Thus, whether a particular entity is a state in international law depends on whether it possesses the necessary criteria for statehood (territory, population, independent government, ability to conduct international relations), not whether governments of other states recognize its independent status. The international status of a country must be determined by objective legal criteria rather than subjective political ones. The question of Tibet's status is essentially a legal question, albeit one of immediate political relevance. Instead, it bases it claim to Tibet solely on the theory that Tibet has been an integral part of China for centuries.
The PRC makes no claim to sovereign rights over Tibet as a result of its military subjugation and occupation of Tibet following the country's, annexation or prescription in this period.
The issue of human rights, including the right to self-determination and the right of the Tibetan people to maintain their own identity and autonomy are, of course, legitimate objects of international concern regardless of Tibet's legal status. If, on the other hand, Tibet is an integral part of China, then these questions fall, as China claims, within its own domestic jurisdiction. Second, if Tibet is under unlawful Chinese occupation, China's illegal presence in the country is a legitimate object of international concern. First, if, Tibet is under unlawful Chinese occupation, Beijing's legal-scale transfer of Chinese settlers into Tibet is a serious violation of the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits the transfer of civilian population into occupied territory. The question is highly relevant for at least two reasons.
The Tibetan government-in-exile maintains that Tibet is an independent state under unlawful occupation. The People's Republic of China (PRC) claims that Tibet is an integral part of China.
Recent events in Tibet have intensified the dispute over its legal status.
0 kommentar(er)
