CHINA'S LIABILITY?

There is law, and form, but the majority of the planet is craven and will only accuse such powers that it understands will not commit to wholesale retribution against them, but they will step in line behind their favorite whipping boy/protector with their greedy hands extended when it stands up to collect.
A cost benefit analysis, which factors in the costs of a potential pandemic every 10 years, would sugggest the old rules no longer apply. Equally, people travelling from the UK to Singapore, HK or swanning about for a conference or business meeting at the drop of a hat, need to pack it in and enter the 21st century and do things virtually.
 
Sky News Australia last week was reporting that China was already using the crisis to buy up assets cheaply. SNA commentator was demanding that China shouldn't be allowed to buy up Australian firms that were struggling due to the crisis caused by China. That makes sense to me, but will the powers that be take along hard look at our relationship with China and wind it in? It looks like Donald Trump is the only one prepared to do that, and at best he only has another five years to do it.
Informative, but doesn't surprise me at all.... Business considers itself international, until the s*** hits the fan and suddenly become national for handouts. China is exploiting the greed of globalists and leveraging its production costs to force us to change and compromise ourselves.

Personally, I appreciate its not a popular view. But I lost interest in western ideological purity when it argued that tianmen square was just a blip to be ignored, whereas first saddam and now assad are uniquely evil. My view is all are bad and our side are compromised hypocrites and why were so disliked in much of the world.
 
The UN, International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility, and the International Health Regulations it is signatory to.

Everyone will like taking all that Chinese investment in their infrastructures til now as their own without having to "pay", as reimbursement for the troubles caused even more.
The UN that has China sat on its permanent security council? Which court is going to tell China its needs to do something and then enforce it?

Everyone will continue to take that Chinese investment, because money talks.
 
Last edited:
'
The last 24 hours have seen the Covid19 narrative – blamestormed as the cause of stock market collapse, with the finger being pointed at Beijing – unravelling on several fronts. Alongside this, several contradictions in the PaniCovid ‘lockdown’ approach look suspiciously unlikely to live up to either death-rate predictions or promises of efficacy.

Specifically, the Chinese have added more detail in relation to World Military Games in China of last October.

The 300-stong US contingent stayed at the Wuhan Oriental Hotel. It is located a mere 300 meters from the Huanan Seafood Market, where China’s outbreak began.

Five of US troopers developed a fever on October 25, and were taken to an infectious-diseases hospital for treatment. Very rapidly, 42 employees of the Oriental Hotel were diagnosed with COVID-19. At the time, only 7 people from the market were thus diagnosed, though they were treated first. All 7 had contact with the 42 from the hotel.

The most sensational part of this account, however, is that prior to the Games, the American team had trained at a location near Fort Detrick – the military’s viral lab that was hastily closed down following ‘various deficiencies’.

The Beijing Government’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi, on releasing this information, formally asked US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for an explanation.

Immediately afterwards Pompeo went over Wang’s head and phoned Yang Jiechi, Chinese state councillor in charge of foreign affairs. Pompeo “begged” Yang not to release the details shown above. They have since been leaked. Pompeo has yet to respond.'

Is this Robo gen, or just grist to the conspiracy theory mill?
 
The UN that has China sat on it permanent security council? Which court is going to tell China its needs to do something and then enforce it?

Everyone will continue to take that Chinese investment, because money talks.
Maybe our national government should start to tax those profits from dubious regimes ? and maybe, the likes of apple should be paying the costs of covid.
 
The power of a government-controlled economy.

'A Chinese government-backed property giant has secretly raided in bulk Australia’s supplies of masks, hand sanitiser, antibacterial wipes and essential medical supplies and shipped them back to China.

'The Greenland Group, which manages high-end real estate projects in Sydney and Melbourne, proactively drained Australian supplies of anti-coronavirus equipment, The Sydney Morning Herald reported. Three million surgical masks, 500,000 pairs of gloves and bulk supplies of sanitiser and wipes were bought up in Australia and other countries where Greenland operates.

'While the bulk purchases and shipping were perfectly legitimate, the goods shipped in bulk to China include the very items that have been in short supply for Australian citizens as well as health professionals. They were accumulated at Greenland’s Sydney headquarters and sent to China over weeks in January and February.

'As coronavirus locked down Wuhan, the global Fortune 500 company put its normal work on hold and instructed staff in Australia, Canada, Turkey and elsewhere to source supplies. Pallet loads of items including thermometers and 700,000 hazmat suits were sent to China, the Herald reported. Greenland deployed its HR staff members, contract managers and others away from their desks to go out and amass as many of the items as possible.'


And we want to put their technology in our 5G network?
 
The UN that has China sat on its permanent security council? Which court is going to tell China its needs to do something and then enforce it?

Everyone will continue to take that Chinese investment, because money talks.
Already answered in the article...

...
No one expects that China will fulfill its obligations, or take steps required by the law of state responsibility. So, how might the United States and other nations vindicate their rights? The legal consequences of an internationally wrongful act are subject to the procedures of the Charter of the United Nations. Chapter XIV of the charter recognizes that states may bring disputes before the International Court of Justice or other international tribunals. But the principle of state sovereignty means that a state may not be compelled to appear before an international court without its consent. This reflects a general proposition in international law, and its fundamental weakness.

Still, injured states are not without remedy. Barring any prospect for effective litigation, states could resort to self-help. The law of state responsibility permits injured states to take lawful countermeasures against China by suspending their own compliance with obligations owed to China as a means of inducing Beijing to fulfill its responsibilities and debt (Article 49). Countermeasures shall not be disproportionate to the degree of gravity of the wrongful acts and the effects inflicted on injured states (Article 51). The choice of countermeasures that injured states may select is wide open, with only minimal limitations. For example, countermeasures may not involve the threat or use of force or undermine the human rights of China (Article 50). Except for these limitations, however, the United States and other injured states may suspend existing legal obligations or deliberately violate other legal duties owed to China as a means to induce Beijing to fulfill its responsibilities and address the calamitous damages it has inflicted on the world.

The menu for such countermeasures is as limitless as the extent that international law infuses the foreign affairs between China and the world
, and such action by injured states may be individual and collective and does not have to be connected explicitly to the kind or type of violations committed by China. Thus, action could include removal of China from leadership positions and memberships, as China now chairs four of 15 organizations of the United Nations system. States could reverse China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, suspend air travel to China for a period of years, broadcast Western media in China, and undermine China’s famous internet firewall that keeps the country’s information ecosystem sealed off from the rest of the world. Remember that countermeasures permit not only acts that are merely unfriendly, but also licenses acts that would normally be a violation of international law. But the limitations still leave considerable room to roam, even if they violate China’s sovereignty and internal affairs, including ensuring that Taiwanese media voices and officials are heard through the Chinese internet firewall, broadcasting the ineptness and corruption of the Chinese Communist Party throughout China, and reporting on Chinese coercion against its neighbors in the South China Sea and East China Sea, and ensuring the people of China understand the responsibility of the Chinese Communist Party in unleashing a global contagion.
 
Already answered in the article...

...
No one expects that China will fulfill its obligations, or take steps required by the law of state responsibility. So, how might the United States and other nations vindicate their rights? The legal consequences of an internationally wrongful act are subject to the procedures of the Charter of the United Nations. Chapter XIV of the charter recognizes that states may bring disputes before the International Court of Justice or other international tribunals. But the principle of state sovereignty means that a state may not be compelled to appear before an international court without its consent. This reflects a general proposition in international law, and its fundamental weakness.

Still, injured states are not without remedy. Barring any prospect for effective litigation, states could resort to self-help. The law of state responsibility permits injured states to take lawful countermeasures against China by suspending their own compliance with obligations owed to China as a means of inducing Beijing to fulfill its responsibilities and debt (Article 49). Countermeasures shall not be disproportionate to the degree of gravity of the wrongful acts and the effects inflicted on injured states (Article 51). The choice of countermeasures that injured states may select is wide open, with only minimal limitations. For example, countermeasures may not involve the threat or use of force or undermine the human rights of China (Article 50). Except for these limitations, however, the United States and other injured states may suspend existing legal obligations or deliberately violate other legal duties owed to China as a means to induce Beijing to fulfill its responsibilities and address the calamitous damages it has inflicted on the world.

The menu for such countermeasures is as limitless as the extent that international law infuses the foreign affairs between China and the world
, and such action by injured states may be individual and collective and does not have to be connected explicitly to the kind or type of violations committed by China. Thus, action could include removal of China from leadership positions and memberships, as China now chairs four of 15 organizations of the United Nations system. States could reverse China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, suspend air travel to China for a period of years, broadcast Western media in China, and undermine China’s famous internet firewall that keeps the country’s information ecosystem sealed off from the rest of the world. Remember that countermeasures permit not only acts that are merely unfriendly, but also licenses acts that would normally be a violation of international law. But the limitations still leave considerable room to roam, even if they violate China’s sovereignty and internal affairs, including ensuring that Taiwanese media voices and officials are heard through the Chinese internet firewall, broadcasting the ineptness and corruption of the Chinese Communist Party throughout China, and reporting on Chinese coercion against its neighbors in the South China Sea and East China Sea, and ensuring the people of China understand the responsibility of the Chinese Communist Party in unleashing a global contagion.
So nothing is going to happen then.
 
Personally, I appreciate its not a popular view. But I lost interest in western ideological purity when it argued that tianmen square was just a blip to be ignored, whereas first saddam and now assad are uniquely evil. My view is all are bad and our side are compromised hypocrites and why were so disliked in much of the world.
I came to that conclusion after Budapest.
 
Hhmmm. I cannot for one minute believe that China will ever accept any responsibility for this virus. If you think that aunty Gladys keeling over will get her family members a payout from the Chinos, you are smoking some bad sh!t man.
They are acting like they are saving the world at the moment.

Two things could of, should have happened back in January.

1) China should have handed over the real metrics in the infection rates and closed their borders, nothing in or out.
2) The rest of the world should have closed their borders too.

Then all we would be facing would be a shortage of chinese manufactured goods instead of a global pandemic, every "civilised" country under defacto house arrest and economic ruin all round.

The idiots who let China buy up the bond market 20 years ago handed them the keys to the prison. China can never be held accountable because they can dump currency to devalue and create an inflation disaster for their enemies.
 
Down stream of China perhaps... but no absolution for China for its active deceit in violation of the Articles of The International Health Regulations it is signatory to, establishing its liability for proper action and notification. It expressly chose to violate several of The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility, establishing more than enough evidence of ill action and intent, which has created this "superiour force."

If legal action cannot extract a "full restitution" monetary settlement as provided under Article 31, then there are other means provided for to extract some restitution from China, from suspending any obligations to them all the way up to booting China out of any UN leadership positions they currently hold.
Maybe I'm missing something, but Article 31 deals with international travel.

I think you're drawing a very long bow.
 
Sky News Australia last week was reporting that China was already using the crisis to buy up assets cheaply. SNA commentator was demanding that China shouldn't be allowed to buy up Australian firms that were struggling due to the crisis caused by China. That makes sense to me, but will the powers that be take along hard look at our relationship with China and wind it in? It looks like Donald Trump is the only one prepared to do that, and at best he only has another five years to do it.
They're all subject to the Foreign Investment Review Board..........so it sounds like the usual bollocks.
 
I came to that conclusion after Budapest.
Oh my opinions evolve... Before christmas I would have sold my soul to make brexit work and that means dealing with the devil(china). Post-covid outbreak, I was wrong and I think the british government should be tearing up the huawei deal as we speak.

Its the trouble with compromise, not to get religious but once you start to compromise your principles for a supposed greater good, we all become infected.
 
Oh my opinions evolve... Before christmas I would have sold my soul to make brexit work and that means dealing with the devil(china). Post-covid outbreak, I was wrong and I think the british government should be tearing up the huawei deal as we speak.

Its the trouble with compromise, not to get religious but once you start to compromise your principles for a supposed value for money, we all become infected.
My take on it
 

Yokel

LE
Is there any precedence for holding a national Government liable for a disease outbreak? There is no evidence this was deliberate, or was accidentally released from a laboratory like a biological weapons laboratory, so can measures be taken against a regime caught on the back foot by a new virus that tried to present a 'all normal' picture to the rest of the World?
 

Latest Threads

Top