Timeline for Is the UK’s claim over the Chagos Islands valid?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 9 at 6:46 | history | edited | JJJ♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 540 characters in body
|
| Oct 9 at 6:41 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | @JonathanReez Ah thanks, I should probably write a little update reflecting the new situation. | |
| Oct 9 at 3:07 | comment | added | JonathanReez | Awarding the bounty as the UK has officially conceded you are right. | |
| Oct 9 at 3:07 | history | bounty ended | JonathanReez | ||
| Nov 26, 2019 at 18:12 | comment | added | Just Me | @JJforTransparencyandMonica Yes, which is why I pointed out the absurdity of that very whataboutism. The situations are nowhere near similar. | |
| Nov 26, 2019 at 18:06 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | @JustMe bringing in the China example is mere whataboutism, there's no need to entertain the comparison. | |
| Nov 26, 2019 at 17:56 | comment | added | Just Me | @dan-klasson Comparing the dispute over the Chagos Islands to what China is doing in the South China Sea is disingenuous. Should Britain build an artificial island in the English Channel 1 km off the French coast and then claim that Brest was part of the UK, you might have a point. | |
| Nov 25, 2019 at 18:32 | comment | added | dan-klasson | @Obie2.0 The point is that two different international bodies, that both countries are signatories to, have ruled against both China and Britain. That Britain then points there finger at China without respecting the law either, makes them hypocrites.. | |
| Nov 24, 2019 at 19:24 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | By a similar token, China's control of the South China Sea is also disputed. China (and probably some allies) argue that it should control it. International bodies, as you say (presumably with the support of some discrete countries) argue that it should not. This constitutes a dispute to a degree that China's control of Manchuria, say, does not. | |
| Nov 24, 2019 at 19:17 | comment | added | Obie 2.0 | @dan-klasson - Singing the same old tune? China's disputed claim to one territory has almost nothing to do with Britain's disputed claim to another. You seem to be dragging a totally different topic into this answer. The term used in this answer is correct. Britain's government (and, presumably, some allies) claim that it deserves control of the islands. Mauritius (and many other countries) do not. By contrast, Britain's control of Cork, for instance, is significantly less disputed, and probably not by any foreign country. | |
| Nov 23, 2019 at 9:06 | vote | accept | CDJB♦ | ||
| Nov 23, 2019 at 1:36 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | @Sjoerd that is indeed the question in the title. There are three questions in the body which I address. If we are going to be nitpicky about words, the word valid in this context may be taken to mean legally binding due to having been executed in compliance with the law., in which case it is probably not considering the right to self-determination, but it's a more difficult case to make. | |
| Nov 23, 2019 at 1:32 | comment | added | Sjoerd | @JJforTransparencyandMonica But disputed or not wasn't the question - in fact, the question itself already proves it is contested by naming the opposing claim. The question is whether the claim was valid. | |
| Nov 23, 2019 at 0:14 | comment | added | dan-klasson | Did you write an answer here about how China's claim to the South China sea was "disputed"? Keep in mind this is the country that has a history of violating international treaties and who loves pointing fingers at other countries that do too.. Which you of course, you fail to mention. | |
| Nov 23, 2019 at 0:07 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | @dan-klasson the situation in the South Chin Sea you refer to is also rather famously referred to as a dispute. See for example this Wikipedia page: Territorial disputes in the South China Sea. That the situation is unenforceable is a different thing, but it's still a dispute. | |
| Nov 22, 2019 at 23:07 | comment | added | JJJ♦ | @Sjoerd which I why I haven't said that it is valid or invalid. I have said it is disputed, which, by your definition, it is. | |
| Nov 22, 2019 at 22:24 | comment | added | dan-klasson | -1 for "it's disputed". Because when international bodies rule that China has no right to sovereignty in the South China sea it's not. | |
| Nov 22, 2019 at 22:22 | comment | added | Sjoerd | A disputed claim doesn't mean that the claim is invalid. Disputed just means that there is a second claim. As a result, UK's claim can both be valid and disputed. | |
| Nov 22, 2019 at 22:06 | history | answered | JJJ♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |