46

Almost certainly didn't happen. Wikipedia makes/made the same claim about the four countries having withdrawn from the better known Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident. Both conventions were signed at about the same time (1986), in the aftermath of Chernobyl. Both Hungary's and Poland's government agency websites say they are still in the ...


42

What happens to an embassy when the country it represents stops existing? It depends on how the country stops existing, but normally there will be some provision for the country's assets to pass to a successor country, whether because the country is being broken up or consolidated with another. If ​the country's government is simply being overthrown, then ...


24

This is probably a matter of politics more than anything else. Of course, from a rational perspective it would make more sense for the Taliban to dislike the nation that invaded their country, drove them out of power, and spent two decades killing their soldiers more than a country that, so far as I can tell and unlike several dozen other countries, did not ...


12

I think the question is based on a misconception. The first article is about a technology sharing alliance. The second article is about a mission to keep the South China Sea accessible as international waters. The Aukus security alliance is primarily about technology sharing. For example, the BBC talks about Australia being able to get nuclear submarines and ...


10

In the website of the Bulgarian nuclear regulator https://www.bnra.bg/bg/international/www/bg/international/iaea/ both the "Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency" and "Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident" are listed as "ratified" and "legally binding" ...


9

NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It has an immediate focus on the north atlantic area, and it is understood that members may have interests beyond that area, individually or as sub-groups. So there should be no general problem if NATO members cooperate with third countries beyond the treaty area. It was understood that NATO is the most ...


8

The question given at the end of the body references both Israel and "Western powers." Using that broader category, the answer appears to be to a significant extent. According to an interview that Asia News International did with the NSO Group, as reprinted in the Times of India, the company that produces Pegasus, the majority of their customers ...


7

Preemptive defense. If Chinese leadership decides that they have more to lose than to win by such an investigation, then it's not worth to allow it. In the best of cases Chinese leadership has a high level of confidence that no accident or otherwise negligent event happened that significantly contributed to the spread of Covid-19*. Even then, it's possible ...


6

The "Naminara republic" is as independent of South Korea as Disneyland is of the USA. It is a theme park expressing a vision of being a magical, fairy-tale world. Part of this pretence is the notion of it being an independent republic. But the flag, the money, the passports, this is all part of the kayfabe, not "real". The island only ...


5

Peter's answer summarizes the immediate cost/benefit calculus, but it's somewhat narrow. Consider also that it's part of a larger pattern: China used similar economic measures to pressure South Korea (over THAAD) and in a few more obscure spats with other/smaller countries in the past decade. Their long-term foreign policy plank has been "non-...


4

The most important thing to remember is that what we know about this mostly results from a leaked list of telephone numbers analysed by Amnesty International. What this list really is is disputed but it might have been a list of telephone numbers NSO considered targetting on behalf of some of its clients. That would imply that NSO retains full control of the ...


3

No, the veto procedures of the UNSC has stayed the same since prior to 1950. The 5 constituent veto holders has changed twice, when The ROC was replaced by the PRC and when the USSR was replaced by Russia.


2

Why would the U.S. exclude Europe from the new Indo-Pacific security alliance? They did not. They included the UK.


2

I don't think you are reading this correctly. This seems largely a procurement dispute rather a question of alliance or alignment. If anything, the only real diplomatic difference seems to be that the US is willing to burn its bridges with China more than France (hence China's fury). The US saw the opportunity to pick up a nice juicy defense contract. ...


1

The TLDR answer is that the EU sees China as being an economic competitor rather than a military adversary. If the EU were to join the US in partnership it want to be able to influence the groups strategic agenda in ways that Washington would disagree with.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible