This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 14 dates. show June 26, 2004, June 26, 2005, October 24, 2005, June 26, 2006, October 24, 2006, October 24, 2007, June 26, 2008, October 24, 2008, October 24, 2012, October 24, 2013, October 24, 2015, October 24, 2018, October 24, 2020, and October 24, 2023

This   level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations: United Nations / Law High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations. This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as High-importance). Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force. California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance). National Archives ( inactive) This article is within the scope of National Archives project, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.National ArchivesWikipedia:WikiProject National ArchivesTemplate:WikiProject National ArchivesNational Archives articles

The contents of the Chapter XIX of the United Nations Charter page were merged into Charter of the United Nations. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (5 October 2017)

Why is it particularly relevant that the US ratified the treaty? - Khendon 10:10 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)

Aha! I know, being the poster of that sentence. The relevance is that as the law of the United States the President of the United States is bound by the terms of the Charter; thus, the Bush doctrine is arguably in violation of law. (However, it is just a law and can be modified by statute, as the current (Ocober 10, 2002) resolutions being debated in Congress might do) User:Fredbauder

Does the sentence I just added suit you, then? - Khendon 13:55 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)

No, the United States is not a parlimentary democracy, thus attempts by the executive branch to act in violation of a United States statute have a significance different from an action by a prime minister. As far as nations being obligated by treaty, that's good in theory, but only in a few countries, and probably only in the United States could that form a complaint in a court that might eventually be granted relief. I think as a true statement, which conveys significant information, it should stay absent some overriding concern requiring its deletion. User:Fredbauder

Then that point should be explicitly made, rather than just an arbitrary-seeming statement about one particular country. - Khendon 08:01 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)

Because it never ratified the Treaty of Versailles, thus staying out of the League of Nations, which was ultimately a fiasco? (Or looking at the previous text, probably just because the poster was looking at the legal aspect from a US point of view.) -- Brion 10:20 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)

UN Charter question moved to Wikipedia:Reference Desk by Mattworld

I think the issue of the Bush Doctrine and the UN Charter is a valid subject, but it doesn't belong in an article about the UN Charter, but rather in the already existing article about the Bush Doctrine.

I concur. I'd rather see an annotated text of the charter, if it can be reproduced here, and a history of its development and noting nations that haven't ratified it. Mkilly 07:38, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the issue is nations ignoring the UN Charter, there are many, including most of the major powers, not to mention that the US and all of NATO simply bypassed the UN to wage war in former Yugoslavia, because they knew Russia would veto it in the Security Council. If there is no reasonable onjection, I intend to move the material. Cecropia 06:04, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree NATO was not set up to be indecisive when it came to such matters as yugoslavia. so it it were neccessary for them to get UN approval it would be rediculous to think that they could then be able to react swiftly to any such matters.

I agree, but the material was still here, so I've moved it and made a link there. SpaceFrog 17:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Found a picture my Dad has of President Truman signing the Charter, inludes Senator Arthur Vandenburg, Harold Stassen, and, of course, Truman. Should I upload it to replace the current photo of the Egyptian Delegation?- Ben of Oz

A poll as to whether or not the language template should be included in this article is being conducted at Talk:United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Poll Raul654 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply

There are currently five different links to the text of the charter, which is rather excessive. Surely a link to the official site and/or the Wikisource text are all that's needed. Silverhelm 06:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC). reply

As I understand it, there are nineteen chapters. We only have two here. Does anyone else see a distinct lack of information? 125.238.89.244 ( talk) 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Yes, but the links are there for the rest of it. I actually came here looking for a list of signatories and was surprised that it's not here. IIRC, the USSR, Ukraine, and Byelorussia all signed separately giving the USSR 'de facto' 3 votes. If I can find a list of signatories, I'll post them here. 138.162.128.55 ( talk) 03:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC) NB: found and added 138.162.128.54 ( talk) 03:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm requesting this article be moved to Charter of the United Nations, as per the charter's official name given here and here. Unable to move the page using the move tab. -- Joowwww ( talk) 14:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions, the standard is to use the most common name, not necessarily the official name. In this case, the charter is most commonly known as the United Nations Charter or UN Charter. Polemarchus ( talk) 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually you're right, don't bother it would mean moving all the chapter article pages too. Request withdrawn. -- Joowwww ( talk) 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Any one know if there is a pdf on the net of the above? I would like to see the signatures etc. Regards. Redking7 ( talk) 09:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I think this is it. -- Mathew5000 ( talk) 01:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply

That's quite a good external link - I've added it to the list. Laurent ( talk) 01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC) reply

From treaties.un.org/Pages/CTCs.aspx you can get to some useful related pdfs, such as a single file with all five language versions of the original Charter, plus materials on the three amendments. Also it's worth mentioning the publication Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary-General, which you can download in three volumes: [1] [2] [3]. (Those pdfs are very large, so you should "save target as" on them instead of opening them in a web browser.) The first volume contains some information on the specific dates that each of the original UN members ratified the Charter (which you can also find here). -- Mathew5000 ( talk) 03:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Here, I've removed the infobox link to what appears to be the latest in a longstanding series of nonexistent images or redirects. Perhaps one of the images here might be suitable (I don't know their copyright status -- perhaps images at the un.org website are public domain ??) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC) reply

20:49, 24 April 2014 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page Charta of the United Nations (R3: Recently created, implausible redirect)

"Charta of the United Nations" is the name given in the introduction.

It is vandalism to delete a redirect that is named so. ArmijaDonetsk ( talk) 22:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I think you're trolling, but I'll bite anyway. It's not vandalism. Read the definition at WP:VANDALISM. The admin did not carry out a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Obviously ArmijaDonetsk was overlooking the difference between the correct English spelling "charter" and his misspelling "charta". I wouldn't call that an "implausible" misspelling though, so I find redirects from those misspellings at least worthy of consideration. It's "charta", "carta" or something similar in so many other languages that many non-native readers of English Wikipedia might easily look for it under such a spelling. I must admit that I myself, when I first saw these edits and deletions, was wondering "hey, what's wrong about those redirects, why didn't we have them all along?" Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

My apologies if this was not trolling. It just sounded so—silly, or rap-tastic, or something. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC) reply

According to the U.S. State Dept., Truman witnessed but did not sign the charter in June with the rest of the member nations. He had to wait until August, after the treaty had been ratified by the Senate. Have I read this wrong, or is the first paragraph of this article in need of adjustment? Krychek ( talk) 21:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Signing a treaty and ratifying it are two separate steps. The U.S. ratifies treaties by having a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. Prior to this, the President or his representative can sign treaties, after which they are sent to the Senate for ratification. Truman did not sign the UN Charter at the conclusion of the S.F. Conference, but the U.S. Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, Jr. did, as did six other U.S. officials. The original signed copy of the UN Charter can be found here, where you can view the original signatures by all countries that were done in S.F. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Ah, that clears it up. Thank you. Krychek ( talk) 19:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply

I think that the simplifications and clarifications from Good Olfactory make the article harder to read (for a newcomer who looks first at an encyclopedia article for an introduction). I think that the editor has made the article harder to read, not easier to read, merely by taking out core 'bits' of useful, helpful information. MaynardClark ( talk) 05:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Specifically, what from this is problematic? The main simplification was clarifying the extremely convoluted sentence in the lead that set out the five permanent members. There was no need to mention Chapter II in that sentence at all, IMO. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Facebook is hiding reports of hostages. All remain unrecognized except for those of October. This behavior is really evil. Please find these reports to list the hostages of genocide. They are going through the famine. Keywords included in reports: Israel, OPT, Palestine, genocide, violence, trafficking, human rights, rape, war. 94.225.153.245 ( talk) 17:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

German National from Zehlendorf Berlin.

Hostage of war, held by Israeli militants. Army disguises as ISIS/ISIL. 94.225.153.245 ( talk) 18:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply