Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: From a legal stand point Tibet is an illegally occupied independent country

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent Debate

Supporting Evidence

  • Michael C. van Walt van Praag ,” The Status of Tibet: History, Rights and Prospects in International Law”,Westview Press, Boulder, Colo., Wisdom Press, London, 1987 "In the course of Tibet's 2,000-year history, the country came under a degree of foreign influence only for short periods of time in the 13th and 18th centuries. Few independent countries today can claim as impressive a record. As the ambassador of Ireland to the UN remarked during the General Assembly debates on the question of Tibet, "for thousands of years, for a couple of thousands years at any rate, (Tibet) was a free and as fully in control of its own affairs as any nation in this Assembly, and a thousand times more free to look after it own affairs than many of the nations here." From a legal standpoint, Tibet has not lost its statehood. It is an independent start under illegal occupation. Neither China's military invasion nor the continuing occupation by the PLA has transferred the sovereignty of Tibet to China. As pointed out earlier.la the Chinese government has never claimed to have acquired sovereignty over Tibet by conquest. Indeed, China recognizes that the use or threat of force (outside the exceptional circumstances provided for in the UN Charter), the imposition of an unequal treaty, or the continued illegal occupation of a country can never grant an invader legal title to territory. Its claims are based solely on the alleged subjection of Tibet to a few of China's strongest foreign rulers in the 13th and 18th centuries.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.