you still can not distinguish between amendment and declaration.
In fact, representatives of the Attending countries is only authorized discussed the agenda of issues. Your declare is simply not the agenda, so they did not need and no the right respond to your declare. so they all is no comment for your declare .
this is why i say you use a amendments result compare with your unilateral declaration results is very absurd.
All the consensus reached during the meeting, will inevitably be reflected in the Treaty . if you want come to a conclusions that these two islands belong to Vietnam ,you must find Support Terms in the Treaty . Not according to your own preferences to add something else。
only one term referred to these islands
You obviously have a hard time understanding business contracts.
A business contract, an inter-state treaty, a rental agreement, or an employment contract, all are documents that governs certain behaviors under certain conditions.
The 1954 Geneva Conference is such a document.
BEFORE the document was finalized, all parties must agree to what are to be inserted. Amendments are usually
AFTER a document have been finalized. Usually but not always. An amendment can be made to a proposal after it has been inserted into the document. A proposal is no different than a declaration or an assertion. That is what an amendment is: A proposal for a change. Which is a proposal by itself.
See if you can understand this: An amendment is a proposal for a change, which is a proposal in itself.
A declaration is also a proposal.
This is freaking unbelievably hilarious. The Chinese argument is so weak that they must resort to such petty parsimony.
Did not specify who should own these island. In fact the majority attending countries do not understand the these islands should belong to who , forcing them to vote, they will select against it. it is intentional not Indicate in this term , so there is no consensus on this issue.
and Japan as a country to renounces all right to these two islands. 1952 Japanese map shows these island is Chinese territory.
Anyway , must be recognized during the meeting did not reach a consensus on this issue .
Japan did not need to be that specific.
East Asian Studies Documents: 1951 Peace Treaty between Japan and the Allied Powers
(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
Did Japan need to specify that Korean independence belongs to Korea? No. If Japan admit to recognizing the independence of Korea, then it is obvious that Korean lands should go back to Korea.
(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
Who had Formosa and the Pescadores? Italy? Russia? Green men from Mars? How about China?
(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.
Who originally owned the Kuriles? Italy? Spain? Green men from Mars? How about Russia?
(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.
Since some Pacific Islands had uncertainty as to their original status, Japan was reasonable to concede them to the UN.
(e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area, whether deriving from the activities of Japanese nationals or otherwise.
Who originally possessed Antartica? Portugal? The Mongols? Green men from Mars? How about nobody? In this case, all Japan could do was renounce possession and let the UN sort it out later.
So how many names did Japan actually stated regarding the original owners of certain territories?
So if we look at the final territorial concession from Japan...
(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.
Who else could it be but Viet Nam and France as original authority and sovereign power? If I stole from you and admit to the police that I will give up the item, do I need to spell it out in front of the judge your name? Of course not. Everyone would know who the item would go to:
YOU.
Why is this so damn difficult to understand? Because it is so damn easy to understand that the Chinese
MUST try to muddle the issue. The controversy is made up because the claim is weak to start.