Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

ABA International Chinese Law Group - Some thoughts on Tibet

Expand Messages
  • Melissa Wu
    ... From: Melissa To: CHRSJ@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:12:10 -0400 Subject: Fwd: Tibet-informal and fragmented comments
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 17 6:14 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Melissa <manne1208@...>
      To: CHRSJ@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:12:10 -0400
      Subject: Fwd: Tibet-informal and fragmented comments from a Chinese
      international law teacher

      I am a member of the ABA International China Law group. There has
      been some very interesting and passionate debate about China and Tibet
      lately, so I thought I would forward to the group to get some
      thoughts. Thank you.

      Melissa Wu

      ---------- Forwarded message ----------
      From: Gerven, Dirk Van <Dirk.VanGerven@...>
      Date: Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 6:37 AM
      Subject: Re: Tibet-informal and fragmented comments from a Chinese
      international law teacher
      To: INTCHINALAW@...


      Dear All,

      I have been following this email exchange with growing interest. I
      tend to agree that this email exchange in itself is useful. Lawyers of
      different cultures are part of the Chine Law Committee, and the
      exchange of opinions permits a better understanding of the views of
      the others.

      The first reply of Yang Hong is equally interesting, and I thank him
      for his opinion in this. I disagree when it is said that Yang Hong
      "insulted many intelligent experts here". In this type of discussions
      there is always emotion involved, but this makes it so much more
      interesting, because it permits cultural differences to come to the
      surface. And any process of finding common ground begins with trying
      to understand the different opinions as they are embedded in different
      cultures.

      It goes without saying that Europe and the United States have in the
      past been involved in actions which were not necessarily in accordance
      with the law, and clearly dictated by their own interest. And it may
      be argued that this also applies to today politics. In general,
      countries tend to take decisions in their own interest, and on
      occasions this results in actions which unduly harm the interests of
      other countries and populations. Even a small country as Belgium is
      not different in this respect (I practice law in Brussels, Belgium).

      Of course, in this committee we should be discussing the issues from a
      legal point of view and not from the point of view of the policy of
      each country. But any legal analysis, especially those related to
      issues of state law and international law, are necessarily also
      determined by personal opinions which are coloured by the culture to
      which the person expressing his opinion belongs. This makes it so much
      more interesting.

      I will keep following this email exchange further. Maybe it would be
      good at some point in time to try to come to a summary of the
      different opinions and from such summary try to come to a few
      suggestions of how we can bring this discussion to proposals.

      Kind regards,


      Dirk Van Gerven
      NautaDutilh BVBA/SPRL

      Partner
      T +32 2 566 81 14
      F +32 2 566 81 15
      M +32 495 515 765
      E: dirk.vangerven@...



      From: ABA International - China Law Committee Discussion
      [mailto:INTCHINALAW@...] On Behalf Of yanghong
      Sent: Thursday 17 April 2008 10:58

      To: INTCHINALAW@...
      Subject: Re: Tibet-informal and fragmented comments from a Chinese
      international law teacher

      Dear all

      I'm quoting the following messages as they are actually
      representing two contrasting views. Actually my "fragmented" and kind
      of agreesive opinions below have generated a few feedbacks, publicly
      and personally, and supporting or reservingly opposing. I'm glad that
      they were all made with detailed explanations and understanding and
      respect for China.
      I need to thank Mr.Hay for his comments, which I believe are
      objective and rationale. I need to also thank some other participants
      whose views are not here but from whose ways of analyzing I can see
      more reasoning and discussions, rather than arbitray belief that PRC
      has invaded the whole land illegally. I should say that I do respect
      Nima Taylor's feedbacks and discussions with Chen Gu, because they are
      conducted with efforts to quote facts and analyze facts respecting the
      opposite side' feelings. These approaches are really civilized ways,
      and Nimmer Taylor represents a good example of a civilized Tibetan,
      who is no difference as you, me or most peopele outside the discussion
      list...

      I want to also thank Mz Rozovics for her views.

      When I'm writing this letter, I got a newest mail from someone,
      showing strong dissatisfaction about my words. For sake of him or
      her,I don't want to extract his or her name and after consideration
      even not one sentence from the mail.The writer told me to stop writing
      in this way, because I have insulted many intellegent experts here,
      who have done great contributions to international law. --Ok, experts
      are never ready to be critisized.I hope I won't be such an expert.
      Besides, the writer believed my words are too far to appear on a list
      server. Ok, maybe I should say sorry for some of my words, but only if
      when the words do hurt someone. I believe some do have the ability to
      tolerate it, just I need to learn to have the ability to tolerate the
      mention of "invading" and "illegality" by PRC government.(To clarify,
      the writer of "illegality" is not writer of that accusing mail, and
      I'm not liking the two, just showing examples) Anyway, I'll say sorry
      when someone's got hurt, but I shouldn't do it automaticaly just for I
      said what I really thought.

      As I used to see Mr. Clarke's words that discussion were conducted
      in a civilized way...But I was told that I'm behaving beyond the
      tolerance degree? Maybe my words are a little bit personal and not so
      warm, but I think they are within discussion, rather than attacks or
      assauts...In all, I won't feel ashamed for being passionate or excited
      for some issues, and I believe this is the essence of a "debate". I
      won't feel sorry for introducing views for debating. But I do feel
      disappointed that someone got hurt by my words in such a way that it's
      believed that my words are beyond the tolerance of the list...I hope
      not, and if most of you feel so,do let me know and I'll voluntarily
      cancel my attendence of the list. What is the scope of a discussion,
      the degree of a debate being heated for such issue as political ones?
      Maybe this also is worth a disussion.



      Yours Sincerely

      Yang Hong

      Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:38:45 +0800
      From: whay@...
      Subject: Re: Tibet-informal and fragmented comments from a Chinese
      international law teacher
      To: INTCHINALAW@...

      Dear all,



      It seems to me that increasing passion may be in danger of
      obscuring reason in this debate.



      International "law" is full of examples where more than one
      culture is subsumed in one nation, and where one culture is divided
      among many nations. Let's take North America, for example. By any
      standard, the absorption of lands held by Mexico as well as those held
      by native peoples by the US government during the 19th century failed
      to meet the standards of civilized behavior which the international
      community now expects of its members. Yet no one is seriously
      suggesting their return to their original owners and their status as
      US territory is secure under international law. By the same token,
      Canada â€" which draws its culture from the same English well as does
      the United States (leaving Quebec aside for the moment) â€" is secure in
      its status as a sovereign state.



      Whatever its stage of democracy, China surely is a sovereign
      state, comprising a territory that without a doubt includes Tibet.
      Just as moral arguments won't restore parts of the US to their former
      owners, moral arguments are not sufficient to create an independent
      Tibet. Rather, autonomy for the Tibetan people must come, if at all,
      from within the structures of the Chinese state, as the Dalai Lama
      himself recognizes. As foreign observers, our role can only be to
      support and encourage this process, not to dictate from an imaginary
      position of moral superiority. And we must realize that the Chinese
      government needs to manage much more than Tibetan autonomy. No large
      country on earth has changed as quickly as China has in the last
      generation. The economic, cultural and political changes that have
      resulted present the government with numerous difficult challenges, of
      which the Tibetan situation is but one among many.







      From: ABA International - China Law Committee Discussion
      [mailto:INTCHINALAW@...] On Behalf Of Alex Calvo
      Sent: April 14, 2008 4.08 am
      To: INTCHINALAW@...
      Subject: Re: Tibet-informal and fragmented comments from a Chinese
      international law teacher



      Dear Sir,



      I don't recall this having been previously mentioned in this
      debate, but now that you have taken up the issue, of course it is true
      "the whole China was invaded after world war 2 by the PRC forces,
      making the whole government an illegal one", since the Chinese
      Communist Party, just like any other communist party, has never
      acceded to power by means of democratic elections, and the resulting
      government is therefore illegitimate.



      The fact that the regime has been finally recognised by most
      countries of the world, including leading democracies like the US,
      should not make us forget that more people died under Mao than under
      Hitler or Stalin.



      We shouldn't forget, either, that the regime survived in part
      thanks to the foolish restrictions placed on UN forces in Korea, which
      prevented General MacArthur from com achieving complete victory over
      the aggressors.



      "First I was forbidden 'hot' pursuit of enemy planes that attacked
      our own. Manchuria and Siberia were sanctuaries of inviolate
      protection for all enemy forces and for all enemy purposes, no matter
      what depredations or assaults might come from there. Then I was denied
      the right to bomb the hydroelectric plants along the Yalu. The order
      was broadened to include every power plant in North Korea which was
      capable of furnishing electric power to Manchuria and Siberia. Most
      incomprehensible of all was the refusal to let me bomb the important
      supply center at Racin, which was not in Manchuria or Siberia, but
      many miles from the border, in northeast Korea. Racin was a depot to
      which the Soviet Union forwarded supplies from Vladivostok for the
      North Korean Army. I felt that step-by-step my weapons were being
      taken away from me." MACARTHUR Douglas, Reminiscences, Annapolis,
      Naval Institute Press, 2001, p. 365.



      How can one be neutral in the face of dictatorship? there is
      something about which I have no doubts, one day democracy will
      flourish in China, and communism will be just a nightmare from the past.









      yanghong <newhongy@...> wrote:

      Dear Madams and Sirs,

      I'm a lecturer teaching International Law in a University
      in Shanghai, China. As a Chinese, after I occassionaly read some of
      your comments below, I think I have to raise some of my points
      representing in my belief most of Chinses scholars' view. The views
      are just personal and informal as they are made under inspiration
      rather than in form of a paper, which briefly includes:

      1. Don't you think on the one hand you are talking seriously
      about International Law as a "law" but on the other hand you are clear
      in you deeper heart that the so called law is only policy tools and
      dipomatic tricks played by your government, rules and concepts
      building of which are far from maintaining logics and integrity as
      they are in your domestic law system? ____please see following
      relevant reasoning.

      2. Official standings of the U.S or Britain as Mz Loza
      mentioned are only political games rather than legal rules, not to
      mention sources of international law.(Hopefuly all of you are clear
      what international law is) I agree that in formation of a government
      or country, admissions of other countries'may constitute legal
      evidence, but this doesn't itself promote these governments' views
      have been raised to the sources of international law. This is
      especially so when you are talking only about two countries, the U.S
      and the Britain.

      3. I would provide just one example: The U.S government's
      official stands regarding Tibet. It had dramatic changes just around
      the time of establishment of PRC government. Prior to the 1940s, the
      U.S government has always acknoledged that Tibet is one integral part
      of Chinese Sovereignty. Just around PRC was founded, the U.S
      dramatically changed its foreign policy regarding Tibet. What are the
      legal basis behind that? Don't you think it's allible bit too much
      coincidence. The doubtful changes may be established if you say that
      the U.S doesn't regard PRC as a legitimate government. But it's
      apparent that your government is having official relations with China
      without any doubt of its legal status.
      Generally, are the U.S foreign policies changes also
      change the international law by itself? So that before 1949 there were
      not much international critisisms about Tibet's status but after that
      if suddenly comes that China's "invading" Tibet.
      As it's not academic paper I don't think I need to give
      detailed quotations here but I can still give you some hints,official
      reply from governmental official (Mrs Bacon) of your own countries
      states that in the U.S wording, no distinct line between Suzerainty
      and Soverignty as two terms differentiated in the Britain English.
      Taking this into account, before 1940s, the U.S had alsayw acceded
      that Tibet is integral part of China. Foreign Relations of the United
      States. 1949.China. [Z].Washington D C. United States Government
      Printing Office.1973.P1066. This was also demonstrated in
      Tieh-Tseng Li. The Historical Status of Tibet. [M]King’s
      Crown Press. Columbia University. New York.1956.P215.

      4. Emilie Loza's mention of "invasion" to Tibet in 1950 --see
      below: I just want to ask whether this is an official view or a view
      that has any reasonable support. Suppposing it's true under this
      logic, then the whole China was invaded after world war 2 by the PRC
      forces, making the whole government an illegal one. Because Tibet
      before 1950 was in basically the same conditions as any other part of
      China being under control of Republic of China. PRC took over from
      Republic of China each part of the country with totally the same art:
      revolution and domestic war. Tibet is no exception in this regard and
      has nothing different from the land of Shanghai talking of theri being
      taken over from one government to the other.

      I just wonder as scholars or legal professionals why it's
      yet so difficult for you to keep a neutral mind. Why is it so hard for
      you to try to jump out of benefits of your own country and look at
      issues from really "international" stand. Were you in China before or
      how many times and how long? Do you really understands China or
      Chinese? Do you really understand even a little bit part of the 5000
      years histry of the people that never ceases in China? Do you even
      know meaning of Chinese when you are talking about such a historical
      and complex political issue? I feel really disappointed that as so
      called open and democratic cultural people, you still are caring about
      your own benefits so much and try every effort to make facts distorted
      or reasonsings illogically logical looking in order to protect so
      called national benefits. If you can not rebut that those never were
      in the utmost mind and egoisticism,I would hold that my feelings are
      reasonable. Sorry for possible offending because I'm really upset and
      aroused by such one-way inclining discussions.

      Yang Hong
      Ph.D candidate, East China University of Politics and Law




      Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 06:35:51 -0600
      From: eloza@...
      Subject: Re: Tibet
      To: INTCHINALAW@...

      This is an interesting legal question, particularly in light
      of current events.



      As I read and understand the term, "suzertainty" refers to a
      principle first seen in feudal law and later used in more modern (late
      1800s) positive law in which one country is a vassal state to other.
      Parts of the Ottoman Empire, e.g., Egypt, Bulgaria, Romania, and
      others, were organized this way.



      The vassal is described as an independent state that gives up
      some, but not all, of its autonomy to the suzerain state in exchange
      for certain obligations flowing back to the vassal state.



      See an excellent summary of the history of the term
      "suzertainty" with references at
      http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Suzerainty.



      I also sketched out a partial timeline of the historical
      development of Tibet's legal status, as highlighted below. Unraveling
      the legal status of Tibet takes one through the period of British
      colonialism in the region and later through one or more treaties
      between Britain and imperial Russian, later cancelled by the Communist
      government, and through the 1950 invasion by China of Tibet to the
      present day.



      One discussion, attributed to Sir Algemon Rumbold, President
      of the Tibet Society of the United Kingdom from 1977-1988, says that
      Britain treated Tibet as an independent state from 1910, but stated in
      1912 and again 1943 that it acknowledged the suzertainty of China in
      Tibet, but on the condition that Tibet's autonomy was respected. The
      latter is cited Memorandum from Sir Anthony Eden to the Chinese
      Foreign Minister, T.V. Soong, FO371/93001 (May 8, 1943).



      Some say that Tibet initially declared independence in 1912, a
      position apparently agreed by the British government, which treated
      Tibet as independent from 1910 or from 1912, depending on the
      commentator. Others say that that 1912 and two subsequent
      declarations, at least through 1965 or so, did not amount to
      declarations. See Alfred P. Rubin, Tibet's Declarations of
      Independence, 60 AM. J. INT'L L. 812-14 (1966).



      The 1914 Simla Convention between Great Britain and Tibet
      established or purported to establish internationally-recognized
      boundaries, the McMahon Line, for an independent Tibet. China refused
      that Convention, and Sir Rumbold writes that it was a that point that
      Tibet repudiated China's suzertainty.



      On September 19, 2006, the Declaration of Independence of the
      Nations of High Asia: Tibet, East Turkistan and Inner Mongolia was
      made in Washington, D.C. at the Capitol Building.



      Emile Loza, JD, MBA

      Managing Attorney & Founder

      Technology Law Group, LLC
      2215 West State Street

      Boise, Idaho USA 83702

      Telephone: +1.208.939.4472

      Web: www.technologylawgroup.com



      Intellectual Property • International • Internet •
      Technology Legislation



      From: ABA International - China Law Committee Discussion on
      behalf of Alex Calvo
      Sent: Wed 4/9/2008 3:16 AM
      To: INTCHINALAW@...
      Subject: Re: Tibet

      The word usually employed to describe the status of Tibet vis
      a vis China prior to invasion is suzerainty, not sovereignty.



      Qiang Bjornbak <qbjornba@...> wrote:

      Dear Don:


      Thanks a lot for clarification. Now let us start the legal
      discussion of Tibet. Is this a part of China or an independent country
      according to international law?

      Best

      Donald Clarke <dcclarke@...> wrote:

      As the administrator of the Chinalaw listserve, let me
      note that it is for discussion of issues of Chinese law. This by no
      means excludes discussions relating to Tibet or the Olympics, but
      postings should be about legal issues and not, for example, general
      observations about the Sino-US relationship.



      Information on joining the listserve is here:
      www.chinalawlist.org



      Best wishes,



      Don Clarke



      ================================
      Donald C. Clarke
      Professor of Law
      George Washington University Law School
      2000 H Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20052
      Email: dclarke@...
      Web site: http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dclarke/
      Blog: http://chineselawblog.net

      "The Vanity of teaching often tempteth Man to forget he is
      a Blockhead."
      --George Savile, 1st marquess of Halifax
      ================================

      ----- Original Message -----

      From: Qiang Bjornbak

      To: INTCHINALAW@...

      Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 10:14 PM

      Subject: Fwd: RE: Beijing Olympic and Sino-US relationship



      Dear All:

      I want to forward the message from co-chair of China
      Committee and state that the whole message is my personal view only.
      It has nothing to do with CHina COmmittee.

      Later on, if you want to express some opinion, do not
      use this list serve.


      Please use the following list serve. It is more active
      and informative.


      CHINALAW@...


      Best

      Qiang






      Note: forwarded message attached.

      Qiang Bjornbak Esq.
      Vice Chair of ABA China Committee
      Chair of LACBA International Law Section Membership
      and Outreach Committee

      523 West 6th Street, # 701
      Los Angeles, CA 90014
      213 239 9730

      1811 South Del Mar Avenue, # 213-215
      San Gabriel, CA 91776
      626 288 6388

      www.qianglaw.com

      You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one
      month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.




      Qiang Bjornbak Esq.
      Vice Chair of ABA China Committee
      Chair of LACBA International Law Section Membership and
      Outreach Committee

      523 West 6th Street, # 701
      Los Angeles, CA 90014
      213 239 9730

      1811 South Del Mar Avenue, # 213-215
      San Gabriel, CA 91776
      626 288 6388

      www.qianglaw.com

      You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month
      of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.



      Yahoo! for Good helps you make a difference



      ç"¨ Windows Live Spaces 展示个性自æˆ'ï¼Å'与好å
      ‹åˆ†äº«ç"Ÿæ´»ï¼ äº†è§£æ›´å¤šä¿¡æ ¯ï¼




      Yahoo! for Good helps you make a difference -------------- To be
      removed from this ABA International Law committee "opt-in" discussion
      list, send an email to INTCHINALAW-unsubscribe-request@...
      or use the following link:

      http://www.abanet.org/abanet/common/email/listserv/listcommands.cfm?parm=unsubscribe&LISTGROUP=INTCHINALAW
      --------------
      -------------- To be removed from this ABA International Law
      committee "opt-in" discussion list, send an email to
      INTCHINALAW-unsubscribe-request@... or use the following
      link:
      http://www.abanet.org/abanet/common/email/listserv/listcommands.cfm?parm=unsubscribe&LISTGROUP=INTCHINALAW
      --------------


      "七件武器,七种完美" 立刻ä½"验!

      NautaDutilh
      Advocaten Avocats Lawyers

      Chaussée de la Hulpe 177/6 Terhulpsesteenweg
      Brussels, Belgium
      www.nautadutilh.com

      This e-mail is confidential and is intended for use by the indicated
      addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
      us immediately and delete this e-mail, as well as any attachments.

      NautaDutilh, société civile sous la forme d'une SPRL, RPM 0479.249.878
      (Bruxelles)
      NautaDutilh, burgerlijke vennootschap onder de vorm van een BVBA, RPR
      0479.249.878 (Brussel)

      NautaDutilh SPRL is registered in Brussels, Belgium; RPM/RPR
      0479.249.878. All legal relationships with NautaDutilh SPRL are
      governed by Belgian law. Competent courts: Brussels. Our general
      terms and conditions can be viewed at www.nautadutilh.com.

      Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.