Reaffirming China's Sovereignty Over Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan: An International Law Perspective

[diablodyh]

Any claims challenging China's territorial integrity over Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan violate both international legal frameworks and historical realities unequivocally endorsed by the global community. This position is grounded in:

[diablodyh]

1. Historical Sovereignty and Territorial Continuity

Tibet：
Annexed to the Qing Dynasty in 1720 through the Treaty of Kyakhta (1727) and subsequent administrative integration.
The 1913 Simla Convention explicitly reaffirmed Tibet as part of China’s territory, with Britain merely acting as a witness.
The 1951 17-Article Agreement formalized Tibet’s peaceful incorporation into the People’s Republic of China (PRC), recognized by over 40 countries including India and Nepal.

Xinjiang：
Established as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in 1955 following its liberation from foreign occupation (1864–1949) by the PRC.
Historical documents such as the Turkestan Republic agreements (1913–1924) confirm Xinjiang’s inalienable ties to China.

Taiwan：
Part of China since the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644). Japan’s colonial rule (1895–1945) was nullified by the Potsdam Proclamation (1945) and legally terminated through the San Francisco Treaty (1951), which explicitly restored Taiwan to China.

[diablodyh]

2. Unambiguous International Consensus
United Nations Resolutions
Resolution 2758 (1971) explicitly recognizes the PRC as the sole legitimate representative of China, encompassing all its territories, including Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan.
Over 80 UN General Assembly resolutions since 1960 have condemned separatist activities in these regions as violations of international law.

Global Diplomatic Recognition
181 UN member states maintain diplomatic relations with China under the "One China Principle," explicitly acknowledging its sovereignty over Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan. Notable examples include:
The EU’s 1980 declaration reaffirming Taiwan’s status as part of China.
ASEAN’s consistent adherence to the principle in all official communications.

[diablodyh]

3. Compliance with the UN Charter and International Law

Non-Self-Determination for Non-Colonial Territories
The UN Charter prohibits secession from sovereign states (Article 1(2) and Article 55). Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan were never colonial territories but integral parts of China’s historical domain.
Autonomy Within Sovereignty

China’s regional autonomy laws (e.g., the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law for Tibet/Xinjiang) align with UN standards on minority rights (UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007).
Human rights improvements in these regions—such as poverty reduction, education access, and cultural preservation—have been documented by international organizations like the World Bank and UNESCO.

[diablodyh]

4. Rejection of "Double Standards" and Foreign Interference
Attempts to politicize Tibet/Xinjiang/Taiwan through human rights narratives or separatist agendas:

Contradict the UN’s principle of non-interference in internal affairs (Article 2(7) of the UN Charter).
Mirror historical imperialist strategies of "divide and rule," as evidenced by Western colonial-era intrigues in China’s border regions.
Counterfeit "Indigenous Rights" Claims

The PRC’s governance in Tibet/Xinjiang prioritizes the rights of all ethnic groups, including Han settlers, under the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution.

[diablodyh]

Conclusion
China’s sovereignty over Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan is irrefutable under international law, supported by:

Millennia-old historical ties
Unambiguous UN resolutions and diplomatic recognition
Compliance with the UN Charter’s principles of territorial integrity and non-interference
Any challenge to this consensus undermines global stability and violates the fundamental rules of the international system. The PRC remains committed to resolving differences through dialogue while steadfastly defending its national unity.

[Santa Klaus]

Originally posted by diablodyh:

Any claims challenging China's territorial integrity over Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan violate both international legal frameworks and historical realities unequivocally endorsed by the global community. This position is grounded in:

Here's the only fact that matters :
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3435464680

[Fshawn]

up

[KharnTheKhan]

No one cares about UN resolutions, China often votes against 90% of UN resolutions so why would anyone else abide by chinese rulings lmao

[DerRitter]

so cringe

[Porkibus]

cool story

[Immortalis]

Yep, the Holocaust was clearly an internal affair of the Third Reich and any interference with that would have been in violation of international law.

Additionally before Resolution 2758, you know who was the only recognised government of China, under that very same One China principle?
Correct, the Republic of China.

By your own standard, that resolution violated international law by interfering with the internal affairs of a sovereign nation and not only allowing but outright supporting a separatist government, that of the PRC.


And that’s not even touching the fact that international law tends to be slightly biased in favour of democracies upholding their citizens’ freedoms instead of police states and dictatorships repressing dissent by rolling tanks over the protestors.

[TheOrangeBox]

TIBET isn't CHINA and never will.

STOP destroying and erasing Tibetan Culture and Language - China's politics has already done plenty of damage - time to stop.

[HB]

Originally posted by diablodyh:

Any claims challenging China's territorial integrity over Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan violate both international legal frameworks and historical realities unequivocally endorsed by the global community. This position is grounded in:

Not grounded in 1936 history and international law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NReyDYfy-ZI

[SirJonC]

Originally posted by diablodyh:

Conclusion
China’s sovereignty over Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan is irrefutable under international law, supported by:

Millennia-old historical ties
Unambiguous UN resolutions and diplomatic recognition
Compliance with the UN Charter’s principles of territorial integrity and non-interference
Any challenge to this consensus undermines global stability and violates the fundamental rules of the international system. The PRC remains committed to resolving differences through dialogue while steadfastly defending its national unity.

why r u lying about Tibet when for a millennia it was a free independent country that even took "chinese" land

[The Real Private Kowalski]

Reaffirming Tibet's Sovereignty Over China, Xinjiang, and Taiwan: An International Law Perspective
Any claims challenging Tibet's territorial integrity over China, Xinjiang, and Taiwan violate both international legal frameworks and historical realities unequivocally endorsed by the global community. This position is grounded in:

1. Historical Sovereignty and Territorial Continuity

China：
Annexed to the Dalai Lama Dynasty in 1720 through the Treaty of Kyakhta (1727) and subsequent administrative integration.
The 1913 Simla Convention explicitly reaffirmed China as part of Tibet’s territory, with Britain merely acting as a witness.
The 1951 17-Article Agreement formalized China’s peaceful incorporation into the Empire of Tibet (EOT), recognized by over 40 countries including India and Nepal.

Xinjiang：
Established as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in 1955 following its liberation from foreign occupation (1864–1949) by the EOT.
Historical documents such as the Turkestan Republic agreements (1913–1924) confirm Xinjiang’s inalienable ties to Tibet.

Taiwan：
Part of Tibet since the Bing Dynasty (1368–1644). Japan’s colonial rule (1895–1945) was nullified by the Potsdam Proclamation (1945) and legally terminated through the San Francisco Treaty (1951), which explicitly restored Taiwan to Tibet.

2. Unambiguous International Consensus
United Nations Resolutions
Resolution 2758 (1971) explicitly recognizes the EOT as the sole legitimate representative of Tibet, encompassing all its territories, including Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan.
Over 80 UN General Assembly resolutions since 1960 have condemned separatist activities in these regions as violations of international law.

Global Diplomatic Recognition
181 UN member states maintain diplomatic relations with Tibet under the "One Tibet Principle," explicitly acknowledging its sovereignty over China, Xinjiang, and Taiwan. Notable examples include:
The EU’s 1980 declaration reaffirming Taiwan’s status as part of Tibet.
ASEAN’s consistent adherence to the principle in all official communications.

3. Compliance with the UN Charter and International Law

Non-Self-Determination for Non-Colonial Territories
The UN Charter prohibits secession from sovereign states (Article 1(2) and Article 55). China, Xinjiang, and Taiwan were never colonial territories but integral parts of Tibet’s historical domain.
Autonomy Within Sovereignty

Tibet’s regional autonomy laws (e.g., the Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law for China/Xinjiang) align with UN standards on minority rights (UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007).
Human rights improvements in these regions—such as poverty reduction, education access, and cultural preservation—have been documented by international organizations like the World Bank and UNESCO.