> This is a modern re-interpretation of inter-state conflict. In the past it was widely accepted that states could resolve disputes via war. By that standard, t

> This is a modern re-interpretation of inter-state conflict. In the past it was widely accepted that states could resolve disputes via war. By that standard, the UK could indeed keep HK indefinitely. By that standard PRC could send their military and take over Hong Kong and then keep it indefinitely. In a direct conflict UK would lose and they probably knew that which is why they left voluntarily. > A post-WWI agreement, called the Kellog-Briand Pact, sets the state for multilaterism, and outlaws war for conquest. This later develops into non-recognition of illegal conquests, war crimes, etc. This pact seems to be historically insignificant. US has been using war as an instrument of national policy quite frequently. Same for Russia and before that Soviet Union. And other countries. So why not China? > So, in contrast to HK, Tibet will never be part of China. But at the moment China is too rich, and Tibet to inconsequential, for anyone to make a big deal over it. Tibet is definitely a part of China though. For example, on Google Maps I don't see Tibet marked as a separate nation. It's part of China according to biggest online maps provider.