our treaty, and your Excellency's remark, that it is sufficient, and that _we are not to expect the effect before the cause_, permit us to observe, that by the _cause_, we suppose, is intended the _treaty_, and by the _effect_, an acknowledgment of our independence.
The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution, Vol. VIII Jared Sparks 1827
-
If a treaty is a more grave thing (since it can entangle the country with European machinations) it stands to reason that ratifying should be subject to a large supermajority.
-
Signing a treaty is an international procedure, ratification is national.
-
This treaty is an intelligent, appropriate and moves humanity in the right direction.
-
If a treaty is a more grave thing (since it can entangle the country with European machinations) it stands to reason that ratifying should be subject to a large supermajority.
-
What this treaty is attempting to do is to reduce the stockpiles of nukes that are not in silos and heavily protected, you know the ones laying around that make them targets of terrorists to try and steal and use against both our nations.
-
The SPLM joined the government of national unity after a 2005 peace deal ended two decades of civil war, but they walked out in October protesting what they described as treaty violations by the government and only rejoined in December amid fears that the civil war would re-ignite.
-
However, I cannot agree with the assessment that the treaty is anti-US, at all.
Coyote Blog » Blog Archive » Libertarianism, the Environment, and Kyoto: Part 2 2004
-
The document seemed long, and in fact, as I understood it, there were three documents -- one which they called the treaty, and two others they called "conventions."
The Rose of Old St. Louis Mary Dillon
Comments
Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.