Over the past century, the bond battle has re-emerged.
It was originally a matter of course to repay debts, but when the bonds spanned a hundred years and involved successive "changes of dynasty", where will this debt battle go?In 2019, several Americans approached the United States with "Huguang bonds" and demanded that China "repay" the "debt" signed by the Qing Dynasty a hundred years ago. This incident has set off huge waves in China and the United States, what kind of story is hidden behind the bonds?In the end, how did it be solved?
A hundred years ago, the Overlord contract and Huguang bonds.
Huguang bonds, born in 1911, were a debt owed by the Qing Dynasty due to its own lack of ability in the turbulent era at that time. The contract was signed on May 20, 1911, and Qing ** cooperated with Germany, Britain, France, the United States and other capital enterprises to borrow 6 million gold pounds for the construction of railways in Hubei, Hunan, Guangdong, Sichuan and other regions. However, the contract contained staggering terms, including the need to buy all the materials needed to build the railways from the capitalist countries, to hire engineers and designers, and to form direct control over China with the guarantee of the country's lifeblood industry, in an attempt to carve up China.
The humiliating choice of Qing ** and the debt statute of limitations.
In the face of the call for the domestic "road protection movement", Qing ** was forced to succumb by the overlord contract and issued Huguang bonds as proof of borrowing. However, with the rise of revolutionaries in the country and the overthrow of the feudal rule of the Qing Dynasty, debt seemed to be no mention under the confrontation between the old and the new. As stipulated in the contract, the bond was suspended in 1938 and expired in 1951. However, after the situation stabilized, the United States used this as an excuse to find trouble with China.
The U.S. "Huguang Bonds" debt request has caused a diplomatic turmoil.
In the 70s of the last century, Jackson, an American citizen, bought Huguang bonds at a low price, trying to force China to "repay" its debts. However, the bonds have long been expired, and China** has refused to heed this unreasonable demand. Unwilling to give up, Jackson filed a lawsuit against the People's Republic of China in a U.S. court, demanding "repayment" of more than $40 million. The US court even issued a "subpoena" to China, requiring it to file a reply within 20 days, directly ignoring the principle of state sovereign immunity and triggering a controversy in international law.
In the court showdown between China and the United States, China adheres to the bottom line of legal principles.
In 1982, a U.S. court ruled that China should compensate Jackson. This absurd verdict has attracted wide attention at home and abroad. China is resolute and unyielding, and in the name of the United States, it refuses to be bound by foreign laws, and does not repay the "Huguang bonds". The U.S. Secretary of State defended it, and our leaders fought back. During the negotiations, China took a defensive posture and refused to respond to the lawsuit to safeguard its sovereignty and independence.
The twists and turns of the negotiations and the final settlement.
After the first impasse in the negotiations, Chinese legal experts adjusted their strategy and congratulated the U.S. Embassy in China. However, the United States has made another attack, threatening to sentence again. After arduous negotiations, an agreement was finally reached, and the local court revoked the "default compensation" judgment, laying the foundation for subsequent exchanges. Although the two sides were at a stalemate, the wise adjustment and firm stance of our legal experts finally safeguarded the dignity of the country and the rights and interests of jurisprudence.
The international political game behind the courtroom showdown between China and the United States.
Behind this century-old debt dispute is an attempt by the United States to contain China through legal means and infringe on China's sovereignty. The hard-line attitude and unscrupulous methods of the United States not only violate international law, but also expose its hostility to China's development. China's resolute response demonstrates its firm determination to safeguard national dignity and independence, and also provides a strong legal basis for dealing with similar issues in the future.
The Bond Battle: A Warning Spot for the U.S.-China Legal Battle.
Although this century-old debt dispute finally came to an end under China's adherence to the bottom line of legal principles, it also sounded the alarm for the international community. All countries should jointly uphold the principles of justice and equality in international law and reject the use of legal means to infringe on the sovereignty of other countries. The lessons of history tell us that only by adhering to the bottom line of the law can we safeguard the independence and dignity of the country.
The 100-year dispute over the "Huguang Debt" is a legal contest full of drama and historical precipitation, demonstrating the complex struggle in international politics and the importance of national sovereignty. The article describes in detail the history of the issuance of Huguang bonds and the ins and outs of the debt dispute, emphasizing the humiliating choice of the Qing Dynasty at the time and the attempt of the United States to contain China through legal means. Here are some comments and reflections on this topic.
First of all, the occurrence of the Huguang bond dispute highlights the inadequacy of international law in dealing with issues left over from history. Although the bonds have expired decades ago, the United States has tried to forcibly recover them through legal means, which not only violates the principle of state sovereign immunity in international law, but also reveals the double standards of certain countries in international affairs. This raises questions about the impartiality and effectiveness of international law, but also highlights the urgency of further improving and strengthening the international law system.
Second, the article highlights China's firm position in this dispute. China** refuses to be bound by foreign laws and resolutely defends national dignity and legal rights and interests. This attitude of adhering to the bottom line of legal principles reflects China's independence and self-confidence in international affairs, and also provides inspiration for other countries in safeguarding national sovereignty. In today's globalized world, it is particularly important for the state to adhere to the legal level, which is not only the protection of national dignity, but also an important guarantee for the harmonious development of the international community.
In addition, the Huguang bond dispute reflects the real game in international politics. The U.S. attempt to contain China through the court's decision is obviously a political tactic, and there may be more complex international political considerations behind it. Under such circumstances, China**'s adjustment of the wisdom and firm stance of legal experts not only defused a potential legal crisis, but also revealed the importance of upholding justice and the rule of law for the international community.
Finally, the Huguang bond dispute is an enlightening case that reminds countries to maintain reverence and equality in international exchanges, and at the same time calls for the further improvement of the international legal system. Peace and stability in the international community can only be achieved by upholding the principles of justice and respect for national sovereignty in international relations. The story of Huguang bonds tells us that the lessons of history and the wisdom of the law are indispensable elements for maintaining the international order.
Disclaimer: The above content information is ** on the Internet, and the author of this article does not intend to target or insinuate any real country, political system, organization, race, or individual. The above content does not mean that the author of this article agrees with the laws, rules, opinions, behaviors in the article and is responsible for the authenticity of the relevant information. The author of this article is not responsible for any issues arising from the above or related issues, and does not assume any direct or indirect legal liability.
If the content of the article involves the content of the work, copyright**, infringement, rumors or other issues, please contact us to delete it. Finally, if you have any different thoughts about this event, please leave a message in the comment area to discuss!