The (PR) Chinese politics thread

[Novus America]

And why is that? Simply because the PRC and the communists had the strength to violate the law and overthrow the ROC.

Which doesn't change the fact that, in the eyes of international law, PRC and not ROC is the representative government of China, with the power to bind China into treaties and the power to engage China's State responsibility and legal liability.

Umm the ROC also has the ability to enter into treaties and contracts, and these are biding on it.

The ROC is buying 66 F-16s from Lockheed Martin. This contract is binding on both the ROC and Lockheed Martin.

See the problem? You completely contradict yourself.

[Novus America]

Spot on explanation, Purgatio. From an international relations perspective, that also fits.

The poll is...wrong.

International law does not have one specific criterion in order for an entity to be recognised as a State. We more or less use the 1933 Montevideo Convention in order to specify the minimum criteria for statehood:

Article 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states

Of course, this creates another situation, one in which both the PRC and the ROC are both legal states. However, the policy of the PRC refusing to engage in relations - at least, formal relations - with countries who establish formal relations with the ROC may indicate that the ROC is becoming slowly unable to fulfil the criterion of having a capacity to enter into relations with other states. If that is the case, the PRC is the sole "China", but the idea that the PRC is "illegal" is simply, from an academic and professional point of view, absurd and laughable, to be honest.

Except you are contradicting Purg, he said their is only one criteria, which is incorrect.
Yes both the PRC and ROC can enter into legal contracts and treaties.
But that contradicts Purg as well.

[Purgatio]

Which doesn't change the fact that, in the eyes of international law, PRC and not ROC is the representative government of China, with the power to bind China into treaties and the power to engage China's State responsibility and legal liability.

Umm the ROC also has the ability to enter into treaties and contracts, and these are biding on it.

The ROC is buying 66 F-16s from Lockheed Martin. This contract is binding on both the ROC and Lockheed Martin.

See the problem? You completely contradict yourself.

1) Where's the contradiction?

2) I've already explained to you, repeatedly, why the argument that Taiwan is an independent State doesn't hold up, for reasons of territorial title and the lack of a right of the territory to external self-determination and UDI in international law. You may disagree with my conclusion on this matter but it definitely doesn't constitute an internal contradiction in my argument.

[Purgatio]

Spot on explanation, Purgatio. From an international relations perspective, that also fits.

The poll is...wrong.

International law does not have one specific criterion in order for an entity to be recognised as a State. We more or less use the 1933 Montevideo Convention in order to specify the minimum criteria for statehood:



Of course, this creates another situation, one in which both the PRC and the ROC are both legal states. However, the policy of the PRC refusing to engage in relations - at least, formal relations - with countries who establish formal relations with the ROC may indicate that the ROC is becoming slowly unable to fulfil the criterion of having a capacity to enter into relations with other states. If that is the case, the PRC is the sole "China", but the idea that the PRC is "illegal" is simply, from an academic and professional point of view, absurd and laughable, to be honest.

Except you are contradicting Purg, he said their is only one criteria, which is incorrect.
Yes both the PRC and ROC can enter into legal contracts and treaties.
But that contradicts Purg as well.

....because they are separate legal issues. My god if you answered a problem question like this in law school it would be an automatic fail (literally). You can't conflate different legal issues.

The debate we were just having was about the legal test for identifying the representative government of a particular State. Vistulange's statement about the PRC and ROC being different States speaks to the question of how and under what circumstances a new State can arise in international law. It means Vistulange agrees with my assessment on the former but takes a different view from me on the latter, which is perfectly fine because they are two completely-separate legal issues.

[Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba]

Spot on explanation, Purgatio. From an international relations perspective, that also fits.

The poll is...wrong.

International law does not have one specific criterion in order for an entity to be recognised as a State. We more or less use the 1933 Montevideo Convention in order to specify the minimum criteria for statehood:



Of course, this creates another situation, one in which both the PRC and the ROC are both legal states. However, the policy of the PRC refusing to engage in relations - at least, formal relations - with countries who establish formal relations with the ROC may indicate that the ROC is becoming slowly unable to fulfil the criterion of having a capacity to enter into relations with other states. If that is the case, the PRC is the sole "China", but the idea that the PRC is "illegal" is simply, from an academic and professional point of view, absurd and laughable, to be honest.

I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that people see the world "legal" in international law to be synonymous with "legitimacy", and they see the word "legiitmacy" as synonymous with "what I believe is right", and therefore the word "legal" in international law becomes associated, in their minds, with "what I believe is right".

Hence, when people say PRC or Beijing is "illegal", what they really mean is "I don't like it". Which is what they should say instead of "illegal", since its more accurate.

They are expressing their personal political views on which nation they support and their is a PRC nation and an ROC nation, so they are both correct, I support the ROC over the PRC.

Despite the legal claim dispute of the PRC China over Taiwan, their is China, Taiwan trade.

Excerpt:
https://tradingeconomics.com/taiwan/balance-of-trade
Taiwan's trade surplus rose to USD 3.57 billion in July 2019 from USD 2.31 billion in the same month a year ago and above market expectations of USD 2.83 billion. Exports decreased 0.5 percent to USD 28.20 billion, dragged down by lower sales of base metals & related articles (-17.7 percent); machinery (-9.6 percent) and plastics & rubber (-10.1 percent). Among major trading partners, shipments fell to Mainland China & Hong Kong (-3.6 percent); ASEAN (-5.2 percent); Japan (-7.7 percent) and Europe (-2.0 percent). Imports dropped 5.4 percent to USD 24.64 billion, amid lower purchases of mineral products (-15.9 percent); machinery (-1.3 percent); chemicals (-12.9 percent) and base metals & related articles (-10.3 percent). Imports went down from ASEAN (-5.4 percent); Japan (-9.5 percent); the US (-8.3 percent); Europe (-3.0 percent) and Middle East (-15.6 percent). Balance of Trade in Taiwan averaged 1629.09 USD Million from 1981 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 6662.67 USD Million in September of 2017 and a record low of -847.44 USD Million in February of 2006.

[Novus America]

Good thing you are not yet a lawyer.
If the PRC collapsed and the ROC took over, the ROC would not be able to automatically invalidate all commercial contracts between private individuals and the PRC, yes.

But that is an entirely different matter than diplomatic recognition.

You're so close to being right here. The legal test for how to determine the government of a country is an "entirely different matter than diplomatic recognition", that is correct, which is why it surprises me you can't make the additional logical link for yourself, but here it is.

The reason your Independent State of Croatia argument doesn't work is because diplomatic recognition is different from the question of which entity is, in the eyes of the law, the representative government of the State, hence liable for all the State's rights and obligations. The two matters are entirely separate in fact. Numerous States can choose, on their own volition, to withhold recognition as a matter of discretionary diplomatic policy, deciding on their own accord that they don't want for whatever reason to recognise a government.

However, that act of recognition is entirely-separate from the legal question of how we determine disputes like which entity can validly-sign future treaties that bind the State, or which entity's conduct can give rise to crystallised customary norms, or which entity has a proprietary right to payments rendered under contracts signed with the State, or which entity's employees enjoy State immunity in international law. These are all legal questions to be resolved based on the application of existing legal criteria and indicia, separate from the question of which entity enjoys greater diplomatic support. Hence there is no contradiction in the cases I've cited and the fact that the Independent State of Croatia lacked widespread diplomatic support, because the two matters are totally different. You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Except that the Independent State of Croatia was never considered to be the government of all territory that used to be Yugoslavia.
Nobody except you ever claimed it was. Yes if it entered into a commercial contract that may have been valid, depending on many factors (the Tinoco case mentions that if the state specifically warns its companies not to engage in contracts with a government the companies may be estopped from enforcing those contracts) but this did not make it the legal government of Yugoslavia for all purposes.
Invading and overthrowing it was not illegal either.

Yes diplomatic recognition and the ability to enter into contracts are not identical as this would cause havoc in contract law, because anyone could invalidate any contract by withdrawing diplomatic recognition.

[Vistulange]

I think the misunderstanding comes from the fact that people see the world "legal" in international law to be synonymous with "legitimacy", and they see the word "legiitmacy" as synonymous with "what I believe is right", and therefore the word "legal" in international law becomes associated, in their minds, with "what I believe is right".

Hence, when people say PRC or Beijing is "illegal", what they really mean is "I don't like it". Which is what they should say instead of "illegal", since its more accurate.

They are expressing their personal political views on which nation they support and their is a PRC nation and an ROC nation, so they are both correct, I support the ROC over the PRC.

Despite the legal claim dispute of the PRC China over Taiwan, their is China, Taiwan trade.

Excerpt:
https://tradingeconomics.com/taiwan/balance-of-trade
Taiwan's trade surplus rose to USD 3.57 billion in July 2019 from USD 2.31 billion in the same month a year ago and above market expectations of USD 2.83 billion. Exports decreased 0.5 percent to USD 28.20 billion, dragged down by lower sales of base metals & related articles (-17.7 percent); machinery (-9.6 percent) and plastics & rubber (-10.1 percent). Among major trading partners, shipments fell to Mainland China & Hong Kong (-3.6 percent); ASEAN (-5.2 percent); Japan (-7.7 percent) and Europe (-2.0 percent). Imports dropped 5.4 percent to USD 24.64 billion, amid lower purchases of mineral products (-15.9 percent); machinery (-1.3 percent); chemicals (-12.9 percent) and base metals & related articles (-10.3 percent). Imports went down from ASEAN (-5.4 percent); Japan (-9.5 percent); the US (-8.3 percent); Europe (-3.0 percent) and Middle East (-15.6 percent). Balance of Trade in Taiwan averaged 1629.09 USD Million from 1981 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 6662.67 USD Million in September of 2017 and a record low of -847.44 USD Million in February of 2006.

Yes, and what Purgatio is trying to explain - to deaf ears, apparently - is that that's fine. However, "legal" and "illegal" are the incorrect words to use when framing an answer or a question, because those words (shockingly) mean something else in the context of states and international law.

And yes, PRC-ROC trade by no means undermines any argument. The PRC does not act as though the ROC simply doesn't exist, or vice versa. The PRC takes the view that it is sovereign over the entirety of China, which in the People's Republic of China's view, also includes the island of Taiwan, which happens to be occupied by another state, which is officially named the Republic of China.

[Novus America]

No again as you being completely wrong on the Independent State of Croatia, effective control alone is not the sole determining factor in all cases.

You cannot pull out a specific contract law ruling and claim it applies to all criminal law cases.

Contract law applies to contracts. Not criminal cases. Not Constitutional law cases, etc.

Dude this is a severe misunderstanding of the law and how legal principles from case law work. Categories in the law like contract law and criminal law are helpful analytically to help understand different areas of law and the judicial authorities within, but they aren't hermeutically-sealed categories. They aren't discrete areas of law where legal principles propounded in one can never apply to cases in the other.

When a judge with jurisdiction lays down binding precedent on a particular legal issue, that legal issue has application in all areas in which that legal issue is salient and relevant and the conditions of application are met, and those conditions of application are not restricted to a sealed area of law as you imply. The easiest example is if a judge decides a contract law case by construing a contract statute by creating a new legal doctrine that is a canon of statutory construction (how to interpret statutes), that canon can be relied upon by lawyers and advocates arguing for a particular interpretation of any other statute, whether its a criminal statute, a constitutional statute, a trust statute, a property statute, so long as the canon or legal principle expounded in the first case bears relevance in the others. That's how you actually interpret case law.

What you are doing right now is a very rookie, rudimentary mistake to the law. Tinoco Arbitration and Woodhouse v. Somalia both factually-concerned commercial contracts between individuals and States, that is true, but the salient, central legal issue in both is this: what is the correct legal test to determine which entity is the representative government of a particular State? Because this was the legal issue that had to be resolved for the factual dispute to be determined one way or the other. The explication of a legal principle to that effect (how to identify the government of a State) can be applied to any situation where the question to be resolved is determining the government of a State, be it the execution of an extradition treaty, determining which entity is allowed to send a diplomat to an international organisation, any legal dispute where the central question to be resolved is how one determines the representative government of a State.

Again, I don't know how to emphasise this enough to you, but you are completely-misunderstanding how the law works. This is not the way you interpret a legal judgment or its ramifications in other cases. It's not a situation where 'oh it's a contract case therefore it can never say anything relevant about a future case in criminal law'. Yes, it can, provided the legal principle expounded in one has application in other areas of law.

Although some areas of law may overlap (contracts, family law and real property for example) you cannot make a sweeping general inviolable rule that applies to all cases just because a certain contract case turns out a certain way.

Legal ability to enter into contracts and treaties does not determine the sole legal government.
Again BOTH the ROC AND the PRC can do so!

[Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba]

They are expressing their personal political views on which nation they support and their is a PRC nation and an ROC nation, so they are both correct, I support the ROC over the PRC.

Despite the legal claim dispute of the PRC China over Taiwan, their is China, Taiwan trade.

Excerpt:
https://tradingeconomics.com/taiwan/balance-of-trade
Taiwan's trade surplus rose to USD 3.57 billion in July 2019 from USD 2.31 billion in the same month a year ago and above market expectations of USD 2.83 billion. Exports decreased 0.5 percent to USD 28.20 billion, dragged down by lower sales of base metals & related articles (-17.7 percent); machinery (-9.6 percent) and plastics & rubber (-10.1 percent). Among major trading partners, shipments fell to Mainland China & Hong Kong (-3.6 percent); ASEAN (-5.2 percent); Japan (-7.7 percent) and Europe (-2.0 percent). Imports dropped 5.4 percent to USD 24.64 billion, amid lower purchases of mineral products (-15.9 percent); machinery (-1.3 percent); chemicals (-12.9 percent) and base metals & related articles (-10.3 percent). Imports went down from ASEAN (-5.4 percent); Japan (-9.5 percent); the US (-8.3 percent); Europe (-3.0 percent) and Middle East (-15.6 percent). Balance of Trade in Taiwan averaged 1629.09 USD Million from 1981 until 2019, reaching an all time high of 6662.67 USD Million in September of 2017 and a record low of -847.44 USD Million in February of 2006.

Yes, and what Purgatio is trying to explain - to deaf ears, apparently - is that that's fine. However, "legal" and "illegal" are the incorrect words to use when framing an answer or a question, because those words (shockingly) mean something else in the context of states and international law.

And yes, PRC-ROC trade by no means undermines any argument. The PRC does not act as though the ROC simply doesn't exist, or vice versa. The PRC takes the view that it is sovereign over the entirety of China, which in the People's Republic of China's view, also includes the island of Taiwan, which happens to be occupied by another state, which is officially named the Republic of China.

As long as their is an PRC China and an ROC China as their is, both answers are correct, it depends on whose side we are, which is part of the topic of this thread.

[Novus America]

Umm the ROC also has the ability to enter into treaties and contracts, and these are biding on it.

The ROC is buying 66 F-16s from Lockheed Martin. This contract is binding on both the ROC and Lockheed Martin.

See the problem? You completely contradict yourself.

1) Where's the contradiction?

2) I've already explained to you, repeatedly, why the argument that Taiwan is an independent State doesn't hold up, for reasons of territorial title and the lack of a right of the territory to external self-determination and UDI in international law. You may disagree with my conclusion on this matter but it definitely doesn't constitute an internal contradiction in my argument.

No, because if as you claim the control of territory is the sole deciding factor is internally inconsistent. The ROC under international law has the legal ability to enter into contracts and treaties.
But that does not automatically determine that it is the sole legal government of all China.

[Purgatio]

Dude this is a severe misunderstanding of the law and how legal principles from case law work. Categories in the law like contract law and criminal law are helpful analytically to help understand different areas of law and the judicial authorities within, but they aren't hermeutically-sealed categories. They aren't discrete areas of law where legal principles propounded in one can never apply to cases in the other.

When a judge with jurisdiction lays down binding precedent on a particular legal issue, that legal issue has application in all areas in which that legal issue is salient and relevant and the conditions of application are met, and those conditions of application are not restricted to a sealed area of law as you imply. The easiest example is if a judge decides a contract law case by construing a contract statute by creating a new legal doctrine that is a canon of statutory construction (how to interpret statutes), that canon can be relied upon by lawyers and advocates arguing for a particular interpretation of any other statute, whether its a criminal statute, a constitutional statute, a trust statute, a property statute, so long as the canon or legal principle expounded in the first case bears relevance in the others. That's how you actually interpret case law.

What you are doing right now is a very rookie, rudimentary mistake to the law. Tinoco Arbitration and Woodhouse v. Somalia both factually-concerned commercial contracts between individuals and States, that is true, but the salient, central legal issue in both is this: what is the correct legal test to determine which entity is the representative government of a particular State? Because this was the legal issue that had to be resolved for the factual dispute to be determined one way or the other. The explication of a legal principle to that effect (how to identify the government of a State) can be applied to any situation where the question to be resolved is determining the government of a State, be it the execution of an extradition treaty, determining which entity is allowed to send a diplomat to an international organisation, any legal dispute where the central question to be resolved is how one determines the representative government of a State.

Again, I don't know how to emphasise this enough to you, but you are completely-misunderstanding how the law works. This is not the way you interpret a legal judgment or its ramifications in other cases. It's not a situation where 'oh it's a contract case therefore it can never say anything relevant about a future case in criminal law'. Yes, it can, provided the legal principle expounded in one has application in other areas of law.

Although some areas of law may overlap (contracts, family law and real property for example) you cannot make a sweeping general inviolable rule that applies to all cases just because a certain contract case turns out a certain way.

Legal ability to enter into contracts and treaties does not determine the sole legal government.
Again BOTH the ROC AND the PRC can do so!

It depends on the rule or the principle in question. If the rule is one that is by design limited in application to contract alone (fresh consideration is not valid consideration for a binding contract) then yeah obviously it won't have an impact on any other field of law. But if the rule is on an issue that is by its very nature general (the entity with efficacious control of territory and population is the representative government of a State) then yeah, that rule has application beyond the facts of the case that generated the rule. That's how legal precedents and authorities work. The principles expounded in a case have to have broader applications beyond the facts of the specific case, otherwise judges would be deciding things de novo every time a new case comes up, which is precisely the chaotic scenario the law tries to avoid.

[Novus America]

Except you are contradicting Purg, he said their is only one criteria, which is incorrect.
Yes both the PRC and ROC can enter into legal contracts and treaties.
But that contradicts Purg as well.

....because they are separate legal issues. My god if you answered a problem question like this in law school it would be an automatic fail (literally). You can't conflate different legal issues.

The debate we were just having was about the legal test for identifying the representative government of a particular State. Vistulange's statement about the PRC and ROC being different States speaks to the question of how and under what circumstances a new State can arise in international law. It means Vistulange agrees with my assessment on the former but takes a different view from me on the latter, which is perfectly fine because they are two completely-separate legal issues.

The test that it is A representative for certain particular purposes. Which is much more complicated a test than you claimed.
And multiple governments for one prior now divided country can be able to enter into contracts under the test.

[Vistulange]

Yes, and what Purgatio is trying to explain - to deaf ears, apparently - is that that's fine. However, "legal" and "illegal" are the incorrect words to use when framing an answer or a question, because those words (shockingly) mean something else in the context of states and international law.

And yes, PRC-ROC trade by no means undermines any argument. The PRC does not act as though the ROC simply doesn't exist, or vice versa. The PRC takes the view that it is sovereign over the entirety of China, which in the People's Republic of China's view, also includes the island of Taiwan, which happens to be occupied by another state, which is officially named the Republic of China.

As long as their is an PRC China and an ROC China as their is, both answers are correct, it depends on whose side we are, which is part of the topic of this thread.

I mean. Yes.

See, it's not exactly "there once used to be a country called China, now there are two, one is illegal, the other is legal, choose your side". As the whole concept of "international law" is looked down upon, ridiculed, mocked, and derided by NSG - rightfully or wrongfully - it's honestly not surprising that people are wholly ignorant of the topic, as they understandably don't see any worth in perusing it beyond a few glances at a relevant Wikipedia page, but then again, formal education regarding a topic has never been regarded highly in NSG, either.

It's a very, very legal debate, one which is mired in debates about how international law works, and how cases are interpreted. Institutions such as the ICJ as well as ad hoc committees and tribunals enter the fray, inevitably, and it becomes a clusterfuck. Then you try to explain it to people who don't give a rat's ass about international law.

Difficult.

[Purgatio]

1) Where's the contradiction?

2) I've already explained to you, repeatedly, why the argument that Taiwan is an independent State doesn't hold up, for reasons of territorial title and the lack of a right of the territory to external self-determination and UDI in international law. You may disagree with my conclusion on this matter but it definitely doesn't constitute an internal contradiction in my argument.

No, because if as you claim the control of territory is the sole deciding factor is internally inconsistent. The ROC under international law has the legal ability to enter into contracts and treaties.
But that does not automatically determine that it is the sole legal government of all China.

I genuinely feel like a broken record by now but

1) Efficacious control is the test for which is the representative entity of a State. It says nothing about whether the putative-State in question is a State in the eyes of international law.

2) The test for whether a putative-State is a State is the declaratory test in the Montevideo Convention, cited with approval in cases like the Badinter Commission's Opinion No. 2, and as part of that test you have to determine what territory the putative-State has legal title to. And in the case of Taiwan, the biggest obstacle to finding Taiwan a separate and independent State is that no one disagrees, not even ROC supporters, that the State of China held territorial title to the island of Taiwan before 1949, so the only way a separate State of Taiwan/ROC could acquire territorial title over the land post-1949 is through a unilateral declaration of independence, which as UNGA Resolution 1514 and Western Sahara Case and Wall Advisory Opinion make clear, at present, international law only recognises one case of external self-determination, namely non-self-governing territories, whether former colonies on the UN list or occupied States like Palestine. Other than that, international law does not recognise a broader right of all territories to UDI because it would conflict necessarily with national sovereignty and the concept of State jurisdiction.

[Novus America]

Although some areas of law may overlap (contracts, family law and real property for example) you cannot make a sweeping general inviolable rule that applies to all cases just because a certain contract case turns out a certain way.

Legal ability to enter into contracts and treaties does not determine the sole legal government.
Again BOTH the ROC AND the PRC can do so!

It depends on the rule or the principle in question. If the rule is one that is by design limited in application to contract alone (fresh consideration is not valid consideration for a binding contract) then yeah obviously it won't have an impact on any other field of law. But if the rule is on an issue that is by its very nature general (the entity with efficacious control of territory and population is the representative government of a State) then yeah, that rule has application beyond the facts of the case that generated the rule. That's how legal precedents and authorities work. The principles expounded in a case have to have broader applications beyond the facts of the specific case, otherwise judges would be deciding things de novo every time a new case comes up, which is precisely the chaotic scenario the law tries to avoid.

Yes, but in this case the ability to enter into contracts is different than being the sole legal government for all purposes.
Again BOTH the PRC and the ROC can enter into legal contracts and treaties!

[Purgatio]

....because they are separate legal issues. My god if you answered a problem question like this in law school it would be an automatic fail (literally). You can't conflate different legal issues.

The debate we were just having was about the legal test for identifying the representative government of a particular State. Vistulange's statement about the PRC and ROC being different States speaks to the question of how and under what circumstances a new State can arise in international law. It means Vistulange agrees with my assessment on the former but takes a different view from me on the latter, which is perfectly fine because they are two completely-separate legal issues.

The test that it is A representative for certain particular purposes. Which is much more complicated a test than you claimed.
And multiple governments for one prior now divided country can be able to enter into contracts under the test.

This is the legal problem you're not grasping. Your statement presupposes that the territory of a unified State is now severed in the eyes of the law. But the determination for whether that has occurred is a separate inquiry from which of several entities is the representative entity of a State, the test of which is efficacious control (but not for the former issue).

Dude you've made this same point several times and I really hope you get it because you keep getting stuck at the same legal misunderstanding over and over again. So let me try again. Whether a State even exists at all is different from which of several rival entities represents the legal personhood of that State, whose existence we've established.

The first issue is governed by the declaratory test in the Montevideo Convention and the rules of international law concerning transfer of territorial title to land. The second issue is governed by the test of efficacious control. The test of efficacious control cannot be transplated wholesale to the first issue because the first and second issues are conceptually-distinct and should not be conflated, as you've already done repeatedly, countless times, in this thread.

[Purgatio]

It depends on the rule or the principle in question. If the rule is one that is by design limited in application to contract alone (fresh consideration is not valid consideration for a binding contract) then yeah obviously it won't have an impact on any other field of law. But if the rule is on an issue that is by its very nature general (the entity with efficacious control of territory and population is the representative government of a State) then yeah, that rule has application beyond the facts of the case that generated the rule. That's how legal precedents and authorities work. The principles expounded in a case have to have broader applications beyond the facts of the specific case, otherwise judges would be deciding things de novo every time a new case comes up, which is precisely the chaotic scenario the law tries to avoid.

Yes, but in this case the ability to enter into contracts is different than being the sole legal government for all purposes.
Again BOTH the PRC and the ROC can enter into legal contracts and treaties!

....no, because if you represent the State, that means you enjoy that State's legal rights and obligations. You can't be a government of China for one issue but not the government of China for another issue. That makes no sense. The government of China means you've assumed the legal personhood of the Chinese State, and you enjoy the Chinese State's legal rights and obligations. You can't segment a State's legal personality and say entity A represents the State on commercial issues but entity B represents the State on military issues. That is completely absurd.

That implies one entity can bind the State in an extradition treaty but a completely-different entity can bind the State in a mutual defense treaty. No. The entity that binds the State is the State's representative agent, and that agent cannot be two different entities simultaneously because its a logical contradiction.

[Greater Miami Shores and La Habana Cuba]

As long as their is an PRC China and an ROC China as their is, both answers are correct, it depends on whose side we are, which is part of the topic of this thread.

I mean. Yes.

See, it's not exactly "there once used to be a country called China, now there are two, one is illegal, the other is legal, choose your side". As the whole concept of "international law" is looked down upon, ridiculed, mocked, and derided by NSG - rightfully or wrongfully - it's honestly not surprising that people are wholly ignorant of the topic, as they understandably don't see any worth in perusing it beyond a few glances at a relevant Wikipedia page, but then again, formal education regarding a topic has never been regarded highly in NSG, either.

It's a very, very legal debate, one which is mired in debates about how international law works, and how cases are interpreted. Institutions such as the ICJ as well as ad hoc committees and tribunals enter the fray, inevitably, and it becomes a clusterfuck. Then you try to explain it to people who don't give a rat's ass about international law.

Difficult.

The PRC China has more official international support than ROC Taiwan, because of mainland China's size, and it's economic and military power due to its size, but most nations including mainland China trade with Taiwan

"See, it's not exactly "there once used to be a country called China, now there are two, one is illegal, the other is legal, choose your side".

Yes this thread is about that and the Poll reflects it.

[Purgatio]

I mean. Yes.

See, it's not exactly "there once used to be a country called China, now there are two, one is illegal, the other is legal, choose your side". As the whole concept of "international law" is looked down upon, ridiculed, mocked, and derided by NSG - rightfully or wrongfully - it's honestly not surprising that people are wholly ignorant of the topic, as they understandably don't see any worth in perusing it beyond a few glances at a relevant Wikipedia page, but then again, formal education regarding a topic has never been regarded highly in NSG, either.

It's a very, very legal debate, one which is mired in debates about how international law works, and how cases are interpreted. Institutions such as the ICJ as well as ad hoc committees and tribunals enter the fray, inevitably, and it becomes a clusterfuck. Then you try to explain it to people who don't give a rat's ass about international law.

Difficult.

The PRC China has more official international support than ROC Taiwan, but most nations including mainland China trade with Taiwan, because of mainland China's size, and it's economic and military power due to its size.

"See, it's not exactly "there once used to be a country called China, now there are two, one is illegal, the other is legal, choose your side".

Yes this thread is about that and the Poll reflects it.

Having a poll on "is PRC legal" is like having a poll on "are murder and rape illegal". Like, the law is a matter of objective right and wrong. You've either interpreted the law correctly or incorrectly, it's not a matter of public opinion. Even if 99% of people voted 'no' to 'are murder and rape illegal', those people would all be wrong. At most, the poll tells us that many people don't understand international law.

[Novus America]

No, because if as you claim the control of territory is the sole deciding factor is internally inconsistent. The ROC under international law has the legal ability to enter into contracts and treaties.
But that does not automatically determine that it is the sole legal government of all China.

I genuinely feel like a broken record by now but

1) Efficacious control is the test for which is the representative entity of a State. It says nothing about whether the putative-State in question is a State in the eyes of international law.

2) The test for whether a putative-State is a State is the declaratory test in the Montevideo Convention, cited with approval in cases like the Badinter Commission's Opinion No. 2, and as part of that test you have to determine what territory the putative-State has legal title to. And in the case of Taiwan, the biggest obstacle to finding Taiwan a separate and independent State is that no one disagrees, not even ROC supporters, that the State of China held territorial title to the island of Taiwan before 1949, so the only way a separate State of Taiwan/ROC could acquire territorial title over the land post-1949 is through a unilateral declaration of independence, which as UNGA Resolution 1514 and Western Sahara Case and Wall Advisory Opinion make clear, at present, international law only recognises one case of external self-determination, namely non-self-governing territories, whether former colonies on the UN list or occupied States like Palestine. Other than that, international law does not recognise a broader right of all territories to UDI because it would conflict necessarily with national sovereignty and the concept of State jurisdiction.

Because you have tied yourself up so badly. I never denied the PRC has the ability to enter into treaties and legally bring contracts.
But again as you admit that does not make it automatically the SOLE legal government of ALL historic China.

The ROC has equal ability to enter into contracts and treaties. Which it does.

So the fact that both are legal entities for that particular purpose does not determine which of the entities deserves to control all historic China (something not agreed on anyways).

True Taiwan does not legally claim de jure independence, it is not de jure Independent but is DE FACTO.
UNGA 1514 is not the only way a government can gain de jure, let alone de facto independence. Taiwan could claim independence if it wanted to by a variety of methods, but of course international law in this area is a contradictory mess. National Sovereignty, Uti possidetis, and Self Determination, all valid legal principles cannot be completely reconciled.

[Vistulange]

Let's make it simple.

Problem A: Is X a state?
Answer A: Does it fulfil the criteria mentioned in the Montevideo Convention? If yes, it is a state; if no, it is not a state.

Problem B: Who is the legal representative of X? The people in Beijing, or the people in Taipei?
Answer B: Which one of those groups of people have efficacious control over the territory (which, in order to satisfy the criterion in the Montevideo Convention, needs to be clearly defined) they claim? Beijing, or Taipei? If it's Beijing, it's the People's Republic of China; if it's Taipei, it's the Republic of China.

Problem A and Problem B are entirely separate questions. Moreover, we have another body in dealing with the event of "disappearance of states", the Arbitration Commission of the Conference on Yugoslavia, established in 1991 to deal with, well, the sudden obliteration of the Yugoslavian state and the huge legal gap that left behind. If the idea is to say that pre-war China simply "dissolved" and became non-existent, the opinions of the Arbitration Commission would become relevant to the argument.

[Novus America]

The test that it is A representative for certain particular purposes. Which is much more complicated a test than you claimed.
And multiple governments for one prior now divided country can be able to enter into contracts under the test.

This is the legal problem you're not grasping. Your statement presupposes that the territory of a unified State is now severed in the eyes of the law. But the determination for whether that has occurred is a separate inquiry from which of several entities is the representative entity of a State, the test of which is efficacious control (but not for the former issue).

Dude you've made this same point several times and I really hope you get it because you keep getting stuck at the same legal misunderstanding over and over again. So let me try again. Whether a State even exists at all is different from which of several rival entities represents the legal personhood of that State, whose existence we've established.

The first issue is governed by the declaratory test in the Montevideo Convention and the rules of international law concerning transfer of territorial title to land. The second issue is governed by the test of efficacious control. The test of efficacious control cannot be transplated wholesale to the first issue because the first and second issues are conceptually-distinct and should not be conflated, as you've already done repeatedly, countless times, in this thread.

You are the one doing the conflating, assuming that it means the PRC is the one true government.
Something that is in dispute.

Yes the PRC and ROC can BOTH enter into legal contracts and treaties. Something I never denied.

[Vistulange]

This is the legal problem you're not grasping. Your statement presupposes that the territory of a unified State is now severed in the eyes of the law. But the determination for whether that has occurred is a separate inquiry from which of several entities is the representative entity of a State, the test of which is efficacious control (but not for the former issue).

Dude you've made this same point several times and I really hope you get it because you keep getting stuck at the same legal misunderstanding over and over again. So let me try again. Whether a State even exists at all is different from which of several rival entities represents the legal personhood of that State, whose existence we've established.

The first issue is governed by the declaratory test in the Montevideo Convention and the rules of international law concerning transfer of territorial title to land. The second issue is governed by the test of efficacious control. The test of efficacious control cannot be transplated wholesale to the first issue because the first and second issues are conceptually-distinct and should not be conflated, as you've already done repeatedly, countless times, in this thread.

You are the one doing the conflating, assuming that it means the PRC is the one true government.
Something that is in dispute.

Yes the PRC and ROC can BOTH enter into legal contracts and treaties. Something I never denied.

Which makes them both states in the legal sense of the word. However, the lack of control by the ROC means that the PRC is the legal representative of the Chinese government, in regards to the law of the matter.

[Purgatio]

I genuinely feel like a broken record by now but

1) Efficacious control is the test for which is the representative entity of a State. It says nothing about whether the putative-State in question is a State in the eyes of international law.

2) The test for whether a putative-State is a State is the declaratory test in the Montevideo Convention, cited with approval in cases like the Badinter Commission's Opinion No. 2, and as part of that test you have to determine what territory the putative-State has legal title to. And in the case of Taiwan, the biggest obstacle to finding Taiwan a separate and independent State is that no one disagrees, not even ROC supporters, that the State of China held territorial title to the island of Taiwan before 1949, so the only way a separate State of Taiwan/ROC could acquire territorial title over the land post-1949 is through a unilateral declaration of independence, which as UNGA Resolution 1514 and Western Sahara Case and Wall Advisory Opinion make clear, at present, international law only recognises one case of external self-determination, namely non-self-governing territories, whether former colonies on the UN list or occupied States like Palestine. Other than that, international law does not recognise a broader right of all territories to UDI because it would conflict necessarily with national sovereignty and the concept of State jurisdiction.

Because you have tied yourself up so badly. I never denied the PRC has the ability to enter into treaties and legally bring contracts.
But again as you admit that does not make it automatically the SOLE legal government of ALL historic China.

The ROC has equal ability to enter into contracts and treaties. Which it does.

So the fact that both are legal entities for that particular purpose does not determine which of the entities deserves to control all historic China (something not agreed on anyways).

True Taiwan does not legally claim de jure independence, it is not de jure Independent but is DE FACTO.
UNGA 1514 is not the only way a government can gain de jure, let alone de facto independence. Taiwan could claim independence if it wanted to by a variety of methods, but of course international law in this area is a contradictory mess. National Sovereignty, Uti possidetis, and Self Determination, all valid legal principles cannot be completely reconciled.

Cannot be reconciled? Of course it can, I'll do it now.

1) National sovereignty is the principle that a State is protected from the illegal use of force on its territory by other States, and is sovereign on all matters falling within its lawful jurisdiction, the primary of which is territorial jurisdiction. Hence, a State has the sovereign right to impose rules governing its jurisdiction, which necessarily-implies that any territory to which a State has territorial title is not entitled to unilaterally-secede and override a State's sovereign laws over that territory.

2) Uti possidetis, 'as you possess', recognised by the ICJ in Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali) holds that when a territory with a right of external self-determination unilaterally-declares independence, the territorial borders of the new State shall follow from its preordinated, predrawn provincial borders

3) External self-determination is a recognised right of both non-self-governing territories (ie former colonies) in Western Sahara Case and former States under unlawful military occupation as recognised in Wall Advisory Opinion. In each of these cases, the reason these territories have a right to declare independence unilaterally is because their territory is not regarded as falling within the sovereign jurisdiction of the parent State, because the parent State lacks territorial title to the land in question and therefore its sovereignty does not entitle it to prohibit a unilateral secession. For example, it is clear from Wall Advisory Opinion that Israel lacks territorial title to the Palestinian territories, and hence Israel's national sovereignty does not extending to governing and imposing its rules on the Palestinian territories. Hence, there is no contradiction between Israel's national sovereignty and the external self-determination of the Palestinian territories.

Once properly understood, these three principles do not conflict at all and do not tie anyone up in knots.

"Because you have tied yourself up so badly. I never denied the PRC has the ability to enter into treaties and legally bring contracts.
But again as you admit that does not make it automatically the SOLE legal government of ALL historic China.

The ROC has equal ability to enter into contracts and treaties. Which it does."

No, no, no, nothing you've just said here is true. Whether Taiwan is a separate State is not determined based on whether the ROC is presently-concluding treaties, since that presupposes the conclusion before the analysis (since for the ROC to conclude an internationalised treaty presupposes that it is the valid representative government of an existing State, you've already presupposed two logical premises that make your conclusion inevitable, which is the hallmark of poor reasoning).

The PRC's ability to enter treaties has nothing to do with whether it is the sole legal government of all of China. Its the other way round. Being the representative government of an existing State is what confers the right to enter treaties on that State's behalf.

[Novus America]

Yes, but in this case the ability to enter into contracts is different than being the sole legal government for all purposes.
Again BOTH the PRC and the ROC can enter into legal contracts and treaties!

....no, because if you represent the State, that means you enjoy that State's legal rights and obligations. You can't be a government of China for one issue but not the government of China for another issue. That makes no sense. The government of China means you've assumed the legal personhood of the Chinese State, and you enjoy the Chinese State's legal rights and obligations. You can't segment a State's legal personality and say entity A represents the State on commercial issues but entity B represents the State on military issues. That is completely absurd.

That implies one entity can bind the State in an extradition treaty but a completely-different entity can bind the State in a mutual defense treaty. No. The entity that binds the State is the State's representative agent, and that agent cannot be two different entities simultaneously because its a logical contradiction.

No it means you CLAIM the legal rights and obligations. You get the obligations but not the necessarily full rights in all cases.
Because your claim is not necessarily binding on other things parties in all cases, although it is binding on you.