What is "Suzerainty" and What Does It Have to Do With Tibet?
I want to share with you an email that was written by Emile Loza, JD, MBA, Managing Attorney & Founder, Technology Law Group, LLC - go to tech-lawyer@blogspot.com
Before doing so, I want everyone to know that I am not taking sides (and do not wish to take sides) in the China-Tibet debate. I want to share ideas and information that others may find useful in their self-education concerning the issues. Please keep an open mind.
Alex Calvo has suggested that "[t]he word usually employed to describe the status of Tibet vis a vis China prior to invasion is suzerainty, not sovereignty." Thank you Alex for putting forth the the word "suzerainty" for discussion.
I have checked my overused Oxford Dictionary - suzerain means, in part "a sovereign or nation having some control over another national that is internally autonomous."
Emile Loza provides a good discussion of the background to the word 'suzerainty" and the history of Tibet:
"As I read and understand the term, "suzertainty" refers to a principle first seen in feudal law and later used in more modern (late 1800s) positive law in which one country is a vassal state to other. Parts of the Ottoman Empire, e.g., Egypt, Bulgaria, Romania, and others, were organized this way.
The vassal is described as an independent state that gives up some, but not all, of its autonomy to the suzerain state in exchange for certain obligations flowing back to the vassal state.
See an excellent summary of the history of the term "suzertainty" with references at http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Suzerainty.
I also sketched out a partial timeline of the historical development of Tibet's legal status, as highlighted below. Unraveling the legal status of Tibet takes one through the period of British colonialism in the region and later through one or more treaties between Britain and imperial Russian, later cancelled by the Communist government, and through the 1950 invasion by China of Tibet to the present day.
One discussion, attributed to Sir Algemon Rumbold, President of the Tibet Society of the United Kingdom from 1977-1988, says that Britain treated Tibet as an independent state from 1910, but stated in 1912 and again 1943 that it acknowledged the suzertainty of China in Tibet, but on the condition that Tibet's autonomy was respected. The latter is cited Memorandum from Sir Anthony Eden to the Chinese Foreign Minister, T.V. Soong, FO371/93001 (May 8, 1943).
Some say that Tibet initially declared independence in 1912, a position apparently agreed by the British government, which treated Tibet as independent from 1910 or from 1912, depending on the commentator. Others say that that 1912 and two subsequent declarations, at least through 1965 or so, did not amount to declarations. See Alfred P. Rubin, Tibet's Declarations of Independence, 60 AM. J. INT'L L. 812-14 (1966).
The 1914 Simla Convention between Great Britain and Tibet established or purported to establish internationally-recognized boundaries, the McMahon Line, for an independent Tibet. China refused that Convention, and Sir Rumbold writes that it was a that point that Tibet repudiated China's suzertainty.
On September 19, 2006, the Declaration of Independence of the Nations of High Asia: Tibet, East Turkistan and Inner Mongolia was made in Washington, D.C. at the Capitol Building."
