Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Defined legality.
4 Answers
With reference to another question about South Ossetia I was wondering how is the legality of a country's partition determined?
I read often about China's "illegal" invasion of Tibet, but in what way was Tibet's separation viewed as "legal"?
Similarly South Ossetia, Abkhazia are "legally" part of Georgia?
Who decides, and how?
I read often about China's "illegal" invasion of Tibet, but in what way was Tibet's separation viewed as "legal"?
Similarly South Ossetia, Abkhazia are "legally" part of Georgia?
Who decides, and how?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Thanks Terambulan, but Abkhazia and outh Ossetia were placed under the Georgian flag at the time of the break up of the Soviet Union. There must have been some sort of mediation/meeting to define this border. the people (overwhelmingly?) rejected it and separated themselves by force, was this action legal?
If not, why not?
If so, how?
I ask the same of Tibet, in what manner is Tibet's original partition in 1912 deemed legal?
If not, why not?
If so, how?
I ask the same of Tibet, in what manner is Tibet's original partition in 1912 deemed legal?
found these for u to plow thru
Tibet
http://www.savetibet.org/tibet/history/beforec hinese.php
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2302/stories/2 0060210000507300.htm
Tibet
http://www.savetibet.org/tibet/history/beforec hinese.php
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2302/stories/2 0060210000507300.htm
Thanks Terambulan, that was very interesting, but the Simla document that it refers too is a very contentious one.
It was signed on behalf of Tibet by a Russian national upon whom the Dalai Lama had not conferred any plenipotentiary status, it was never published in Tibetan nor was it ever ratified.
Could a French diplomat sign a treaty in our name, without Parliament's approval and still be called legal or valid?
Also how different was the status of Tibet with regard to the other states (nations?) in Imperial China?
China had a feudal system of warlords all loyal to the Emperor, but not necessarily to one another.
China never gave up it's claim on Tibet it was just to busy fighting itself, the Japanese and itself again to assert it's control over it. Indeed even Taiwan (or Formosa as it's sometimes called) claims to have jurisdiction over Tibet, it's probably the one thing Taiwan and China agree on is Tibetan compliance to Beijing's political authority.
It was signed on behalf of Tibet by a Russian national upon whom the Dalai Lama had not conferred any plenipotentiary status, it was never published in Tibetan nor was it ever ratified.
Could a French diplomat sign a treaty in our name, without Parliament's approval and still be called legal or valid?
Also how different was the status of Tibet with regard to the other states (nations?) in Imperial China?
China had a feudal system of warlords all loyal to the Emperor, but not necessarily to one another.
China never gave up it's claim on Tibet it was just to busy fighting itself, the Japanese and itself again to assert it's control over it. Indeed even Taiwan (or Formosa as it's sometimes called) claims to have jurisdiction over Tibet, it's probably the one thing Taiwan and China agree on is Tibetan compliance to Beijing's political authority.