International Law

Explain this to me

By Stan

This will no doubt sound ignorant, stupid, or worse, but that’s never stopped me before. From the Washington Post:

OVER THE past few years, China — budding superpower that it is — has repeatedly objected to international interventions in its domestic affairs. This complaint contributed to the suspension of official human rights dialogues with the United States five years ago. Last month Beijing announced that it is willing to resume those talks[.]

Exactly why should China have to specifically approach the U.S., on bended knee as it were, and essentially negotiate on this issue? I understand the leverage the U.S. has, and why both the U.S. and PRC governments see a reason to do this. I can also see this happening on a purely multilateral basis using international law as a substantive framework for discussion. What I don’t understand is the basic argument for why this should happen as a bilateral thing.

I have asked a similar question in the past regarding nuclear weapons (i.e. why does any country have to ask permission to acquire these weapons when other countries already possess them?) and have been blasted via email.

Note that I still have these questions even after grad school. In other words, I used to be even more ignorant.

Full post as published by China Hearsay on March 10, 2008 (boomark / email).