This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
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)[reply]
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 Sum18:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
4th memorandum meeting
Surely the "4th Finland–Sweden–Turkey memorandum meeting" won't actually include Finland, as they're now a member. Should this be changed or am I missing something? XA1dUXvugi (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the deal with the "simplified" map attached to this article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden%E2%80%93NATO_relations#/media/File:Sweden_NATO_Locator.svg
I couldn't help noticing that while the simplification has left the overall shapes of the US, Canada, and most Western and Northern European countries largely unchanged, Central European countries have been reduced to anything ranging from rough approximations to downright caricatures. Doesn't it seem a bit unfair?
I would also like to ask,
Why?
Why was this done? Was it really necessary, in this age of high bandwidth internet and devices with high resolution screens, to simplify the map so much that I no longer recognize the shape of my own country? And who decided that this is OK? 86.110.229.90 (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once it is ratified, the article can be updated. For Turkey, there are three internal steps before the deposit of the ratification: this last step officialises and concludes the process. There is no need to rush. Hetsre (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hungarian Parliament final vote on Sweden, extraordinary session 31 July 2023
The Hungarian Parliament has scheduled a final accession vote for Sweden in an extraordinary session, 31 July 2023. I have added the date and reference in the article. Tdunsky (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting article in half
I feel that there is enough in the ascension talks section to warrant standing on it's own. This article is getting rather bloated and drifting a bit from it's primary goal of conveying information on Sweden-NATO relations. Scu ba (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, as this is double the directive at WP:TOOLONG. There should probably be a standalone article about the accession talks for Finland and Sweden and a brief section in both articles could link to it. Will anyone do that work? Probably not. :/ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯00:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey hasn't ratified yet
Ratification isn't complete until the protocol is deposited. That may be tomorrow or next year. Theoretically even never. Until that happens, it's still 29 countries out of 31. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami how do we know when the protocol is "deposited"? I assume it will happen tomorrow. But most mainstream sources have it as a done deal, since Erdogan signed off on it. Natg 19 (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know until it is announced(I think NATO does so). Erdogan has slow walked this entire process; his government could get on a plane right now and fly it to Washington, but he could also (figuratively) take a slow boat. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing approval with with formally depositing the instruments of ratification with the US State Department in Washington. Someone from the Turkish government needs to do what Secretary Blinken did in this photo. When that happens, their website will be updated. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, Erdogan has slow walked this whole process, so formal depositing may not necessarily come quickly(though it could). 331dot (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The move came just hours after Turkey deposited its “instrument of ratification” for Sweden’s accession to NATO with Washington, which is the repository for alliance documents and after several key members of Congress lifted their objections."
What is your source for that statement? The State Department who is supposed to possess the documents seems to disagree with you. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am scanning the references and not seeing such a reference, though I may be missing it in the sea of 242 references. Could you tell which number reference it is? If it's there, it's been somehow snuck in past the many edits and reversions on this article. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
234. It's the ref to the claim that it was deposited, where the Turkish approval rows were turned completely green in the table. — kwami (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who's maintaining the list. It's been inactive for quite a while, so maybe it's been neglected. It would make sense they'd deposit quickly if they get F16s out of it. — kwami (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the instrument has been deposited, it has been deposited. We don't need to wait for that one poor soul who has to update the PDF. When Greece deposited, the document wasn't updated for weeks. IceWelder [✉] 10:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was my understanding that the practice here has been to go by the State Department, but in any event this seems to be worked out. I've asked that the protection be removed. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review this article carefully. Sweden is not yet in NATO. Hungary still needs to approve, which is expected by the end of the month. Turkey has already approved. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hungarian Ratification
There is an extraordinary issue for Hungarian Parliamentary Gazette one day after the parliament voted on Swedish ascension into NATO. If president have signed it into law, it should be published in this Gazette, however Gazette is in Hungarian and google will not translate the actual text that is in PDF. There are a lot of text there so Swedish ratification can be somewhere as well. Technically acting President can sign it into law as well, so they do not need to wait for next President inauguration.
It appears they are saying that the Gazette might indicate that the Hungarian president gave assent to the ratification but that they cannot read it because it is in Hungarian. I do not read Hungarian either. Perhaps someone who does can confirm whether this is the case. Ergo Sum14:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I downloaded the document and did a search for words like "Sweden" or "Swedish" in Hungarian (Svédország or svéd) and Nato. I'm pretty sure such words would have been present if the signing was mentioned in the doc. No matches were found. It seems that the IP was concerned that the signing was not on the agenda on the day following the vote. Reading Swedish sources, the vote of the parliament has to be signed by the president or the speaker of the house, and this will take a while. According to Zsolt Németh of the Hungarian parlament, this is a "technicality" and will be dealt with "in a matter of days". We will just have to wait and see (again...) when that happens. Cart(talk)16:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to parliament's website, "It is awaiting the signature of the President of the National Assembly". While the bill for Finland's accession was signed by the President of the National Assembly on the same day after the vote.[3]112.118.105.147 (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're referring to by "google will not translate the actual text that is in PDF". Just to check, I keyed a phrase "A Magyar Nemzeti Bank elnőkének rendeleti, valamint az őnálló szabályozó szerv vezetőjének rendeletei" from the document into Google Translate and it translates just fine ("Decrees of the Governor of the National Bank of Hungary and decrees of the head of the competent regulatory body"). I'd say maybe you typed it wrong, but the translator is smart enough to pick up on typos. All I can say is try again and let us know what you find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA00:151F:0:0:0:193B (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, just to add to my previous remarks: there are no instances of the word "NATO" or Sweden ("Svédország") or even of the root ("Svéd") in the document you cited, and no mention of anything to do with the matter of Sweden's entry into NATO listed in its table of contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:AA00:151F:0:0:0:193B (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg?lang=en)
