Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

  1. #1
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    link

    I wonder if this will actually go anywhere. Russia has illegally annexed Japanese territory following WWII in the absense of a peace treaty between the two. One large part, Japan no longer officially claims, but there are several smaller islands that are at the crux of an ongoing dispute between the two countries.

    It will be interesting to see if any progress is made. Japan stands to be a huge customer for Russian natural gas, something definately in Russia's interests as they don't want to be completely dependant on China as a customer for its Far East gas reserves.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  2. #2
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    link

    I wonder if this will actually go anywhere. Russia has illegally annexed Japanese territory following WWII in the absense of a peace treaty between the two. One large part, Japan no longer officially claims, but there are several smaller islands that are at the crux of an ongoing dispute between the two countries.

    It will be interesting to see if any progress is made. Japan stands to be a huge customer for Russian natural gas, something definately in Russia's interests as they don't want to be completely dependant on China as a customer for its Far East gas reserves.
    Ah thanks.

    Keep us updated. I hope something good can come from this.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Enemy View Post
    Ah thanks.

    Keep us updated. I hope something good can come from this.
    The subject may be of no interest to you, people calling themselves "us" , yet it is not a reason to troll demonstrating your shared inabilities.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    link

    I wonder if this will actually go anywhere. Russia has illegally annexed Japanese territory following WWII in the absense of a peace treaty between the two. One large part, Japan no longer officially claims, but there are several smaller islands that are at the crux of an ongoing dispute between the two countries.

    It will be interesting to see if any progress is made. Japan stands to be a huge customer for Russian natural gas, something definately in Russia's interests as they don't want to be completely dependant on China as a customer for its Far East gas reserves.
    Who says "illegaly"? Russia may think it was all legal.

    I don't know what makes it to be interesting to you? Do you think Russia moving so agressivly, will make an exclusion for Japan?


    Anyway, some info for you - what do you think?
    Translated version of http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1052545&ThemesID=436

    The current government headed by the country's Prime Minister Taro Aso pogryazlo in battles with the parliamentary opposition, is losing popularity among voters and all the forces trying to rescue from the world financial crisis is still relatively prosperous Japan. On the Russian front, so Tokyo has no room for major initiatives, and most would like at this stage to develop strong personal contacts with the two leaders in Moscow. "We believe that Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin - is firmly and very long time", - explained in connection with the diplomatic source in Tokyo.


    Translated version of http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1080905&ThemesID=436

    Premier Taro Aso of Japan wants to ask Dmitry Medvedev, as Moscow intends to build relations with Tokyo at a time when economic ties between the two countries are experiencing unprecedented growth, but a dispute over the South Kurils is still not resolved. This issue will be raised as the Russian president at a meeting to be held November 23 in Lima, during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Japanese Prime talked about this in the interview, which gave before leaving the capital of Peru, the ITAR-TASS correspondent in Tokyo VASILIYU Golovnin specifically to "Kommersant."

    - Japanese-Russian economic relations in recent years to strike their own development. Now they are in the most favorable condition for the whole period of its existence. Last year trade turnover between Japan and Russia exceeded $ 20 billion Thus, for Russia, Japan became the third trading partner among countries of the Group of Eight, after Germany and Italy. Perhaps this year's trade turnover will reach $ 30 billion, while next year it will add the liquefied natural gas, which will be delivered to Japan under the Sakhalin project.

    Due to the expansion of economic relations are growing hopes for the future in various fields… .There is more work to conclude an agreement on the peaceful use of atomic energy.
    -
    - With regard to the automotive industry in Russia has already built assembly plants built by Japanese companies. In the future, is expected to expand the range of the industry by firms which will manufacture in the field components for these industries. There avtomobilestroitelnye company, which started the transportation of the Trans-Siberian railway cars ready made for export to Russia.
    -
    - - And how you look at the issue of a peace treaty and a dispute over the South Kurils? Do you think that the parties can make a compromise? How could he be?

    - Japan and Russia - the important neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region. Given the recent Japanese-Russian relations in such formats as the Group of Eight, APEC, UN, Russia and the strengthening of ties with the Asia-Pacific region, the absence of a peace treaty due to the unresolved territorial issue seems really unnatural.
    -
    - During our meeting with President Medvedev, to be held in the margins of APEC summit, I intend to conduct serious negotiations with a view to finding a mutually acceptable final decision on the conclusion of a peace treaty.
    -
    As it became known "Kommersant", the Prime Japan Taro Aso at the recent meeting of the APEC summit in Lima with President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev handed over to his son, Ilya gift - a remote controlled flying model of a blue robokota Doraemona, popular cartoon characters and favorite son of the President of the hero. Now in Tokyo working on the idea to put in one of the cartoons on robokote a new character - the presidential cat Dorofeya. The project is seen as an important step in the rapprochement with Moscow.

    President of Russia |

    January 24, 2009 12:30
    Saturday Dmitry Medvedev had a telephone conversation with Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso.
    Dmitry Medvedev and Taro Aso discussed various practical issues relating to their countries' bilateral cooperation, including in the energy sphere. The successful implementation of joint energy projects in Russia's Far East, projects that hold major regional importance, was highlighted as an example of successful interaction between the private and public sectors.
    Both sides expressed their satisfaction with the intensity of Russian-Japanese meetings at various levels and discussed the agenda for contacts in the near future.

  5. #5
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Who says "illegaly"? Russia may think it was all legal.
    It was illegal because in order for territory to be legally transferred from one state to another, it must be done in a properly drafted and ratified treaty in which the transfer is specifically mentioned.

    I don't know what makes it to be interesting to you? Do you think Russia moving so agressivly, will make an exclusion for Japan?
    Not likely, which is why I don't expect any real breakthroughs to be made.

    Anyway, some info for you - what do you think?
    Translated version of http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=1052545&ThemesID=436

    The current government headed by the country's Prime Minister Taro Aso pogryazlo in battles with the parliamentary opposition, is losing popularity among voters and all the forces trying to rescue from the world financial crisis is still relatively prosperous Japan. On the Russian front, so Tokyo has no room for major initiatives, and most would like at this stage to develop strong personal contacts with the two leaders in Moscow. "We believe that Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin - is firmly and very long time", - explained in connection with the diplomatic source in Tokyo.
    The Aso government is not popular, that is correct. Again, I don't expect Russia to make any significant concessions nor do I expect any major proposals from Japan save for a renewal of Japan's claims to the Chishima Islands. Karafuto, though also illegally annexed by the Soviet Union and some maps still show it as a disputed territory of Japan, does not seem to be a real part of the dispute between the two countries.

    Premier Taro Aso of Japan wants to ask Dmitry Medvedev, as Moscow intends to build relations with Tokyo at a time when economic ties between the two countries are experiencing unprecedented growth, but a dispute over the South Kurils is still not resolved. This issue will be raised as the Russian president at a meeting to be held November 23 in Lima, during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Japanese Prime talked about this in the interview, which gave before leaving the capital of Peru, the ITAR-TASS correspondent in Tokyo VASILIYU Golovnin specifically to "Kommersant."
    Was there any follow up on the talks in Lima? Any information about reactions?

    Japanese-Russian economic relations in recent years to strike their own development. Now they are in the most favorable condition for the whole period of its existence. Last year trade turnover between Japan and Russia exceeded $ 20 billion Thus, for Russia, Japan became the third trading partner among countries of the Group of Eight, after Germany and Italy. Perhaps this year's trade turnover will reach $ 30 billion, while next year it will add the liquefied natural gas, which will be delivered to Japan under the Sakhalin project.
    The ecomonic ties are good for both countries. Russia needs a major customer in the Far East other than China to not be completely dependant on a single market. South Korea and Taiwan, while smaller, can also be signifncant export markets for Russian gas.

    Due to the expansion of economic relations are growing hopes for the future in various fields… .There is more work to conclude an agreement on the peaceful use of atomic energy.
    -

    Sounds fine.

    And how you look at the issue of a peace treaty and a dispute over the South Kurils? Do you think that the parties can make a compromise? How could he be?
    I think the issue is best resolved either by a third party arbitrator OR through the ICJ. Russia's case is VERY weak on that point due to the lack of a transfer provision in a post war peace treaty.

    Japan and Russia - the important neighbors in the Asia-Pacific region. Given the recent Japanese-Russian relations in such formats as the Group of Eight, APEC, UN, Russia and the strengthening of ties with the Asia-Pacific region, the absence of a peace treaty due to the unresolved territorial issue seems really unnatural.
    But Russia just can't sweep aside Japan's concerns over the Chishima Islands and to a lesser extent over Karafuto. (to use the Japanese names for South Kuriles and South Sakhalin respectively)

    - During our meeting with President Medvedev, to be held in the margins of APEC summit, I intend to conduct serious negotiations with a view to finding a mutually acceptable final decision on the conclusion of a peace treaty.
    -

    Again, what was the result of this discussion?

    BTW, please proofread the translations you post because there were some areas where the translations were quite flawed and in a couple of places, I couldn't make out the meaning of what was written. Thanks.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    A few points.

    1. In 2/3 of your post you argue/comment on Aso’s statements (interview), I am not to defend or argue Aso. He has politics, and I am not to judge. I am rather quite ignorant of japan.

    2. As to legality, it is again your opinion. Aso does not express such. I don’t have mine at all. Japan, Germany, Italy were utterly wrong. They lost. The USSR according to its obligation to the US exterminated Japan on its part. I don’t know if the US included/allowed the annexation in the obligations, but most likely it would be fair for the US not to object.

    3. Most likely you are correct, - no confessions on both sides. But. But. But. If the countries go into close business/political mutually beneficial cooperation it – cooperation will include mutually beneficial sharing of the disputed territory. The dispute may become mute.

    4. For now the card cannot be played by either side, - it is my opinion. It is positive for Russia and Japan to develop fair and mutually beneficial relation – it is my opinion – it is a win-win situation – it is my opinion. As such relations are developed – they will serve as a base for a reasonable solution of the problem, - or as an alternative they can go on the path of hostilities and confrontation, and that would be the path leading away from any reasonable solution.
    In my opinion the both sides do moves for good - in contrast with the US moves towards Russia. A win-win business -is more promising than I will win you will loose business.
    5. I use automatic google translation, sorry, whatever you can make, -I cannot spend my time proof reading it.If there is something that is specifically important – rather than getting a general idea – I may try,- but it is the matter of my time.
    Last edited by justone; 01-25-09 at 12:47 AM.

  7. #7
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    2. As to legality, it is again your opinion. Aso does not express such. I don’t have mine at all. Japan, Germany, Italy were utterly wrong. They lost. The USSR according to its obligation to the US exterminated Japan on its part. I don’t know if the US included/allowed the annexation in the obligations, but most likely it would be fair for the US not to object.
    I generally agree with your post, so I will only comment on this.

    It is a matter of customary international law that the only way territory can be transferred from one state to another state is through a properly drafted, signed, ratified, and executed treaty. No such treaty exists between Russia and Japan regarding the Chishima Islands and Karafuto. This is the same concept regarding the illegality of Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara.

    You are right that the Axis powers were utterly wrong, but all of the territory transferred from Italy and Germany to other states was provided for in post war peace treaties. The same can not be said regarding Chishima, Karufuto, and other pre-war Japanese territories.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    I generally agree with your post, so I will only comment on this.

    It is a matter of customary international law that the only way territory can be transferred from one state to another state is through a properly drafted, signed, ratified, and executed treaty. No such treaty exists between Russia and Japan regarding the Chishima Islands and Karafuto. This is the same concept regarding the illegality of Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara.

    You are right that the Axis powers were utterly wrong, but all of the territory transferred from Italy and Germany to other states was provided for in post war peace treaties. The same can not be said regarding Chishima, Karufuto, and other pre-war Japanese territories.
    You are not linking to ‘’customary international law’’ that ‘’the only way territory can be transferred from one state to another state is through a properly drafted, signed, ratified, and executed treaty’’ which would be applicable in the situation.

    The territory was acquired during the ‘’legal’’ war.

    1. Yalta conference. The USSR and allies make a deal – was it illegal?
    2. The USSR fulfilled its ‘’legal” obligation towards the US and went to war against Japan. War is usually about acquiring territories. Was it illegal?
    3. The US and GB drafted the treaty regarding Japan, where certain territories of Japan were annexed by the US and other countries. Was it illegal?
    4. The USSR refused to sign the treaty as it considered it to be vague and directed against its interests and agreements of the Yalta conference –was it illegal?
    ‘’ The Soviet Union's objections were detailed in a September 8, 1951 statement by Gromyko.[5] The statement contained a number of Soviet Union's claims and assertions: that the treaty did not provide any guarantees against the rise of Japanese militarism; that Communist China was not invited to participate despite being one of the main victims of the Japanese aggression; that the Soviet Union was not properly consulted when the treaty was being prepared; that the treaty sets up Japan as an American military base and draws Japan into a military coalition directed against the Soviet Union; that the treaty was in effect a separate peace treaty; that several Japanese islands were ceded by the treaty to the United States despite the U.S. having no legitimate claim to them; that the draft treaty, in violation of the Yalta agreement, did not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands; and other objections.” – Was it illegal?
    ‘’There is also some ambiguity as to over which islands Japan has renounced sovereignty. This has led to both the Kuril Island conflict and the Diaoyutai/Senkaku dispute.’’
    Was it illegal for the USSR not to sign under some ambiguity?


    [QUOTE=ludahai;1057898473]This is the same concept regarding the illegality of Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and Morocco's annexation of Western Sahara.[QUOTE=ludahai;1057898473]

    It is not exactly the same,as the documentsshow, but thre are similiarities.
    I don'tknowwhat is your need to bring hamas in and compare its development with development of Japan. Anyway:

    War is about acquiring territory. Arabs started wars to acquire Israel territories. Those wars were as illegal as Hitler’s or Japan wars. In the result, like Allied powers captured and re-mapped German and Japanese territories, Israel had exactly the same rights to re-map acquired territories according to the precedent established; the only difference was that Israel did it on a very minor scale.

    It is like you are suggesting that Allies were to stop at Normandy if Hitler had said ‘now peace, I am sorry’. Or they were supposed to stop at borders of Germany?

    All the meaning of annexation is – don’t start war and you wouldn’t loose your territory, money (compensation), etc. As remapping of Germany and Japan pursued interests of making the world safe from resurrection of fascism/imperialism, actions of Israel were directed to make it safer from resurrection of Arab aggression. It is not like Arabs have ‘’the right’’ to say ‘ Oops, it didn’t work this time, let us go back to what was in the beginning and try again, and again, and again, and again, until we acquire all your territory.’ Israel has a full right to acquire and annex Gaza at its will, as the US acquired and annexed Japanese territories (as the territories were before 1939), or like the Western powers acquired and re-mapped ME territories after WWI.

    As well if Israel, the US, Russia did not sign cluster bomb treaty it would not be illegal for them to use cluster bombs, your siggestion of the otherwise is extremely subjective.

  9. #9
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    The subject may be of no interest to you, people calling themselves "us" , yet it is not a reason to troll demonstrating your shared inabilities.
    Who the **** are you? And please re-structure your sentence so it makes a little bit of sense, please. If you are using the internet slang term "troll", then you are using it wrong.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  10. #10
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Madvedev invites Japan PM Aso to Sakhalin for talks

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    You are not linking to ‘’customary international law’’ that ‘’the only way territory can be transferred from one state to another state is through a properly drafted, signed, ratified, and executed treaty’’ which would be applicable in the situation.

    The territory was acquired during the ‘’legal’’ war.
    How was the invasion of Japan by the USSR "legal" when the two had a neutrality pact dating to 1941 and Japan didn't commit any acts of war against the USSR? The USSR violated article two of the pact.

    1. Yalta conference. The USSR and allies make a deal – was it illegal?
    Not a treaty but a wartime committment that was never formalized in the form of a treaty.

    2. The USSR fulfilled its ‘’legal” obligation towards the US and went to war against Japan. War is usually about acquiring territories. Was it illegal?
    The USSR had a neutrality pact with Japan and Japan had not violated it. The violation of such was a violation of international law. Furthermore, you may occupy land in belligerant occupation PENDING the final status being determined in a treaty, but failing a treaty, annexation is illegal.

    3. The US and GB drafted the treaty regarding Japan, where certain territories of Japan were annexed by the US and other countries. Was it illegal?
    Not illegal because it is a treaty that was signed by Japan as well as a large number of allied powers. However, there is nothing about annexation of territory. Japan surrendered claims to various territories, but sovereignty over them was not assigned to any nation, a critical element in accordance with international law to effect the state to state transfer.

    4. The USSR refused to sign the treaty as it considered it to be vague and directed against its interests and agreements of the Yalta conference –was it illegal?
    There is still no provision for USSR annexation.

    ‘’ The Soviet Union's objections were detailed in a September 8, 1951 statement by Gromyko.[5] The statement contained a number of Soviet Union's claims and assertions: that the treaty did not provide any guarantees against the rise of Japanese militarism; that Communist China was not invited to participate despite being one of the main victims of the Japanese aggression; that the Soviet Union was not properly consulted when the treaty was being prepared; that the treaty sets up Japan as an American military base and draws Japan into a military coalition directed against the Soviet Union; that the treaty was in effect a separate peace treaty; that several Japanese islands were ceded by the treaty to the United States despite the U.S. having no legitimate claim to them; that the draft treaty, in violation of the Yalta agreement, did not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands; and other objections.” – Was it illegal?
    Irrelevant. You can see the USSR is actuall acknowledging the need for a specific transfer in the treaty to effectuate a formal transfer of sovereignty according to this argument. The Kuriles (though Japan disputes the islands included in the chain) and southern Sakhalin were indeed "de-claimed" by Japan, but no transfer of sovereignty exists in the treaty. The USSR annexation had no legal basis.

    ‘’There is also some ambiguity as to over which islands Japan has renounced sovereignty. This has led to both the Kuril Island conflict and the Diaoyutai/Senkaku dispute.’’
    Tiaoyutai was a part of Taipei prefecture according to a judicial decision in Tokyo in the 1930s. However, it is quite likely the Allied negotiators and the US officials charged with implementing the peace accord were unaware of this. The USSR NOT signing the treaty was NOT illegal, but the USSR also can't derive any benefits from that treaty.

    Was it illegal for the USSR not to sign under some ambiguity?
    No, not illegal. So? It was illegal to annex the territory without the treaty providing a mechanism for transfer of sovereignty.

    War is about acquiring territory. Arabs started wars to acquire Israel territories. Those wars were as illegal as Hitler’s or Japan wars. In the result, like Allied powers captured and re-mapped German and Japanese territories, Israel had exactly the same rights to re-map acquired territories according to the precedent established; the only difference was that Israel did it on a very minor scale.
    Wars are to gain territory, and transfer of such territory is formalized by a peace treaty. The USSR invasion of Japanese territory was a violation of its treaty with Japan and thus a violation of international law. Furthermore, as there was no treaty formalizing a change in sovereignty, the technical legal status would be belligerant occupation, not dissimilar to that of Israel in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The ISraeli annexation of those territories DOES have a parallel save for the fact that Israel's war was legal while the USSR invasion was not. Other than that, the two are pretty similar. The situation of Western Sahara has some parallels as well as there was no transfer from Spain to Morocco, but Morocco marched in to claim it anyway with no legal basis.

    It is like you are suggesting that Allies were to stop at Normandy if Hitler had said ‘now peace, I am sorry’. Or they were supposed to stop at borders of Germany?
    No, it is far from the same. Germany started the war with the Allies in Europe. The USSR remained neutral until the last month of the war in the Pacific and invaded an already beaten Japan.

    All the meaning of annexation is – don’t start war and you wouldn’t loose your territory, money (compensation), etc. As remapping of Germany and Japan pursued interests of making the world safe from resurrection of fascism/imperialism, actions of Israel were directed to make it safer from resurrection of Arab aggression. It is not like Arabs have ‘’the right’’ to say ‘ Oops, it didn’t work this time, let us go back to what was in the beginning and try again, and again, and again, and again, until we acquire all your territory.’ Israel has a full right to acquire and annex Gaza at its will, as the US acquired and annexed Japanese territories (as the territories were before 1939), or like the Western powers acquired and re-mapped ME territories after WWI.
    It is not legal to annex territories belonging to another state without a treaty. Israel has NO right to annex Gaza nor does it have a right to annex the West Bank. Look through the history of modern territory transfers and you will find that they are accompanied by a clause formalizing those transfers in treaties. Even in the case of the US, all of its territorial expansion with the exception of Hawaii was effectuated through treaties.

    As well if Israel, the US, Russia did not sign cluster bomb treaty it would not be illegal for them to use cluster bombs, your siggestion of the otherwise is extremely subjective.
    If they don't sign the cluster bomb treaty, but it becomes regarded as customary international law, there are two possibilities:

    1. The non-signatories through their statements and actions accept the provisions of the treaty, thus falling under its provisions; OR

    2. The non-signatories from the outset signal their non-acceptance of the provision by their words and deeds and this do NOT fall under its provisions.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •