5 ms·

A sovereign can change it's mind. It's the whole point of being sovereign. Not saying I like what they did (I don't).

azinman2 11mo ago
Except they had an agreement for 50 years to keep it that way. So basically what you mean is anyone can change their mind, which means agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Then why would anyone agree to anything?
- 0x3f 11mo ago
  I don't really like what China did with Hong Kong, but some things you surely agree transcend 'contracts' or normative behavior. I can't, for example, agree to be murdered in exchange for money. I might also lie to protect my children from the local murderer, or in any other case where I'd consider the outcomes 'extereme'.
- dist-epoch 11mo ago
  Sovereigns can withdraw from agreements. It's the whole point. The only thing you can do about it is shaming them, sanctioning them, going to war if you really care, ...
  - rileymat2 11mo ago
    And importantly, not agree to future agreements. Outside of war, that's the ultimate punishment.
  - B1FF_PSUVM 11mo ago
    "Pray I do not alter it further." (some obscure movie quote, probably Mark Twain or Lincoln)
- tyre 11mo ago
  Because the British didn’t have much of a choice. It would have been better for Hong Kongers if they’d kept it, but alas here we are.
- ekunazanu 11mo ago
  > Agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Pretty much. They are only as effective as the body trying to enforce it. The entire point of being a sovereign nation is nobody can force you to do anything. Now it is in a nation's self interest to not violate agreements and get along nicely, but sometimes the calculus changes and the punishment may not outweigh the benefits.
- kevin_thibedeau 11mo ago
  The agreement was BS imposed by their colonizer. Why would anyone bother to abide by such terms when there are zero consequences for canceling them?
derektank 11mo ago
This was a joint agreement between two sovereigns. You’re correct to say that it’s within the power of a sovereign to reneg on their word, but it’s a violation of international law and the UK would have every right as a sovereign itself to seek redress through whatever means it deems appropriate.

Except they had an agreement for 50 years to keep it that way. So basically what you mean is anyone can change their mind, which means agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Then why would anyone agree to anything?

0x3f 11mo ago
I don't really like what China did with Hong Kong, but some things you surely agree transcend 'contracts' or normative behavior. I can't, for example, agree to be murdered in exchange for money. I might also lie to protect my children from the local murderer, or in any other case where I'd consider the outcomes 'extereme'.
dist-epoch 11mo ago
Sovereigns can withdraw from agreements. It's the whole point. The only thing you can do about it is shaming them, sanctioning them, going to war if you really care, ...
- rileymat2 11mo ago
  And importantly, not agree to future agreements. Outside of war, that's the ultimate punishment.
- B1FF_PSUVM 11mo ago
  "Pray I do not alter it further." (some obscure movie quote, probably Mark Twain or Lincoln)
tyre 11mo ago
Because the British didn’t have much of a choice. It would have been better for Hong Kongers if they’d kept it, but alas here we are.
ekunazanu 11mo ago
> Agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. Pretty much. They are only as effective as the body trying to enforce it. The entire point of being a sovereign nation is nobody can force you to do anything. Now it is in a nation's self interest to not violate agreements and get along nicely, but sometimes the calculus changes and the punishment may not outweigh the benefits.
kevin_thibedeau 11mo ago
The agreement was BS imposed by their colonizer. Why would anyone bother to abide by such terms when there are zero consequences for canceling them?

derektank 11mo ago

This was a joint agreement between two sovereigns. You’re correct to say that it’s within the power of a sovereign to reneg on their word, but it’s a violation of international law and the UK would have every right as a sovereign itself to seek redress through whatever means it deems appropriate.