Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: ICJ: Kosovo Independence is Legal

  1. #21
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: ICJ: Kosovo Independence is Legal

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Actually, northern Viet Nam WAS previously a territory of China. Regardless, it is irrelevant as at the time, Taiwan was Japanese territory, NOT Chinese.
    I'm not talking about some long-lost territory, but territories that had belonged to the Qing Dynasty and not long before the war with Japan.

    You are probably looking at the post-1969 definition. Furthermore, treaties need to be ratified. In most countries, including the United States that was a party to the Instrument of Surrender, the legislature (or part of the legislature) is required to ratify the treaty. This did not happen with the U.S. nor with any of the other Allied signatories of the treaty. None of the Allied powers regard the Instrument of Surrender as being a treaty.
    The internal laws regarding treaties are irrelevant as to what constitutes a treaty under international law and the 1969 convention was merely codifying long-held standards.

    According to the recent ICJ advisory opinion, that would seem to be the case. However, Kosovo was a part of Serbia as confirmed by by the Treaty of London. There is no such treaty that confirmed Taiwan as being part of China.
    Obviously your refusal to accept a treaty as a treaty is just your little dance to satisfy your misguided position. Not only was China's sovereignty over Taiwan recognized by treaty, independence was not even allowed as an option like it was with Kosovo. That it was a treaty is obvious by the behavior of the parties. Not a one challenged Taiwan's status as Chinese territory. All have consistently recognized Taiwan since the surrender as part of China. No mention of transfers of sovereignty were included about any territories held by Japan in the peace treaty. Obviously all recognized that the legal transfer of sovereignty had been required with the surrender and took effect when the Chinese military took control of Taiwan. If there had been any doubt about this it would have been included in the peace treaty.

    Their actions clearly speak to the fact that it was a treaty and Taiwan was thus ceded by Japan to China.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  2. #22
    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: ICJ: Kosovo Independence is Legal

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I'm not talking about some long-lost territory, but territories that had belonged to the Qing Dynasty and not long before the war with Japan.
    Just trying to clarify the record. You DO know I hope that even during the Qing Dynasty, the Chinese only controlled about one-third of the island at most.


    The internal laws regarding treaties are irrelevant as to what constitutes a treaty under international law and the 1969 convention was merely codifying long-held standards.
    Not true. The treaty itself specifically states that the codification in the treaty does not predate the treaty. Furthermore, since you are referring to long-held standards, it is a long held standard that territory can only be transferred from one state to another state via a properly signed, ratified, and executed treaty. An instrument of surrender doesn't even come close to meeting that standard.


    Obviously your refusal to accept a treaty as a treaty is just your little dance to satisfy your misguided position. Not only was China's sovereignty over Taiwan recognized by treaty, independence was not even allowed as an option like it was with Kosovo.
    Actually, the problem is that you are according the status of treaty to something that in no way even comes close to the standards of treaty and you are ignoring the high standards required for the transfer of territory from one state to another state.

    That it was a treaty is obvious by the behavior of the parties. Not a one challenged Taiwan's status as Chinese territory.
    Actually, that is not true. There are several documents from representatives of state actors to international legal specialists in the late 1940s and early 1950s that in fact challenges this assertion.

    All have consistently recognized Taiwan since the surrender as part of China.
    Actually, this is not the case. Even today, the U.S. does not formally RECOGNIZE China's sovereignty over Taiwan, it merely ACKNOWLEDGES the claims of the Chinese. The Japanese have used even more ambiguous language than the Americans.

    No mention of transfers of sovereignty were included about any territories held by Japan in the peace treaty.
    And consequently, with the exception of Korea and territories transferred to the Allied powers, it doesn't not formally recognize claims of sovereignty by China over Taiwan or by Russia over Karafuto or the Chishima Islands.

    Obviously all recognized that the legal transfer of sovereignty had been required with the surrender and took effect when the Chinese military took control of Taiwan. If there had been any doubt about this it would have been included in the peace treaty.
    This is simply not true, and even if it were, recognition is a POLITICAL act, not a legal one.

    Their actions clearly speak to the fact that it was a treaty and Taiwan was thus ceded by Japan to China.
    Not as clear as you think and not in accordance with international law as established by practice. Notice how you ignored my point that it required a properly ratified treaty to transfer territory and you further ignored the two examples (of which there are MANY, MANY more) which illustrates this point. Then again, such ignoring of such points is common among the Chinese/pro-Chinese online.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  3. #23
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: ICJ: Kosovo Independence is Legal

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Just trying to clarify the record. You DO know I hope that even during the Qing Dynasty, the Chinese only controlled about one-third of the island at most.
    Are you referring to the one third that then and now constitutes most of Taiwan's population and essentially all of its coastline? No, I admit I did not know this, but it makes no real difference whether they actively controlled the mountains or not. All of it was incorporated into China.

    Not true. The treaty itself specifically states that the codification in the treaty does not predate the treaty. Furthermore, since you are referring to long-held standards, it is a long held standard that territory can only be transferred from one state to another state via a properly signed, ratified, and executed treaty. An instrument of surrender doesn't even come close to meeting that standard.
    This one sure as hell does. It was signed, ratified, and executed without question and it was clearly legitimate. Consider the situation of Sakhalin. Nowhere did Japan transfer sovereignty in any peace agreement because it doesn't even have a peace agreement with Russia. Yet no one considers the status of any part of Sakhalin to be disputed. None of the other territories are disputed even though none were mentioned in the peace treaties as being transferred to another country. That is because the Allies all considered the matter legally settled with the surrender terms to which Japan agreed. Whatever they called it, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender was a treaty that did transfer sovereignty over those respective territories to China.

    To suggest it wasn't a treaty would require you to declare the entire surrender of Japan illegitimate. You would have to argue that the Allies illegally occupied Japan, illegally took administrative control of Japan, and illegally took territories of Japan. It was a treaty, this much is settled history and law. Taiwan has no legal claim to independence.

    Actually, the problem is that you are according the status of treaty to something that in no way even comes close to the standards of treaty and you are ignoring the high standards required for the transfer of territory from one state to another state.
    The problem is you just misrepresent the facts to justify your own personal bias.

    Actually, that is not true. There are several documents from representatives of state actors to international legal specialists in the late 1940s and early 1950s that in fact challenges this assertion.
    No doubt when it became clear that the government they didn't like would be in control of China. Any claims disputing Taiwan's status as a territory of China outside Taiwan are either the result of misunderstandings of the law or deliberate obfuscation in advancement of a political agenda.

    Actually, this is not the case. Even today, the U.S. does not formally RECOGNIZE China's sovereignty over Taiwan, it merely ACKNOWLEDGES the claims of the Chinese. The Japanese have used even more ambiguous language than the Americans.
    The U.S. clearly does recognize Taiwan as part of China. There is certainly no ambiguity with regards to Japan:

    The Government of the People's Republic of China reiterates that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Postsdam Proclamation.
    Joint Communiqu of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China

    Such a position could not be any clearer. Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration in the Instrument of Surrender and reiterated that it supports that decision. The declaration clearly establishes that Taiwan is a part of China.

    This is simply not true, and even if it were, recognition is a POLITICAL act, not a legal one.
    Recognition is clearly a legal act and it certainly is true. Had the ROC remained in control there is no question as to the result for Taiwan. Only when a government they opposed was poised for control did they ever question this mater.

    Not as clear as you think and not in accordance with international law as established by practice. Notice how you ignored my point that it required a properly ratified treaty to transfer territory and you further ignored the two examples (of which there are MANY, MANY more) which illustrates this point. Then again, such ignoring of such points is common among the Chinese/pro-Chinese online.
    My position is not about China, but about accepting the rule of law. Japan agreed to a treaty that clearly recognized Taiwan as part of China, period. That Taiwan was transferred to China is indisputable. China taking control of Taiwan was the realization of the Cairo Declaration terms that Taiwan be restored to China. To interpret this any other way is to challenge the legitimacy of the surrender in its entirety.

    I have not ignored anything. You think I have not noted such a treaty because it would seem you insist the Japanese Instrument of Surrender was not a treaty based off some spurious claims that have no legitimacy under international law in any way shape or form.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  4. #24
    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: ICJ: Kosovo Independence is Legal

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Are you referring to the one third that then and now constitutes most of Taiwan's population and essentially all of its coastline? No, I admit I did not know this, but it makes no real difference whether they actively controlled the mountains or not. All of it was incorporated into China.
    Basically, most of the western plain was under Qing control, but the mountains and most of the east coast (except Ilan) were outside of Chinese control. How can you incorporate territory into your country that you don't even control? Even the Japanese saw the absurdness of this as early as the 1870s in an exchange of diplomatic notes between their foreign ministery and the Zongli Yamen.

    This one sure as hell does. It was signed, ratified, and executed without question and it was clearly legitimate. Consider the situation of Sakhalin. Nowhere did Japan transfer sovereignty in any peace agreement because it doesn't even have a peace agreement with Russia. Yet no one considers the status of any part of Sakhalin to be disputed. None of the other territories are disputed even though none were mentioned in the peace treaties as being transferred to another country. That is because the Allies all considered the matter legally settled with the surrender terms to which Japan agreed. Whatever they called it, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender was a treaty that did transfer sovereignty over those respective territories to China.
    It was signed, but most certainly was NOT ratified. There were no instruments of ratification exchanged amongst the signatory parties. There was no vote in the U.S. Senate to ratify it on behalf of the United States nor did any other signatory ratify the instrument of surrender. There was NO ratification. Also, as for the southern part of Sakhalin (known to the Japanese as Karafuto) you are wrong as the Japanese DO NOT recognize Russian sovereignty over the southern half of the island precisely because there was no treaty signed between the two. If you look at a JAPANESE map of the region, that along with most of the Kurile Islands (known as Chishima Islands in Japanese) show up as white -- meaning their status is legally untermined. The only exception to this is the four small islands at the southern end of the Kurile/Chishima chain which Japan still claims as their own.

    To suggest it wasn't a treaty would require you to declare the entire surrender of Japan illegitimate. You would have to argue that the Allies illegally occupied Japan, illegally took administrative control of Japan, and illegally took territories of Japan. It was a treaty, this much is settled history and law. Taiwan has no legal claim to independence.
    It is legal to occupy pending a peace treaty. There are countless examples of this in the history of international state to state relations. This should be obvious to you. It is known as belligerant occupation and has occurred at end of a large number of wars pending the final peace treaty. In fact, the instrument of surrender amounts to little more than an armistice, much like was signed at the end of World War I. Between the signing of an armistice and the ratification of a peace treaty, occupation by the victor (at least partial) is quite legal.

    The problem is you just misrepresent the facts to justify your own personal bias.
    This coming from someone who claims a document to be a treaty that clearly is not. I have already pointed to examples where it is clear that a treaty specifically indicated a transfer of sovereignty of territory from one state to another state even when the territory was occupied and furthermore noted an examples of a treaty that, although the victor already occupied the territory, sovereignty was NOT granted. Not only have you ignored those examples, you have also declined to present counter-examples to make your point.


    No doubt when it became clear that the government they didn't like would be in control of China. Any claims disputing Taiwan's status as a territory of China outside Taiwan are either the result of misunderstandings of the law or deliberate obfuscation in advancement of a political agenda.
    It was all political. We all know that. However, that does not change the legal standing of Taiwan vis a vis China and the other allies. There was no transfer of sovereignty. Your claim that the Instrument of Surrender being a treaty (when it CLEARLY was not) notwithstanding.


    The U.S. clearly does recognize Taiwan as part of China. There is certainly no ambiguity with regards to Japan:
    No, it does not. It ACKNOWLEDGES the claim. I interviewed officials at the State Department about this as a grad student. Same with Japan. Japan's foreign ministery says that it has no say in who has sovereign control over Taiwan and that it surrendered control over the island in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco which was ratified and went into force in 1952. This was according to a Foreign Ministry official I interviewed at the Japanese embassy in Washington and has been repeated (rather controversally according to the current KMT government, but quite correctly) by the then-Japanese de facto representative to Taiwan just a few months ago.

    Such a position could not be any clearer. Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration in the Instrument of Surrender and reiterated that it supports that decision. The declaration clearly establishes that Taiwan is a part of China.
    Then why doesn't the Japanese Foreign Ministry accept that position today?

    Recognition is clearly a legal act and it certainly is true. Had the ROC remained in control there is no question as to the result for Taiwan. Only when a government they opposed was poised for control did they ever question this mater.
    Recognition is purely political, not legal. Ask nearly any scholar of international law. It is clearly political, not legal. No state has the legal right or authority to compromise the legal rights of any other state or people.


    My position is not about China, but about accepting the rule of law. Japan agreed to a treaty that clearly recognized Taiwan as part of China, period. That Taiwan was transferred to China is indisputable. China taking control of Taiwan was the realization of the Cairo Declaration terms that Taiwan be restored to China. To interpret this any other way is to challenge the legitimacy of the surrender in its entirety.
    Again, you are giving the status of treaty to somethign that is not a treaty. Frankly, I would love to see the ICJ rule on it, but the chicken leaders in Beijing object to it presumably because they know deep down that in accordance with the law, their case is exceeding weak and is getting weaker all the time in accordance with the effective control doctrine that the ICJ has used in recent decades in several territorial dispute cases.

    I have not ignored anything. You think I have not noted such a treaty because it would seem you insist the Japanese Instrument of Surrender was not a treaty based off some spurious claims that have no legitimacy under international law in any way shape or form.
    It simply is not a treaty and you have neither shown that it is nor have you countered the examples where treaties were required to confirmed territorial transfers even in cases where effective control was already established nor have you answered the point of the cited case where effective control WAS established but sovereignty was not transferred because not done so in the ratified post-war treaty.

    In other words, you to this point have an epic FAIL to your arguments because you have left so many matters of precedence, a vital source of international law, unanswered.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #25
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: ICJ: Kosovo Independence is Legal

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Basically, most of the western plain was under Qing control, but the mountains and most of the east coast (except Ilan) were outside of Chinese control. How can you incorporate territory into your country that you don't even control? Even the Japanese saw the absurdness of this as early as the 1870s in an exchange of diplomatic notes between their foreign ministery and the Zongli Yamen.
    Say what you like it was the reality. Japan obviously thought Taiwan belonged to China since they had China cede the territory to them.

    Also, as for the southern part of Sakhalin (known to the Japanese as Karafuto) you are wrong as the Japanese DO NOT recognize Russian sovereignty over the southern half of the island precisely because there was no treaty signed between the two. If you look at a JAPANESE map of the region, that along with most of the Kurile Islands (known as Chishima Islands in Japanese) show up as white -- meaning their status is legally untermined.
    Prove it.

    It was signed, but most certainly was NOT ratified. There were no instruments of ratification exchanged amongst the signatory parties. There was no vote in the U.S. Senate to ratify it on behalf of the United States nor did any other signatory ratify the instrument of surrender. There was NO ratification.
    I get it, you support independence so you regurgitate all the propaganda you've been fed favoring that position, but try being at least a little independent in your thinking. Ratification need not involve an exchange of notes or legislative approval. All it requires is that it is accepted by those with the authority to accept it. The various Allied military representatives obviously had the authority to accept it on behalf of their countries as did those representatives of the Japanese government and military. It in fact had to be a treaty because authority was vested in the Supreme Commander and the Japanese government itself was not dissolved.

    In other words, a foreign power was given authority over a country's existing institutions and there are terms regarding the exercise of that authority. This could only be legally effectuated with a binding legal agreement between States. Only if the Japanese government's acceptance of the surrender was legally binding could they vest an office with authority over it.

    Something I have not really noted is that one could argue there has been no transfer of sovereignty, but the Japanese Instrument of Surrender clearly requires this to occur in any event making any arguments about "effective control" meaningless.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  6. #26
    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: ICJ: Kosovo Independence is Legal

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Say what you like it was the reality. Japan obviously thought Taiwan belonged to China since they had China cede the territory to them.
    That was a result of diplomatic notes in the 1870s, even though from then, the Japanese still had doubts as to the legitimacy of China's claims to the eastern half of the island. Regardless, that is not relevant to Taiwan's current status.



    Prove it.
    You haven't proven a darn thing in this thread and have pointedly IGNORED several examples to illustrate my points throughout this thread. I have paper maps that show this, but it is difficult to navigate Japanese websites because I can't type Kana, only Kanji. I will see what I can find when I have access to a Japanese-capable computer. Still, here is a link that shows the four islands north of Hokkaido that Japan still claims.

    map of Japan
    Now, if you want me to "prove" a claim, you should perhaps show a little intellectual honesty and answer the examples I have already provided in this thread... or else you get an epic FAIL!!

    I get it, you support independence so you regurgitate all the propaganda you've been fed favoring that position, but try being at least a little independent in your thinking. Ratification need not involve an exchange of notes or legislative approval. All it requires is that it is accepted by those with the authority to accept it. The various Allied military representatives obviously had the authority to accept it on behalf of their countries as did those representatives of the Japanese government and military. It in fact had to be a treaty because authority was vested in the Supreme Commander and the Japanese government itself was not dissolved.
    You are the one who is regurgitating Chinese propoganda. Treaties require the deposit of the instruments of ratification, nearly always in a place designated by the treaty. For example, Article 24 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty mandated that instruments of ratification were to be deposited with the government of the United States. Different states have different requirements for ratification, but many require an action of the legislature -- for example, the U.S. requires ratification by the U.S. Senate...

    In other words, a foreign power was given authority over a country's existing institutions and there are terms regarding the exercise of that authority. This could only be legally effectuated with a binding legal agreement between States. Only if the Japanese government's acceptance of the surrender was legally binding could they vest an office with authority over it.
    Not true. There is something called beligerrant occupation. In lieu of the peace treaty, the occupying power is invested with rights over the occupied territory.

    Something I have not really noted is that one could argue there has been no transfer of sovereignty, but the Japanese Instrument of Surrender clearly requires this to occur in any event making any arguments about "effective control" meaningless.
    Except that the Instrument of Surrender is NOT a treaty and a treaty is required to transfer territory from one state to another state.

    You haven't proven a single point in this entire thread where I have supplied examples to show my point, examples which you have ignored. FAIL!
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #27
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: ICJ: Kosovo Independence is Legal

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    You haven't proven a darn thing in this thread and have pointedly IGNORED several examples to illustrate my points throughout this thread.
    I haven't ignored anything. Rather I specifically explained to you why certain points you are making are not legitimate. The Japanese Instrument of Surrender being a treaty is really all that matters in this discussion. You dispute this status based off flimsy reasoning.

    What you have used to argue against my position is that the Vienna Convention on treaties is not retroactive, which is not pertinent to whether the use of terms should be accepted. After all, they would likely be used to guide any decision on this matter.

    Still, here is a link that shows the four islands north of Hokkaido that Japan still claims.
    Japan's claim to the islands is explicitly based on the claim that these were not covered under any agreement, including the surrender.

    Now, if you want me to "prove" a claim, you should perhaps show a little intellectual honesty and answer the examples I have already provided in this thread... or else you get an epic FAIL!!
    Constantly shouting "FAIL" does not make your arguments more believable.

    You are the one who is regurgitating Chinese propoganda.
    Hardly, I looked at the relevant agreements and terms myself in evaluating the legal basis for China's claim to Taiwan.

    Treaties require the deposit of the instruments of ratification, nearly always in a place designated by the treaty. For example, Article 24 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty mandated that instruments of ratification were to be deposited with the government of the United States. Different states have different requirements for ratification, but many require an action of the legislature -- for example, the U.S. requires ratification by the U.S. Senate...
    Treaties require no such thing under international law. They only require that it be made legally binding by those empowered to make it so.

    Not true. There is something called beligerrant occupation. In lieu of the peace treaty, the occupying power is invested with rights over the occupied territory.
    You are gonna have to provide clarification, because nothing I can find suggests a situation of the kind I described does not require a legally binding agreement between States i.e. a treaty.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  8. #28
    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: ICJ: Kosovo Independence is Legal

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    I haven't ignored anything. Rather I specifically explained to you why certain points you are making are not legitimate. The Japanese Instrument of Surrender being a treaty is really all that matters in this discussion. You dispute this status based off flimsy reasoning.
    You have not made the point convincingly. The Instrument of Surrender was NOT a treaty. You use flimsy reasoning to argue that it is, but it flies in the face of any and all precedent for the transfer of territory from one state to another, which requires a properly ratified and executed treaty -- which the Instrument of Surrender is NOT!!! It is more akin to an armistice than a treaty.

    What you have used to argue against my position is that the Vienna Convention on treaties is not retroactive, which is not pertinent to whether the use of terms should be accepted. After all, they would likely be used to guide any decision on this matter.
    It is NOT retroactive, and you have done nothing to show that the Instrument of Surrender is regarded as a treaty under customary international law when I have shown the necessity for properly executed and ratified treaties being needed to effect the transfer of territory from one state to another state? There were no instruments or ratification, something that is required and you will find in an introductory text on international public law.

    Japan's claim to the islands is explicitly based on the claim that these were not covered under any agreement, including the surrender.
    And Sakhalin (Karafuto) and the other Kurile (Chichima) islands were?

    Constantly shouting "FAIL" does not make your arguments more believable.
    Just pointing out that you have simply not made effective arguments nor have you done anything to counter the examples I have provided regarding the transfer of territory from Germany to France after World War II as well as why Puerto Rico and the Philippines were transferred to U.S. sovereignty while Cuba was not.

    Hardly, I looked at the relevant agreements and terms myself in evaluating the legal basis for China's claim to Taiwan.
    And in looking at one document, came to a conclusion regarding it that not even the Chinese government adheres to. The conclusion that the Instrument of Surrender is a treaty flies in the face of customary international law.

    Treaties require no such thing under international law. They only require that it be made legally binding by those empowered to make it so.
    And in some states, ratification by a legislature (in the case of the U.S., the Senate) is required. The executive is not solely empowered to enter into treaties. Further, the deposit of instruments of ratification IS required under customary international law. Consult an introductory international law textbook.

    You are gonna have to provide clarification, because nothing I can find suggests a situation of the kind I described does not require a legally binding agreement between States i.e. a treaty.
    Why do I have to provide anything, when you have provided absolutely NOTHING? There is a long history in warfare of the victorious state occupying territory of the state that has lost prior to the signing of a "treaty" to determine the final status of territory. There is typically a cease fire and/or armistice (the later is what the Instrument of Surrender) which is the governing document until a treaty is effected to formally end hostilities.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  9. #29
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: ICJ: Kosovo Independence is Legal

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    You have not made the point convincingly. The Instrument of Surrender was NOT a treaty. You use flimsy reasoning to argue that it is, but it flies in the face of any and all precedent for the transfer of territory from one state to another, which requires a properly ratified and executed treaty -- which the Instrument of Surrender is NOT!!! It is more akin to an armistice than a treaty.
    Armistice and treaty are not mutually exclusive terms. Also, you can say whatever you like but it is clear you are the one ignoring what I am saying as you just insist ratification requires legislative approval or depositing of instruments when it in fact does not. All that is required is that it be accepted by those who can make it legally binding. If the means of ratification you mention are not required it does not mean the agreement is not a treaty. When the U.S. adopted NAFTA it did not use the method required for treaties under U.S. law even though it was definitely a treaty under international law. Depending on the nature of the treaty there are different requirements to make it binding.

    In the case of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender all that was needed is for the representatives to sign it and accept the document because those representatives were empowered to do so.

    It is NOT retroactive, and you have done nothing to show that the Instrument of Surrender is regarded as a treaty under customary international law when I have shown the necessity for properly executed and ratified treaties being needed to effect the transfer of territory from one state to another state? There were no instruments or ratification, something that is required and you will find in an introductory text on international public law.
    Under the Vienna Convention instruments of ratification are not required so obviously you are wrong. As far as not being retroactive the fact is I am only using the definition, not suggesting the terms of the Convention apply. For purposes of studying international law using an agreed definition is expected. Clearly the definition is meant to apply to agreements before the Convention otherwise the term would not have been used to describe agreements before the Convention enters into force.

    And Sakhalin (Karafuto) and the other Kurile (Chichima) islands were?
    Yes actually because these were islands seized through "violence and greed" as mentioned in the Cairo Declaration ultimately referenced through the Japanese Instrument of Surrender.

    Just pointing out that you have simply not made effective arguments nor have you done anything to counter the examples I have provided regarding the transfer of territory from Germany to France after World War II as well as why Puerto Rico and the Philippines were transferred to U.S. sovereignty while Cuba was not.
    Like I said this only matters if you think the Japanese Instrument of Surrender is not a treaty. As I continue insisting it is your examples are quite irrelevant.

    And in looking at one document, came to a conclusion regarding it that not even the Chinese government adheres to. The conclusion that the Instrument of Surrender is a treaty flies in the face of customary international law.
    Actually it is perfectly in keeping with international law and the intentions of those who signed it. The parties concerned considered it a legally-binding agreement between States making it a treaty under international law. That it was not a final agreement is irrelevant.

    And in some states, ratification by a legislature (in the case of the U.S., the Senate) is required. The executive is not solely empowered to enter into treaties. Further, the deposit of instruments of ratification IS required under customary international law. Consult an introductory international law textbook.
    It is definitely not required as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties explicitly provides for adoption by signature and signature alone.

    Why do I have to provide anything, when you have provided absolutely NOTHING? There is a long history in warfare of the victorious state occupying territory of the state that has lost prior to the signing of a "treaty" to determine the final status of territory. There is typically a cease fire and/or armistice (the later is what the Instrument of Surrender) which is the governing document until a treaty is effected to formally end hostilities.
    That you would call it a "governing document" suggests you recognize it is a legally-binding international agreement ipso facto recognizing it as a treaty.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

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