This causes some interesting questions about continuity of accountability for governments. I wonder how long you can hold a government accountable for the actions of its previous administrations. How many years can you go back? How many iterations of a state can you hold accountable too?
But when is the country the same as made the treaty? Given time all countries change government structures and landmass quite heavily.
Or in another case if a country is ruled by a genocidal dictatorship and there is a rebellion, should the new government be bound by the treaties made by the dictator? What if that dictator had been installed by a foriegn government?
Did China have a legal system that made the emperor accountable to any temporal authority? (As a legal matter, not simply a practical one.) In the received political systems of the West, authority has at least been nominally shared for millennia, albeit across varying dimensions and with brief lapses into absolute rule.
For example, while as a practical matter the Roman Catholic Pope's role during the Holy Roman Empire was largely constrained to spiritual and religious matters, the Pope nonetheless retained significant secular authority (e.g. over lands, etc) that the Emperor was obliged to respect. Failing to do so would result in illegality. Likewise the Emperor was at least in principle equal with other monarchs in Europe, so had obligations viz-a-viz them that couldn't be unilaterally skirted. Contrast that with the Westphalian system, where legal sovereignty is absolute within a territorial domain and where failure to respect an interstate obligation doesn't necessarily manifest as any kind of domestic illegality. Thus, when a state violates a treaty there's no expectation that its citizens construe the violation as illegitimate and to act and be responsible accordingly. (Modern international human rights theory being a very recent exception.)
I know Chinese legal, political, and religious systems were rich and sophisticated, but AFAIU in Imperial China, which accounts for most of the past 2000 years of mainland Chinese political history, the emperor was legally accountable to no temporal authority. Though, of course, it behooved emperors to abstain from exercising that absolute authority, obey legal and other norms, and adhere to their heavenly mandate.
It's an important distinction because it reflects cultures' (and thus its peoples') conceptions of power and legitimacy, which in turn directly constrains what is practically achievable by authority figures within and without their domain. It's no accident the Westphalian system of states arose in the West, nor the successful, widespread systemization of democratic political systems. Similarly, it's not surprising why Westerns in particular (which is not to say uniquely) would find interesting such an abstruse question regarding the exoneration of Dante.
"Imperial China, which accounts for most of the past 2000 years of mainland Chinese political history" is political theatre.
> China was politically divided during multiple periods in its history, with different regions ruled by different dynasties. These dynasties effectively functioned as separate states with their own court and political institutions. Political division existed during the Three Kingdoms, the Sixteen Kingdoms, the Northern and Southern dynasties, and the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms periods, among others.
Empty gestures like this do not hold any one accountable. The people responsible for whatever injustice occurred are long dead and there is nothing you can do to them. This is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent improving life for people who are alive today in some tangible way.
Is this going to feed someone who's hungry? Shelter someone who's homeless? Do anything that will make any actual difference in the life of any living person? No? Then why are we wasting time on it?
>Is this going to feed someone who's hungry? Shelter someone who's homeless? Do anything that will make any actual difference in the life of any living person? No? Then why are we wasting time on it?
I don't really understand the point of inquiries like this. Obviously you are here "wasting" time that could be spent on those activities as well, and yet you (rightfully) aren't hostile toward yourself for it.
There is time that you can spend in productive endeavors and there is time for rest and relaxation. If you're going to work at something, work at something useful. If you're going to occupy the time and energy of a government, occupy it with something that is helpful to the people being governed.
Sure, I'll spend time faffing about and commenting on HN, but I don't think that Congress needs to pass a resolution about it.
