4 ms·
> There isn't any framework where this would be seen as illegal or illegitimate. Doing it just to effectively end "One China, two systems" would absolutely be
by pimmen 7y ago
> There isn't any framework where this would be seen as illegal or illegitimate.
Doing it just to effectively end "One China, two systems" would absolutely be breaking a teaty. Which is illegal.
- BlueonMount 7y agoHK’s security is fundamentally derived from Chinese military power. Mainland soldiers are regularly stationed in HK. This is part of what One China means.
- pimmen 7y agoYes, but if the populations want ”One China, two systems” enforced and the PLA stops that by force, it’s not really about the security of Hong Kong anymore. It’s using the military to subjugate its population rather than protecting them.
- pinkfoot 7y agoPresumably, you are expecting a similar response when the UK breaks the GFA treaty with Ireland? Bombs, sanctions, yes?
- pimmen 7y agoWhat does my theories about International reactions on Brexit and the Irish border have to do with the legality of China using troops to forcefully break another treaty? Would China’s action become legal depending on what I answer?
- pinkfoot 7y agoBecause the current UK government’s Brexit position will cause them to violate the GFA treaty with Ireland. Its the same behavior. I presumed you would have been able to make the leap.
- pimmen 7y agoI understand that, but it has nothing do with whether or not China be using force to break a legal treaty or not. Unless what you really want is to divert the discussion away from whether or not China would be breaking a treaty to cases of other nations breaking treaties.
- echaozh 7y agoHow many treaties have Trump violated? Does anyone want to do something about the US?
- StreamBright 7y agoHow many? I only think of one the Paris agreement that the US has withdrawn from. But that is not a legally binding treaty according to the US officials. "United States officials to regard the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement rather than a legally binding treaty. This removed the requirement for the United States Congress to ratify the agreement.[13] In April 2016, the United States became a signatory to the Paris Agreement, and accepted it by executive order in September 2016"
- rolltiide 7y agosorry, which treaty? The Sino-British Joint Declaration resulted in the enactment of the Basic Law, of which entitles China to provide for military support, intervention, and assumption of administrative functions in Hong Kong. Its not breaking a treaty when you use the provisions of it. The only stipulation of the treaty, an ideological line in spirit, is that the socialist policies are not enacted. All that means is that markets stay open and there are no strings attached when the state provides for you. That has nothing to do with the military entering. And finally, articles 158 and 159 of the Basic Law put the "Standing Committee of the National People's Congress" as the final arbiter and interpreter of the whole thing. It has always been this way, and the rationale for not using it is thinner than ever.