Timeline for Does any international law support the claim that "Taiwan's independence or not should be decided by Taiwanese people, not by any other country"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24, 2022 at 22:55 | comment | added | Silvassy Petrirov | The assertion that "there is no settled law international law on declaring independence" is rather asinine since it presumes there would be any body to enforce it. Most things in international law are enforced because high party's subject themselves to international courts like arbitrators which typically provides guarantees to those wanting to do business with them that they would act fairly. When things escalated to the threat of military interventions, its typically beyond the point when the aggressor has much care about such "courts". | |
| Aug 23, 2022 at 15:55 | comment | added | user3553031 | Also, even most places that have been "independent" for a very long time have successfully defended that independence on various occasions, which falls under my third bullet-point. To pick on England again, they successfully fended off a number of attempts by France to assert dominance over them (and France did the same to them). | |
| Aug 23, 2022 at 15:50 | comment | added | user3553031 | Well, I did say "most" :). Also, if you go back far enough in history, even the recent occupiers have been occupied by someone. Take England: they were a disunited set of tribes with at most weak central leadership, then invaded by Rome in the 1st century. They were became independent again a few hundred years later by abandonment (an unusual situation), were invaded by Angles and Saxons, had a complicated series of wars with the Danes, were invaded by Normans, then started invading everyone else. But England, or something like it, has been "independent" since the Romans left in 410. | |
| Aug 23, 2022 at 12:07 | comment | added | IMSoP | Your last section is a bit confusing, because it implies that "independence" is always created by expelling or repelling occupiers. Surely it's possible for a modern state to exist that has never been occupied, but has been independent as far back as we can recognise "states"? Most obviously, states that have generally been the occupiers rather than the occupied remain independent. | |
| Aug 23, 2022 at 1:01 | history | edited | user3553031 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 69 characters in body
|
| Aug 23, 2022 at 0:54 | history | edited | user3553031 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| S Aug 23, 2022 at 0:48 | review | First answers | |||
| Aug 23, 2022 at 3:45 | |||||
| S Aug 23, 2022 at 0:48 | history | answered | user3553031 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |