3 ms·
The terms of the treaty state anything about the relative strength of each nation?
by eloisius 6y ago
The terms of the treaty state anything about the relative strength of each nation?
- wwwwwwwww 6y agoI tell you a secret: The CCP doesn't actually care about the rules of international law. Who is gonna stop them? Nobody.
- arcticbull 6y agoThis is the problem restated, yes, and that’s what we’re talking about.
- orange_tee 6y agoNeither does the US or the UK or any other country that actually matters. And btw there is no such thing as international law.
- sbdisns 6y agoI mean, you’re right, however most constitutions, including the US, put treaty obligations as equal in force of law.
- sbdisns 6y agoBut that’s how treaties work. We’re just upset we’re not the ones breaking treaties anymore. Ironically, the treaty was signed because the British pretended they were in a Position to unilaterally re-negotiate a previous treaty obligating them to return HL. The Chinese had no obligation to sign the 1980s treaty to get HK back, and were hardly intimidated by the UK’s 1980s military might to do so (I mean an British admiral said about the Falkland war: “if not for a few defective fuses we would have lost”. Against Argentina. Pretty pathetic) The UK was delusionaly saying it might not give HK back to commies (understandable sentiment, surely) and the commies signed something to let the Brits save face. About HK: There’s nothing we can do. Deluding ourselves that there is weakens us We must contain the CCP, but HK is not it.
- verroq 6y agoThe relative strengths of the nations help to dictate the terms. Treaty of Nanking was signed after the defeat of the Qing army, you think the terms were favourable to the Qing Emperor?