> so in fact there is an enormously strong legal case to justify their influence and power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canad

> so in fact there is an enormously strong legal case to justify their influence and power over lands that they never legally ceded to British Columbia or Canada Not that i think this is a good thing, but arguably since this is all pre world war 2, wouldn't the land, in absence of a treaty, be british by right of conquest? Like its a pretty recent development in international law that you actually have to get the other side to ceed land. Most of history was brutal and violent with might makes right.