He was from professor of international relations at the London School of Economics LSEand subsequently professor emeritus there Fred Halliday's many books include Political Journeys: The Rise and Fall of the Sixth Great Power Palgrave Macmillan, Two current and high-profile events - the crisis in and around Tibet following the Lhasa riots of 14 Marchand the sixtieth anniversary of the establishment on 14 May of the state of Israel - have more in common than it may first appear.
Inthe Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, faced years of international outcry and fighting with U. InChina invaded Tibet, and by Tibet remains an occupied country. An examination of pertinent international law reveals that the answer is negative. Tibet, like these other nations, was a sovereign state, prior to its invasion and annexation.
As such it is entitled to govern itself. This article will examine each in turn. An analysis of the occupied tibet status Perspective While China claims that Tibet has always been a part of China, Tibet has in fact a history of at least years of independence from China.
The treaty reads in part: The whole region to the East of that being the country of Great China and the whole region to the West being assuredly the country of Great Tibet, from either side there shall be no warfare, no hostile invasions, and no seizure of territory And in order that this agreement establishing a great era when Tibetans shall be happy in Tibet and Chinese shall be happy in China shall never be changed, the Three Jewels, the body of Saints, the sun and the moon, planets and stars have been invoked as witnesses.
China claims today that Tibet and China during that time became one country by virtue of the Mongols domination of both nations. In evaluating this claim it must first be remembered that virtually all of Asia was dominated by the Mongols under Kublai Khan and his successors, who ruled the largest empire in human history.
Secondly the respective relationships between the Mongols and the Tibetans and between the Mongols and the Chinese must be examined.
These two relationships were not only radically different in nature but they also started and ended at different times. China was militarily conquered by the Mongols, while the Tibetans and the Mongols established the historically unique "priest-patron" relationship, also know as "cho-yon".
The Tibetans and Mongols have always shared a close racial and cultural affinity. The Mongol aristocracy had converted to Buddhism and sought spiritual guidance and moral legitimacy for the rule of their vast empire from the Tibetan theocracy.
In turn Tibetans promised loyalty to the Mongol empire. The Mongol Tibetan relationship was thus based on mutual respect and dual responsibility.
In stark contrast, the Mongol Chinese relationship was based on military conquest and domination. The Mongols ruled China, while the Tibetans ruled Tibet. Mongol influence in Tibet waned and eventually ceased with the decline of the Mongol empire in the mid- 14th century.
Inthe Dalai Lama established another cho-yon relationship, this time with the Manchu Emperor who, in conquered China and established the Qing Dynasty.
Inthe Manchus, fulfilling their role as protectors of Tibet, at the request of the Tibetans, entered Lhasa and helped the Tibetan government solidify its position following an occupation by the Dzungar Mongols.
While the cho-yon relationship may have been formalized in writing in by treaty, no evidence of the treaty remains. By the middle of the 19th century, Manchu influence in Tibet had waned considerably as the Manchu empire began to disintegrate.
In and the Manchus were incapable of responding to Tibetan calls for assistance against repeated Nepalese Gorkha invasions. The Tibetans drove back the Gorkhas with no assistance and concluded bi-lateral peace treaties. In the Tibet Mongol relationship came to its final end with the fall of the Manchu dynasty.
Tibet formally declared its independence in and continued to conduct itself as a fully sovereign nation until its invasion by China in Tibet governed itself without foreign influence, conducted its own foreign affairs, had its own army and operated its own postal system.
Tibet enjoyed de facto recognition by its neighbors as well as by Britain, with whom Tibet entered into a series of treaties regarding travel and trade. Effect of the Chinese Invasion Tibet was an independent state at the time of the Chinese invasion and, under international law, states are presumed to remain in existence until that assumption can be rebutted.
China is unable to show that it has legally acquired title to Tibet since the forceful annexation. Ina Tibetan delegation to Beijing signed the so-called Seventeen-Point Agreement through which Tibet was to control its internal affairs but cede control over external affairs to China.
The delegation was forced to sign the agreement under threats of violence and was denied an opportunity to consult Lhasa beforehand. The delegation informed the Chinese that they had no authority so sign such an agreement and did not have the official government seals needed to formalize the treaty.
Upon learning of the treatyLhasa immediately telegraphed Beijing to declare that the treaty was unacceptable. It is also important to note that Chinese troops were occupying large parts of Tibet at the time this treaty was signed. Since this treaty was signed under duress it was null and void since, according to Article 52 of the Vienna Conventions of the Law of Treaties, any agreement signed under duress is void.
Furthermore, China began to violate the terms of the agreement immediately following its signing. Forceful annexations are in violation of international law.
Article 2 4 of the United Nations Charter expressly prohibits annexation by force.In the article below, he explains Tibet's legal status.
The People's Republic of China (PRC) claims that Tibet is an integral part of China. The Tibetan Government-in-Exile maintains that Tibet is an independent state under unlawful occupation.
Book Description: Tensions over the "Tibet Question"—the political status of Tibet—are escalating every day. The Dalai Lama has gained broad international sympathy in his appeals for autonomy from China, yet the Chinese government maintains a hard-line position against it.
Legal an analysis of the status of occupied tibet under international law Framework; Government Practices; Abuses by Foreign Forces and Nonstate Actors. 6 In the current session of the UN General Assembly, all an analysis of the five important events in history EU member states are voting for an analysis of how categorizing is positively or.
- Tibet Abstract The purpose of this paper is to give a descriptive account of the current atrocities being implemented by the Communist Chinese in the unlawfully occupied state of Tibet and the events, political and militant, that gave rise to these events since Communist Invasion and occupation in Tibet Abstract The purpose of this paper is to give a descriptive account of the current atrocities being implemented by the Communist Chinese in the unlawfully occupied state of Tibet and the events, political and militant, that gave rise to these events since Communist Invasion and occupation in The history of Tibet from to the present started with the Chinese People's Liberation Army Invading Tibet in Before then, Tibet had declared independence from China in In , the Tibetans signed a seventeen-point agreement reaffirming China's sovereignty over Tibet and providing an autonomous administration led by Dalai Lama.