Again, not true. There has been international law for thousands of years, though for most of it, it was regional in nature. Only in the 19th century did it become global - the global international law evolving essentially from Western international law. However, even in pre-modern times, there was international law whether it was in East Asia which was enforced by a hegomonic China or the laws practiced amongst the city-states of ancient Greece.
It is true that there was no suprainternational regulatory body, but it doesn't change the fact that there was a series of rules that international actors were expected to abide by.
You are confusing international law with regional law. The Western treaty system and mercantilist values were not present in Asia when the imperial powers arrived with their demands. They were foreign concepts to China. China always used the tributary system to establish relations with its Asian neighbours and that was the basis of their economic friendships. They didn't use treaties.
The recognized members of the international community.
You mean the West? Don't be silly... there were no international regulations at that time that even came close to applying to Asia. It was the Western powers and their own mercantilist rivalry that caused them to enter China in the first place. They were all competing for trade in silk, tea, spices, coffee, and fine China. Britain became the hegemon in this department later on.
The emperor would still be responsible for making sure all elements of the government adhered to it. The execution of a missionary by the Guangxi Provincial government would certainly fall under his area of responsibility under international law.
The missionary was executed for breaking Chinese law, which the West didn't acknowledge. Missionaries did not have unlimited access under the Treaty of Nanjing. That came later in the following treaty in the Second Opium War. He was legally executed for prosyletizing Catholicism in China without permission from the governor. His execution was legal. The Western powers just wanted any excuse to further their control.
It could be argued that in the late 1850s, the infrastructure of the Qing government had been far more weakened by the Taiping Rebellion than by anything the ENglish and French did in the Second Opium/Archer War.
Yes, it could be argued, but it would not be consistent with historical facts. The Taiping Rebellion gained the strength that it did because the Qing military had weakened resources as well as competent leadership, due to the First Opium War and the Treaty of Nanjing. Prior to the arrival of the Western forces, the Qing could have easily contained such fanaticism. Not to mention, Hong Xiuquan, the leader of the rebellion, started his cause due to Christianity and his own conversion. Where would he have learned such a religion? Gee I wonder.
Sure I can. CHina did not honor its agreements. Under international law, both France and England had the right to redress. The fact that they were unbalanced was irrelevant.
Under European law, perhaps. You cannot make international claims in an era where no such international system existed, so cease the pretense already.
China was incapable of honouring its agreements. The treaties were practically signed at gunpoint, and the imperial powers knew it.
Treaty of Nanking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read the first line. It says "unequal treaty". This is what all historians refer to it as. You claim that you have studied the past, but your dishonesty shows.
And it was the Treaty of Nanjing's violation that led to the Archer War, which is when these relics came into French hands.
Yes I know about the Archer War. Again, you are trying to argue that China deserved to be looted, but your historical knowledge does not hold up to scrutiny. You have first cited international law, which did not pertain to China at all and only among European powers and its conquered territories; then you try to cite the Qing's "violations" of Treaties, even though the Qing lacked the ability to even enforce them; now you are citing entire wars as a justification for looting. It is just laughable.
Putting more claims aside and legal claims, why not just admit that the looting was done upon the free will of the military, and they didn't give a damn whether or not it was legal? Stop trying to blame China for everything, as you always do.
I should be Harry Turtledove. Perhaps I should write a novel about what would have happened had the Ming continued on the course Zhu Di set for it.
Based on what you have already said, I doubt any historian would take you seriously. Maybe the fringe Sinophobic activists in the West would buy it.
Seriously, I am not using the what ifs to justify the looting. Again, I am not defending it MORALLY. I am merely making a legal argument that China's govenment has no legal claim to those relics.
Not using ifs? Yes you are. "If" they had stayed in China, the Cultural Revolution would have destroyed them. That is an unprovable supposition. Your intellectual dishonesty is displeasing.
If the Qing had enforcability at all, the relics would not have been stolen in the first place, as it would have been illegal to do so. So yes, China did have a legal claim to the relics... but once they left the mainland, they didn't. But that doesn't account for why they shouldn't be returned in modern times.
Have I ever blamed it on a single factor? Heck, the Chinese regarded the Qing emperors as foreigners anyway. The Chinese were, as you said, highly xenophobic, which brought on the disaster that China sufferred. If they had talked with the British as equals from the beginning, this would possibly been averted.
I love this paragraph. "I'm not blaming it on a single factor, but... I blame the Chinese." It could also be said that if the West had respected they were in a foreign land that operated different than their own, and they weren't so greedy with their quest for empire, the problem could have been averted? The argument works both ways. At least I can acknowlege that.
The Manchus were later accepted as the rulers of China and they did all they could to respect Chinese beliefs. It was why their transfer to power was so seamless after the invasions were complete.
Sorry if you think a realistic look at Chinese history is slanted and opinionated. I do NOT hold to the school that foreigners were to blame for all of China's troubles. The Manchus as well as the Han Chinese themselves were actually far more to blame for China's failures than the foreigners ever were.
A realistic look at Chinese history does not involve placing blame on
anyone. It is the revisionists and people with an agenda who decide that one side was the greater evil. In this debate I have been defending the Chinese because your side is wholy against them. You claim to have a balanced view but it's not balanced at all. You continually blame the Qing and the Chinese way of life for why they were invaded without even considering Western involvement.
Sure they were. But they are not today in the possession of the French government.
If you trace the transferrence of property back to the original owners, it doesn't matter anyway. The French government stole them, plain and simple. That's why I find it incredibly ironic that the French government can be absolved of responsibility now... "Oh, they're in private hands now, we don't have anything to do with it!" So much for accountability.
A large proportion of relics that were known at the time of the CUltural Revolution were damaged or destroyed. I saw quite a lot of evidence of this first hand in Beijing, Ji'nan, Nanjing, Shanghai, Kunming, Shenyang and many other places in China. This simply can not be denied.
I never denied it. You, however, are denying that a large part did survive, and I myself have seen this with my own eyes. Revisionists like you make it seem like the Cultural Revolution destroyed all of China. Fact is, it didn't. A lot of its heritage lives.
No. Court rooms operate on the principle of LAW. China has no LAW in this case that supports its claims, something confirmed by a student of international law cited in an earlier post.
Yes, we covered this. Right now I am mostly debating against your Sinophobia, a mistake that I will not enter upon again.
Sure there are. But this is 2009, NOT 1860. The rules have changed.
I know, but that's not what I was replying to. Re-read your statement that I was replying to, and try again.
What would the legal basis of the French government to seize relics that are privately held?
If the French Government were the original looters, then they could declare the original resale illegal and confiscate them, returning them to the authority that demands them. If private looters went overseas then there is not much that can be done about it. (i.e. Egyptian grave robbers.)
I am not Sinophobic. I love China and the Chinese. I am fascinated by Chinese history, culture, food and so many other things about China. However, my love for China and the Chinese does not blind me to the fact that, like anyone other old culture, there is a tremendous amount of baggage, something that would be looked down upon by today's standards. My gripe against China is not its past, it is the thugs and criminals who rule it in the present.
I don't believe this for one minute.