ICJ: Kosovo Independence is Legal

ludahai · Aug 2, 2010

Demon of Light said:
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!

Demon of Light · Aug 2, 2010

ludahai said:
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.

ludahai · Aug 2, 2010

Demon of Light said:
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.

Demon of Light · Aug 2, 2010

ludahai said:
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.

ICJ: Kosovo Independence is Legal

ludahai

Defender of the Faith

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary

ludahai

Defender of the Faith

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary