7 ms·

International laws are defined by international community through some Democratic process. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law https://en.m.wikipe

International laws are defined by international community through some Democratic process. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

CogitoCogito 5y ago
> International laws are defined by international community through some Democratic process. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law Which "international law" exactly states that Taiwan is a part of "China"? For example, the UN certainly has never taken that position. (Many people mistakenly believe that UN Resolution 2758 says that, but even a cursory reading of the short resolution shows.)
- newbear1 5y ago
  - zepto 5y ago
    I think it’s clear that there is nothing to support your claim that there is any ‘international law’ that establishes that Taiwan is part of the mainland. It is literally only a position of the CCP and nothing more. As I have pointed out, your account was created three years ago, but was silent until a couple of hours ago, when you have used it only to support the claim that Taiwan is part of mainland China, never commenting on anything else.
    - newbear1 5y ago
      - zepto 5y ago
        > If you want to advance the idea that it's only China mainland had this idea of Taiwan is part of China, then you already made a US centric view that is very likely to be wrong. As I said elsewhere - if you can provide us a link to this international law, we can discuss it, and we can see if I am wrong. As it is, it is clear that there is no international law establishing that Taiwan is part of China, and nothing you can point to. Once again, I will mention that you created this throwaway account 3 years ago, and only activated it in the last few hours to make comments solely supporting the CCP’s claim to Taiwan.
        newbear1 5y ago
        zepto 5y ago
        >> CCP’s claim to Taiwan. > That's China mainland's claim No, it’s the CCP. The CCP is the government of the mainland and it is the government that makes the claim. > throw away accounts have no connection to a particular point of view. If you say so, but then can you explain why you created a throwaway account 3 years ago, only to use it now only for the purpose of defending the CCP’s claim to Taiwan?
        newbear1 5y ago
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        zepto 5y ago
        > CCP/China that's the same thing. You might want separate you cannot separate your head from your body. You contradicted me earlier when I called it the CCP’s claim, so I guess you have changed your mind. > The throw away account. I don't get it. Throw away are created for temporary use. After this episode of chat, this account will disappear. I just have quite a few I created in a whim, and use any one from the Google password manager. Ahh so you created quite a few accounts all at one time, 3 years ago, and you use a different one each time you want to present the CCPs point of view. That makes sense. > Lastly, your reasoning of questioning other's motivation through minor details are really killing the conversation. I’m not questioning your motivation. You have been clear about that. I am simply trying to understand the method. By creating a set of throwaway accounts to use later, you avoid them appearing to be new accounts which show up in green at the time you use them, which makes it less likely people will notice that they are throwaways.
zepto 5y ago
In the multilateral case, recognition of Taiwan by the UN has long been something that China has had veto power over. In the unilateral case, China prevents individual countries from recognizing Taiwan or even implying it’s independence through threats and retaliation. A recent example: https://news.yahoo.com/china-threatened-send-lithuania-garbage-143616488.html https://news.yahoo.com/china-threatened-send-lithuania-garba... The only reason Taiwan is not considered sovereign under international law is because China has prevented it.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > The only reason Taiwan is not considered sovereign under international law is because China has prevented it. Same question as here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29677548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29677548 Which "international law" are you referring to that doesn't consider Taiwan sovereign? Maybe you mean to say that Taiwan/ROC is not a member of the UN? That is true, but it doesn't mean that Taiwan isn't a sovereign country. Switzerland didn't become a sovereign country only in 2002.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Yes, this is a fair point. I was referring primarily to the fact that the UN doesn’t recognize Taiwan as a separate entity and doesn’t give it a seat independently from the mainland - e.g. The WHO has been blocked from doing so by the CCP. But, you are right, this is not the same at all as an ‘international law’ establishing that Taiwan is not a sovereign country.
- newbear1 5y ago
  > In the multilateral case, recognition of Taiwan by the UN has long been something that China has had veto power over. I think you are just stating that that is part of the international law, right? Law is just law. It went to effect for stakeholders agree that they can abide by bits ruling. Texas is not independent because US does not allow that. Right? Because the law dictates that the sovereign power is legally the care giver of a group of population on a land. You are mixing law and self conscience. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/would-war-over-taiwan-be-legal#:~:text=China%20claims%20Taiwan%20is%20part,all%20of%20China%20until%201971 https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/would-war-over.... This is relatively balanced description on the issue. One can certainly see that the politics have made the matter intentionally vague. And nternational law is not necessarily written. It could be some commonly agreed principles. For example, there is no written law says US government can govern the land on here. It's based a certain aggreed upon concepts in people's mind.
will4274 5y ago
Please read the link you included in your comment. There is no connection between democratic process and international law except that some of the nation states themselves are democracies. Note also that capital D Democratic refers to an American political party. Lowercase d democratic is correct for your comment.

International laws are defined by international community through some Democratic process. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

CogitoCogito 5y ago

> International laws are defined by international community through some Democratic process. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law Which "international law" exactly states that Taiwan is a part of "China"? For example, the UN certainly has never taken that position. (Many people mistakenly believe that UN Resolution 2758 says that, but even a cursory reading of the short resolution shows.)

newbear1 5y ago
- zepto 5y ago
  I think it’s clear that there is nothing to support your claim that there is any ‘international law’ that establishes that Taiwan is part of the mainland. It is literally only a position of the CCP and nothing more. As I have pointed out, your account was created three years ago, but was silent until a couple of hours ago, when you have used it only to support the claim that Taiwan is part of mainland China, never commenting on anything else.
  - newbear1 5y ago
    - zepto 5y ago
      > If you want to advance the idea that it's only China mainland had this idea of Taiwan is part of China, then you already made a US centric view that is very likely to be wrong. As I said elsewhere - if you can provide us a link to this international law, we can discuss it, and we can see if I am wrong. As it is, it is clear that there is no international law establishing that Taiwan is part of China, and nothing you can point to. Once again, I will mention that you created this throwaway account 3 years ago, and only activated it in the last few hours to make comments solely supporting the CCP’s claim to Taiwan.
      - newbear1 5y ago
        zepto 5y ago
        >> CCP’s claim to Taiwan. > That's China mainland's claim No, it’s the CCP. The CCP is the government of the mainland and it is the government that makes the claim. > throw away accounts have no connection to a particular point of view. If you say so, but then can you explain why you created a throwaway account 3 years ago, only to use it now only for the purpose of defending the CCP’s claim to Taiwan?
        newbear1 5y ago
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        zepto 5y ago
        > CCP/China that's the same thing. You might want separate you cannot separate your head from your body. You contradicted me earlier when I called it the CCP’s claim, so I guess you have changed your mind. > The throw away account. I don't get it. Throw away are created for temporary use. After this episode of chat, this account will disappear. I just have quite a few I created in a whim, and use any one from the Google password manager. Ahh so you created quite a few accounts all at one time, 3 years ago, and you use a different one each time you want to present the CCPs point of view. That makes sense. > Lastly, your reasoning of questioning other's motivation through minor details are really killing the conversation. I’m not questioning your motivation. You have been clear about that. I am simply trying to understand the method. By creating a set of throwaway accounts to use later, you avoid them appearing to be new accounts which show up in green at the time you use them, which makes it less likely people will notice that they are throwaways.

zepto 5y ago

In the multilateral case, recognition of Taiwan by the UN has long been something that China has had veto power over. In the unilateral case, China prevents individual countries from recognizing Taiwan or even implying it’s independence through threats and retaliation. A recent example: https://news.yahoo.com/china-threatened-send-lithuania-garbage-143616488.html https://news.yahoo.com/china-threatened-send-lithuania-garba... The only reason Taiwan is not considered sovereign under international law is because China has prevented it.

CogitoCogito 5y ago
> The only reason Taiwan is not considered sovereign under international law is because China has prevented it. Same question as here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29677548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29677548 Which "international law" are you referring to that doesn't consider Taiwan sovereign? Maybe you mean to say that Taiwan/ROC is not a member of the UN? That is true, but it doesn't mean that Taiwan isn't a sovereign country. Switzerland didn't become a sovereign country only in 2002.
- zepto 5y ago
  Yes, this is a fair point. I was referring primarily to the fact that the UN doesn’t recognize Taiwan as a separate entity and doesn’t give it a seat independently from the mainland - e.g. The WHO has been blocked from doing so by the CCP. But, you are right, this is not the same at all as an ‘international law’ establishing that Taiwan is not a sovereign country.
newbear1 5y ago
> In the multilateral case, recognition of Taiwan by the UN has long been something that China has had veto power over. I think you are just stating that that is part of the international law, right? Law is just law. It went to effect for stakeholders agree that they can abide by bits ruling. Texas is not independent because US does not allow that. Right? Because the law dictates that the sovereign power is legally the care giver of a group of population on a land. You are mixing law and self conscience. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/would-war-over-taiwan-be-legal#:~:text=China%20claims%20Taiwan%20is%20part,all%20of%20China%20until%201971 https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/would-war-over.... This is relatively balanced description on the issue. One can certainly see that the politics have made the matter intentionally vague. And nternational law is not necessarily written. It could be some commonly agreed principles. For example, there is no written law says US government can govern the land on here. It's based a certain aggreed upon concepts in people's mind.

will4274 5y ago

Please read the link you included in your comment. There is no connection between democratic process and international law except that some of the nation states themselves are democracies. Note also that capital D Democratic refers to an American political party. Lowercase d democratic is correct for your comment.