and you are saying this based on what? Are you making those comment out of your imagination again? Look when Kubilai Khan became Khan, Mongolian capital wasnt even in China, it was in central Asia, Karakorum (Harhorin). around 15years later, he moved his capital to Beijing (Dadu). you are telling me he accepted chinese life style and he spoke chinese better than Mongolians? When Kubilai Khan became Khan of Mongol he was 44 years old. (he was 64years old when he became Emperor of Yuan) He was born in Mongolia, grew up there in traditional nomadic tribe. (isnt it kinda too old to speak foreign language better than his native lagnuage?) He didnt accept any Chinese life style, instead he tried to seperate Mongolian and Chiense traditions and language as much as possible, Its easy to tell, just look at his policies. Mongolian language was official language and Chinese were forbidden to learn Mongolian language so Chinese couldnt work for the government. Kubilai Khan made hPags-pa Lodoi Jaltsan's script as Yuan Dynasty's official script. Chinese were forbidden to bear arms,and required to scrape and bow to Mongols and all other non Chinese. Kubilai Khan divided people in China into four groups. 1st class Mongols 2nd class Non Chinese foreigners 3rd class Northern Chinese 4th class Southern Chinese So basically most people around Kubilai Khan was non chinese or mongolians except some chinese artist and buddist monks. why in the world Kubilai Khan needed to speak Chinese?
When are you going to address the argument concerning the legal status of Taiwan instead of this irrelevant discussion on Kubilai Khan. I don't have all of my historical sources handy on this one, but once I dig them up, I will cite them for you. Now, back to the topic. There are still some unanswered points. Answer them.
Why most chinese talk something they dont even really know but act like they know and make up stuffs out of their imagination? That was my point. When there's problem, there's 2 side to listen. I was just bringing up other side of thoughts since there's no Taiwanese here.
That's exactly what you have been doing. You really don't know anything about Taiwan and China, you make your comments based on your imagination.
you are not that bright to understand the point here. Someone tried to justify occupying Tibet, Uighur and other areas cuz they are Chinese by citizenship and their ethnic background isnt important. That same person says Taiwan should be part of China cuz they are Chinese in ethnic. Does this make sense to you? basically you are saying Taiwan was open terriroty just like northern america was? Do you know how much that sounds ignorant? Europeans had that attitude, so whenever they explored world, they labeled native people as 'barbarians' so their land was open territory. Northern american indians had countries like Miriwake. (it was probably most developed country in that region)
What part of my comments were based on just imagination? state those here, I'll prove it wasnt just imagination.
maybe to you and some chinese its irrelevant. people tend to mix up their thoughts with some facts to cover up so they can fool other people. I was questioning reliability of your statement by proving some of it wrong. In some of (not all) your comments, you commented something you dont know but acted like you know.
According to international law as practiced at the time, it was. Like it or not, but you have to deal with that.
Actually, yes there was. By the seventeenth century, a rather elaborate system of international law was already developed among Western countries and an equally elaborate system (though in many respects considerably different) had also developed in the east. As it is, traditionally (prior to World War II), there were four ways a state could gain territory. 1. Accretion: Basically, if your territory expanded by natural means, you add that to your territory. Examples include the territory added every year to the US State of Louisiana as the Mississippi River Delta adds land every year. Another example was the creation of the island of Surtsey off the coast of Iceland by volcanic means. 2. Occupation: A state can occupy previously unoccupied territory "terra nes relluis" and claim it as its own. Australia, North America and parts of Asia were claimed in this way. 3. Cession: This is when one state cedes territory to another state by agreement (generally by a treaty or treaty-like mechanism). 4. Conquest: The simple brute taking of territory from another state. This at times occurs along with a cession, though it isn't required. If occupation of Taiwan as a "terra res nullius" territory doesn't work for you, than acquisition by conquest also works according to international law.
Making comments just out of imagination again? give me such international law(not common law like "sea dont belong to no one") during 17th century please? are you confused with Treaty between few countries and international law? Treaty only applied to countries who made treaty not others.
I think you really have to put more effort on researching. US added territory with treaties it wasnt anything close to accretion. US purchased Louisiana from France, Florida from Spain, after Mexico-US war, US made treaty with Mexico to purchase western states from Mexico, Alaska from Russia.
LOL Acquisition by conquest works according to international law?? what kind of international law is that?? then why UN even bothered to kick Iraq out of Kuwait? Why am I wasting time here? I dont know.. if you just wanna talk, keep doing it.
I suppose you are not familiar with the Peace of Westphalia (1648) which formalized many of the customs of international relations which had developed over the preceding couple of centuries.
You really have poor reading comprehension. I was referriing to the Mississippi River and its flow into the Gulf of Mexico. This flow deposits silt into the Mississippi Delta which actually increases the size of the State of Louisiana by a few square feet every year. This had NOTHING to do with the Louisiana Purchase (which was legally acquisition by cession).
As a matter of fact, yes. Prior to the new regime of international law that was established with the establishment of the League of Nations, and later the United Nations, yes, conquest was considered a legal way to expand ones domains. This has a long history both in Europe and Asia. You need to take a basic course in the history of international law. You are displaying your ignorance of such in this thread.
It doesnt look like Im not the one who needs basic course of history and laws. You are definately confused international law with common law and law of nature. Check definition of international law btw. or do I have to waste time to explain one by one?
Like I said, You are confused treaty with international law. That peace treaty was just between Holy Roman empire and Frace (+allies)after 30yrs of religious war. did this treaty have any effect on Arab world?
it was just law of nature. Strong eats, Weak gets eaten. There was no such international law that allows it. and it was never LEGAL.
jamisont - You have no understanding of what you are talking about. Conquest was definately a legitimate means of expanding your territory under traditional international law. I suppose I shall have to dust off my old textbooks from the graduate seminar I took on this topic several years ago.
The Peace of Westphalia is considered the beginning of the international state system in European politics. In this Peace, as well as many of the meetings among European powers that followed it, European international law became codified. As for treaties and international law, treaties are a major source for international law, especially during this early development of it in the Western world.
jamisont - I will dust off some of my old international law texts and articles that were used in the seminar I took several years ago to prove you wrong if that is what you require. You are way off base on this one. Look all over Europe and Asia and you see its legitimacy. I suppose Bavaria is not a legitimate part of Germany then, as the Prussians conquered it in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War. I suppose Brittany, Burgundy, and Alsace-Lorraine aren't legitimately a part of France. I suppose Scotland and Northern Ireland are not legitimate parts of the United Kingdom. Do I have to go on to show how rediculous your argument is? In Asia, how about the southward expansion of Viet Nam, taking territory from the Cham and Khmer states to create their current boundaries. How about Myanmar and their conquest of territory? China conquered a whole bunch of territory, most of what is now southern China was conquered during the Qin and Han Dynasties. Are you now going to argue that they are not a legitimate part of China? How about the northward expansion of the Japanese? Then their taking of the Kingdom of the Ryukyus? Please. Before making any kind of claim that conquest was not considered a legitimate means of expanding your territory before the 20th century, you will have to explain all of these (and many more).
Still can't get over this post. If you can't tell the difference between Chinese and Bumiputeras in Malaysia, then I can't help you any further. Same here in Taiwan. I can tell very easily a Taiwanese aboriginie when I see one. You can tell from their skin color and their facial features. It is almost as easy as telling the difference between white people and black people back in the U.S.
Look you dont even understand what 'international law' means. What is definition of International law? answer this first before you go on other trashes.
look, you are the one who's way off here. There was no such law that prohibit or allow countries from conquoring others. It doesnt mean it was allowed or legal just because they could do it. even in these days, there are lot of grey areas in law system. People who knows about law well, they take advantage of those situation. But they dont say its legal or allowed, they all say its not against law. You dont seems to distinguish differences between those two.