Should the UK interfere in Hong Kong?

Watch
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by L i b)
A treaty isn't just "rescinded" by one party. A party to it can denounce or repudiate a treaty, but that doesn't mean they're not bound by it - it's a violation.
I think you'll find a country can happily withdraw from a treaty... Either way what does that have to do with what i said?
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by Napp)
I think you'll find a country can happily withdraw from a treaty... Either way what does that have to do with what i said?
It cannot. The only way that the obligations of a treaty come to an end - excluding the obvious subsequent agreement of all parties or the terms of the treaty itself - is if it becomes concluded, frustrated or - in some circumstances - if one party performs so material and fundamental a breach that the other parties cannot be held to its terms.

Countries cannot just "happily withdraw" from a treaty. A treaty is a binding international agreement between state-parties. That's really rather the point of them.

I'm not sure why you've asked what this has to do with what you said - you said a treaty can be rescinded by one party to it unilaterally and then followed that up. That's not true. I think pointing that out is fairly relevant, given your line of argument.
Last edited by L i b; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by L i b)
It cannot. The only way that the obligations of a treaty come to an end - excluding the obvious subsequent agreement of all parties or the terms of the treaty itself - is if it becomes concluded, frustrated or - in some circumstances - if one party performs so material and fundamental a breach that the other parties cannot be held to its terms.

Countries cannot just "happily withdraw" from a treaty. A treaty is a binding international agreement between state-parties. That's really rather the point of them.
Need one really point of the glaring difference between de facto and de jure here?

Again though, what does this quibbling over semantics have to do with what i said?
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by Napp)
Need one really point of the glaring difference between de facto and de jure here?

Again though, what does this quibbling over semantics have to do with what i said?
The consequences of international public law when discussing the breach of a treaty is not 'quibbling over semantics'.

You're getting to the point where you argue that de facto treaties don't exist - that there cannot be binding international legal agreements between states. I'm sure the CPC would be delighted with that - but ultimately they should be held to account for their repeated disregard of international law.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by L i b)
The consequences of international public law when discussing the breach of a treaty is not 'quibbling over semantics'.

You're getting to the point where you argue that de facto treaties don't exist - that there cannot be binding international legal agreements between states. I'm sure the CPC would be delighted with that - but ultimately they should be held to account for their repeated disregard of international law.
If anything the fact you're bringing "international law" into the argument makes it even more so. With the concept, arguably, being just that.. a concept. After all there is no "international jail" to toss people/countries in if they're naughty and break said laws.

Err what? My point was simply that states can happily welsh on said agreements, as they frequently do. Equally, to your last sentence, as i said, the CCP is far from alone in this. Now i'm not one to defend them (and don't mistake my comment for that) but i am decidedly not a fan of countries being hypocrites on the matter. If you're going to talk about countries 'abiding by international law' it's rather hard to take the sentiment seriously when it is flouted on a regular basis.

Either way, case in point, countries only abide by such agreements for the time it suits them. Apparently Beijing feels that time is now up. In line with the law that might is right, well. There's rather little London can do on this wouldnt you agree?
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#26
Report 4 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by Napp)
If anything the fact you're bringing "international law" into the argument makes it even more so. With the concept, arguably, being just that.. a concept. After all there is no "international jail" to toss people/countries in if they're naughty and break said laws
I think the United Nations Detention Unit might disagree with you on that one...

Err what? My point was simply that states can happily welsh on said agreements, as they frequently do. Equally, to your last sentence, as i said, the CCP is far from alone in this. Now i'm not one to defend them (and don't mistake my comment for that) but i am decidedly not a fan of countries being hypocrites on the matter. If you're going to talk about countries 'abiding by international law' it's rather hard to take the sentiment seriously when it is flouted on a regular basis.
Most laws are flouted on a regular basis. The fact that people commit rape or assault or theft doesn't mean that suggesting that the law exists or should be taken seriously is hypocrisy.

Either way, case in point, countries only abide by such agreements for the time it suits them. Apparently Beijing feels that time is now up. In line with the law that might is right, well. There's rather little London can do on this wouldnt you agree?
Just as the upholding of the law isn't just a matter for victims, neither is the upholding of international law simply a matter for parties to a treaty - particularly when humanitarian interests are at stake. The international community can and should take a firmer line with China.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by L i b)
I think the United Nations Detention Unit might disagree with you on that one...
And yet almost all breakers of international law and free and sitting pretty... Be it those in the Gulf, Britain, America, China, Russia, France, plenty of African and Asian despots etc. The US in particular expressly saying that the ICC is not but a toothless old hag the world should ignore.
Tell me, what do you think the chances of this toothless unit arresting Messrs Bush and Blair are?
The great powers are, as you should be well aware, beyond the scope of such minor forces as the UN.

Most laws are flouted on a regular basis. The fact that people commit rape or assault or theft doesn't mean that suggesting that the law exists or should be taken seriously is hypocrisy.
Somewhat of a straw man.


Just as the upholding of the law isn't just a matter for victims, neither is the upholding of international law simply a matter for parties to a treaty - particularly when humanitarian interests are at stake. The international community can and should take a firmer line with China.
Should? Sure. Can? Not really. What would you have them do? Spit in the face of their pay master? I think not. Realism rules the day in such instances and if the international community is happy to see Beijing perpetrate egregious crimes in the north you'll have to excuse me for finding it doubtful anyone would do more than a token gesture for this, of all things.
0
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by Napp)
The fact of the matter is there is absolutely nothing the UK can do about it that would be of any consequence to Beijing, not a dickybird. The asymmetry in power and investment in the cause is little more than a yawning chasm. Hence why all that's been floated is a token gesture.
China is still somewhat worried about the UK influence with soft power and have already made a statement to that effect. HK is a litmus test of that.

Together with Western mistrust of the Chinese government and the ensuing business instability / asymmetric trade imbalance, will hurt industry on both sides.

The economic battle lines are being drawn around control and flow of information. Pulling out of Huawei sends a strong global message but the UK needs to tread carefully - if indeed that is even possible.

The Chinese will feel the advances made bringing millions out of poverty in the last 40 years sliding backwards as their economic growth rate achieves parity with longer term Western trends for low single digit expansion. They will need to swiftly develop their internal market now since so much development was funded by the inflow of money from the West.

It remains to be seen how the working class Chinese will react to this as they find jobs disappear and social mobility stagnates. It is little wonder that information about the troubles in HK is almost non existent on mainland China.
1
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by uberteknik)
China is still somewhat worried about the UK influence with soft power and have already made a statement to that effect. HK is a litmus test of that.

Together with Western mistrust of the Chinese government and the ensuing business instability / asymmetric trade imbalance, will hurt industry on both sides.

The economic battle lines are being drawn around control and flow of information. Pulling out of Huawei sends a strong global message but the UK needs to tread carefully - if indeed that is even possible.

The Chinese will feel the advances made bringing millions out of poverty in the last 40 years sliding backwards as their economic growth rate achieves parity with longer term Western trends for low single digit expansion. They will need to swiftly develop their internal market now since so much development was funded by the inflow of money from the West.

It remains to be seen how the working class Chinese will react to this as they find jobs disappear and social mobility stagnates. It is little wonder that information about the troubles in HK is almost non existent on mainland China.
All true. I feel the more interesting point is what will the repercussions be? With many British firms being extremely dependent on access to China from HSBC and Standard Chartered to JLR and so on so forth.
I mean, i still stand by the British government (let alone anyone else) wanting to do more than make a few token gestures out of this but id be happy to be proved wrong on the matter. It would be a particularly bold government to add a fight with China onto the dual horrors of Brexit and Covid though.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How do you feel about your grades? Are they...

What I expected (38)
24.2%
Better than expected (35)
22.29%
Worse than expected (84)
53.5%

Watched Threads

View All