Post by Kiwi Frontline on Oct 23, 2019 4:50:19 GMT 12
Northern Advocate 23/10/19
GETTING OFF TRACK OVER TREATY DEFINITIONS
The Vienna Convention 1969 defines a treaty as “an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation” (article 2(1)(a)). See www.treatylaw.org/what-is-a-treaty/
Jeremy Ashford (letters 18/10/19) goes off track with his assertion that “A treaty is by definition a partnership”. No mention of partnership in the Vienna convention definition.
Article 3 of the treaty gave to Maori the rights of British subjects, which put signatories under the political control of the Queen. This also undermines claims that the treaty was a partnership because a subject of the Queen cannot be in partnership with the Queen.
The fact that Maori were not a state in 1840 has been an issue since before the treaty was signed and at one stage prompted NZ chief justice James Prendergast to declare in 1877 that cession of sovereignty was a nullity.
Ashford’s assertion that there can be “as many interpretations of the Treaty as there were Maori who signed it” and “no European (English) interpretation is valid in international law” is self-serving nonsense.
Under international law in 1840, a nation could assume sovereignty over a territory by discover, proclamation, cession by treaty, occupation, and by conquest. Like it or not, Britain did all of those while adding NZ to the British Empire.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
NZ Herald 23/10/19
ON COLONIALISM
Andrew Judd's colonial ancestors might have "murdered and plundered" (NZ
Herald, October 21). Mine did not.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
Dominion Post 23/10/19
IN PRAISE OF COOK
I must protest against the continuing rants against a great sailor, namely Captain James Cook (Monuments, memories, men of action, Oct 21).
I would ask that your reporter Phillip Mathews first goes back to history 101: never judge yesterday's events by today's values; and secondly think, would there be an All Blacks team doing a haka at the Rugby World Cup if it had not been for Captain James Cook?
Finally, respect our culture, Mr Mathews - your rant was published on Trafalgar Day! So let's raise a glass (of rum) to our naval heroes, including Captain James Cook.
DON BUDGE, Turangl
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers
GETTING OFF TRACK OVER TREATY DEFINITIONS
The Vienna Convention 1969 defines a treaty as “an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation” (article 2(1)(a)). See www.treatylaw.org/what-is-a-treaty/
Jeremy Ashford (letters 18/10/19) goes off track with his assertion that “A treaty is by definition a partnership”. No mention of partnership in the Vienna convention definition.
Article 3 of the treaty gave to Maori the rights of British subjects, which put signatories under the political control of the Queen. This also undermines claims that the treaty was a partnership because a subject of the Queen cannot be in partnership with the Queen.
The fact that Maori were not a state in 1840 has been an issue since before the treaty was signed and at one stage prompted NZ chief justice James Prendergast to declare in 1877 that cession of sovereignty was a nullity.
Ashford’s assertion that there can be “as many interpretations of the Treaty as there were Maori who signed it” and “no European (English) interpretation is valid in international law” is self-serving nonsense.
Under international law in 1840, a nation could assume sovereignty over a territory by discover, proclamation, cession by treaty, occupation, and by conquest. Like it or not, Britain did all of those while adding NZ to the British Empire.
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
NZ Herald 23/10/19
ON COLONIALISM
Andrew Judd's colonial ancestors might have "murdered and plundered" (NZ
Herald, October 21). Mine did not.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
Dominion Post 23/10/19
IN PRAISE OF COOK
I must protest against the continuing rants against a great sailor, namely Captain James Cook (Monuments, memories, men of action, Oct 21).
I would ask that your reporter Phillip Mathews first goes back to history 101: never judge yesterday's events by today's values; and secondly think, would there be an All Blacks team doing a haka at the Rugby World Cup if it had not been for Captain James Cook?
Finally, respect our culture, Mr Mathews - your rant was published on Trafalgar Day! So let's raise a glass (of rum) to our naval heroes, including Captain James Cook.
DON BUDGE, Turangl
sites.google.com/site/kiwifrontline/letters-submitted-to-newspapers