maksimum
13.07.06, 06:12
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet
Third-Party views
No country has ever publicly accepted Tibet as an independent state [17], in
spite of several instances of government officials appealing to their
superiors to do so [18]. Treaties signed by Britain and Russia in the early
years of the twentieth century [19] and others signed by Nepal and India in
the 1950s [20], recognized Tibet's political subordination to China. The
Americans presented their view on 15 May 1943
"For its part, the Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact
that...the Chinese constitution lists Tibet among areas constituting the
territory of the Republic of China. This Government has at no time raised a
question regarding either of these claims." [21]
Not a single sovereign state, including India, has extended recognition to
the Tibetan Government-in-exile in the more than two decades of its
existence, despite obvious precedents for such an action. This lack of legal
recognition of independence has forced even some strong supporters of the
refugees to admit that
"...even today international legal experts sympathetic to the Dalai Lama's
cause find it difficult to argue that Tibet ever technically established its
independence of the Chinese Empire, imperial, or republican" [22]
In spite of these circumstances, there recently has been a concerted effort
by lawyers, particularly in the United States, to build a legal case for
Tibetan independence, and there is a growing literature on this topic.
Theoretically, the United Nations recognizes four criteria for statehood: (a)
a permanent population, (b) a defined territory, (c) a government, and (d)
capability of entering into relations with other states. Tibet fulfills those
requirements. However, so does the Canadian province of Quebec and, for that
matter, any state of the United States. [23]
Tak jak Quebec nigdy nie byl niepodleglym panstwem mimo odmiennego jezyka i
kultury.O wloskich czy francuskich kantonach Szwajcarii nie bede wspominal.
