From: Yan Jun
[mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 14:47
To: medp1128@hotmail.com
Cc: Patty PY MAK; Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department ; PM Office; MINDEF; Eugen Tan (Singapore Management University); Tan Cheng Han (National University of Singapore); Hong Kong Journalists Association; Ming Pao; Oriental Daily News; SCMP; Sing Tao Daily; The Standard; Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Independent (SG); The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; Voices (Today) ; Taipei Times; Taiwan news; The China Post; United Daily News; Apple Daily (TW); Asia times; Jon Fasman (Economists) ; Keith Bradsher (New York Times); Linus Chua (Bloomberg); Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal); Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post); Reporters Without Borders (RWB); Rico Hizon (BBC); Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse); Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent); The Huffington Post; Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Workers' Party
Subject: The outome: the return of the Terrex vehicles
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 14:47
To: medp1128@hotmail.com
Cc: Patty PY MAK; Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department ; PM Office; MINDEF; Eugen Tan (Singapore Management University); Tan Cheng Han (National University of Singapore); Hong Kong Journalists Association; Ming Pao; Oriental Daily News; SCMP; Sing Tao Daily; The Standard; Lian He Wan Bao; Lian He Zao Bao; Shin Min Daily; The Independent (SG); The Online Citizen (Singapore); The Straits Times; Voices (Today) ; Taipei Times; Taiwan news; The China Post; United Daily News; Apple Daily (TW); Asia times; Jon Fasman (Economists) ; Keith Bradsher (New York Times); Linus Chua (Bloomberg); Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal); Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post); Reporters Without Borders (RWB); Rico Hizon (BBC); Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse); Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent); The Huffington Post; Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Workers' Party
Subject: The outome: the return of the Terrex vehicles
Dear the Press and the organizations,
I refer to my email of 7 February 2017 to the Chief
Executive of Hong Kong with regard to the return of the Terrex vehicles. I am
writing this letter for the sake of completeness.
In my earlier email, I requested the Chief Executive
to give a straight answer to the question of whether or not the Hong Kong
authorities accept the state immunity defence raised by the Singapore
government.
On 17 Feb, the Chief Executive’s Office informed me
that my question was passed along to the Customs and Excise Department. On 20
Feb, the Hong Kong Commissioner of Customs and Excise Roy Tang informed me by
email that “We will not comment on the handling of a specific case,
particularly if the investigation might lead to criminal prosecution.”(please
see below) I didn’t see an answer to my question.
I respect the HKSAR’s decision but still stand by my
objective analysis in my earlier email.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards,
Yan Jun
(Singapore NRIC:S7684361I)
From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 18:43
To: rtang@customs.gov.hk
Subject: RE: The return of the Terrex vehicles
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 18:43
To: rtang@customs.gov.hk
Subject: RE: The return of the Terrex vehicles
Dear Commissioner of Customs and Excise Roy Tang,
Thank you for your reply in response to my letter of 7
February 2017 to the Chief Executive.
My earlier letter
In that letter, I mentioned that the Hong Kong
authorities had acquiesced to the state immunity defence raised by the
Singapore government in the Terrex detention issue. My question was whether the
Hong Kong authorities accepted the state immunity defence or not. While having
an obligation to respond to this defence, the HKSAR has made no comments on it.
Your reply
With respect, I didn’t see an answer in your reply.
It was stated that “We will not comment on the
handling of a specific case, particularly if the investigation might lead to
criminal prosecution”. It seems to me that the HKSAR has taken detentions
of foreign state-owned property as of its own right and such detentions cannot
be illegal.
If a policeman arrests a person on suspicion of a
breach of any law, the legal basis for the arrest must be provided as of
police’s obligation, regardless of whether the arrest will lead to criminal
prosecution. The arrest and the subsequent detention can be without legal
basis.
If solid evidence had been provided at the very
beginning of the incident that the decision on the unloading was made by a
shipping company officer who was of unsound mind, the detention of the vehicles
would have been illegally long. I use this hypothetical example to show that
the HKSAR could be wrong.
My position
I wrote to the Chief Executive in the interests of
justice and I had no intention of giving anyone hard time.
I fully understand the HKSAR’s position and respect
its decision. I still stand by my objective analysis in my earlier letter.
Thanks again for your reply.
Regards,
Yan Jun
(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)
From: rtang@customs.gov.hk [mailto:rtang@customs.gov.hk]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 11:53
To: Yan Jun
Cc: Patty PY MAK
Subject: The return of the Terrex vehicles
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 11:53
To: Yan Jun
Cc: Patty PY MAK
Subject: The return of the Terrex vehicles
Dear Mr Yan,
I refer to your mail of 7 February 2017 to the Chief Executive.Ÿ
As an active and responsible trading partner in the global economy, the HKSAR is committed to complying with international standards of strategic trade control and Hong Kong implements a robust control system to achieve that.
Import, export and transshipment/transit of strategic commodities in breach of licensing requirement are criminal offences punishable under the Hong Kong law. The action by the Hong Kong Customs on 23 November 2016 was taken because there was a suspected breach of the Hong Kong laws.
We will not comment on the handling of a specific case, particularly if the investigation might lead to criminal prosecution.
Roy Tang
Commissioner of Customs and Excise
----- Forwarded by Enquiry CEO/CEO/HKSARG on 17/02/2017 07:44 PM -----
From: Enquiry CEO/CEO/HKSARG
To: Yan Jun <medp1128@hotmail.com>,
Date: 17/02/2017 06:26 PM
Subject: Re: The return of the Terrex vehicles: a matter of compromise?
I refer to your mail of 7 February 2017 to the Chief Executive.Ÿ
As an active and responsible trading partner in the global economy, the HKSAR is committed to complying with international standards of strategic trade control and Hong Kong implements a robust control system to achieve that.
Import, export and transshipment/transit of strategic commodities in breach of licensing requirement are criminal offences punishable under the Hong Kong law. The action by the Hong Kong Customs on 23 November 2016 was taken because there was a suspected breach of the Hong Kong laws.
We will not comment on the handling of a specific case, particularly if the investigation might lead to criminal prosecution.
Roy Tang
Commissioner of Customs and Excise
----- Forwarded by Enquiry CEO/CEO/HKSARG on 17/02/2017 07:44 PM -----
From: Enquiry CEO/CEO/HKSARG
To: Yan Jun <medp1128@hotmail.com>,
Date: 17/02/2017 06:26 PM
Subject: Re: The return of the Terrex vehicles: a matter of compromise?
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to your email of 7 February to the Chief Executive. I am authorized to reply on his behalf. We have relayed the matter raised to the Customs and Excise Department. A reply will be given to you in due course.
Yours sincerely,
(Patty Mak)
for Private Secretary to Chief Executive
From: Yan Jun <medp1128@hotmail.com>
To: "Leung Chun-ying (Cheif Executive) " <ceo@ceo.gov.hk>,
Cc: "Lee Hsien Loong (PM)" <lee_hsien_loong@pmo.gov.sg>, "Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department " <customsenquiry@customs.gov.hk>, MINDEF <contact@ns.sg>, "Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General)" <agnes_yao@agc.gov.sg>, "Eugen Tan (Singapore Management University)" <eugene@smu.edu.sg>, "Tan Cheng Han (National University of Singapore)" <lawtanch@nus.edu.sg>, "The AGC(SG)" <agc@agc.gov.sg>, "SUPCOURT QSM (SUPCOURT)" <SUPCOURT_QSM@supcourt.gov.sg>, "Department of Justice (HK)" <dojinfo@doj.gov.hk>, Hong Kong Bar Association <info@hkba.org>, "The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal" <cfaenquiries@hkcfa.hk>, "China Embassy (SG)" <chinaemb_sg@mfa.gov.cn>, Hong Kong Journalists Association <hkja@hkja.org.hk>, Ming Pao <mingpao@mingpao.com>, Oriental Daily News <news@odn.on.cc>, SCMP <letters@scmp.com>, Sing Tao Daily <info@singtaonewscorp.com>, The Standard <editor@thestandard.com.hk>, "Lian He Wan Bao" <wanbao@sph.com.sg>, Lian He Zao Bao <zblocal@sph.com.sg>, "Shin Min Daily" <shinmin@sph.com.sg>, "The Independent (SG)" <news@theindependent.sg>, "The Online Citizen (Singapore)" <theonlinecitizen@gmail.com>, "The Straits Times" <stforum@sph.com.sg>, "Voices (Today) " <voices@mediacorp.com.sg>, Taipei Times <letters@taipeitimes.com>, Taiwan news <service@taiwannews.com.tw>, The China Post <webmaster@mail.chinapost.com.tw>, United Daily News <newspro@udn.com>, "Apple Daily (TW)" <news@appledaily.com.tw>, Asia times <special@atimes.com>, "Jon Fasman (Economists) " <jonfasman@economist.com>, "Keith Bradsher (New York Times)" <kebrad@nytimes.com>, "lchua@bloomberg.net" <lchua@bloomberg.net>, "Patrick McDowell (The Wall Street Journal)" <patrick.mcdowell@dowjones.com>, "Philip Bowring (The South China Morning Post)" <philip@bowring.net>, "Reporters Without Borders (RWB)" <asia@rsf.org>, "Rico Hizon (BBC)" <ricohizon@gmail.com>, "Roberto Coloma (Agence France-Presse)" <Roberto.Coloma@afp.com>, "Seiff Abby (Freelance Corrrespondent)" <aseiff@gmail.com>, The Huffington Post <scoop@huffingtonpost.com>, Reform Party <info@reform.sg>, "Singapore Democratic Party" <sdp@yoursdp.org>, Workers' Party <hammer@wp.sg>
Date: 07/02/2017 03:12 PM
Subject: The return of the Terrex vehicles: a matter of compromise?
Dear Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying,
I refer to Singapore Prime Minister (PM) Lee Hsien Loong’s letter to Hong Kong Chief Executive in January 2017 with regard to the Terrex detention issue. (See here) I copy this email to PM Lee Hsien Loong.
The PM’s letter
In his letter, the PM reiterated the Singapore government’s legal position, or sovereign/state immunity defence, and requested for an immediate return of the Terrex vehicles.
The state immunity defence was based on international law and it suggested that the Singapore owned property automatically enjoyed the state immunity entitled to the Singapore government so the vehicles were protected by “sovereign immunity” and could not be legally detained by other countries. Given the fact that Hong Kong Apex Court ruled in a 2011 case that state immunity was absolute in commercial acts in Hong Kong, the PM reasoned that the seizure of the vehicles didn’t comply with both international and Hong Kong laws.
While the vehicles were unloaded in Hong Kong without a license, the breach of licensing requirements was a matter between the shipping company and the Hong Kong authorities only.
Why do I write this letter?
The state immunity defence is seriously flawed due to the Singapore government’s misunderstanding of it. I am writing this letter in the interests of justice.
In the face of my criticisms raised on 20 January, the two legal academics who publicly advocated the state immunity defence (See here and here) responded with silence, so did the Singapore government including the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF).
Even worse is the fact that Singapore's Attorney-General (A.G.) Lucien Wong, who has a duty to defend the government’s legal position, has refused to stand by this state immunity defence after he was clearly reminded that “silence on the part of the A.G. can be reasonably treated as acceptance of the criticism”. (See the email below dated 31 January 2017 at Paragraph 5)
In 2014, I conclusively proved Singapore Apex Court wrong in a constitutional case. Major Supreme Courts of the Commonwealth countries including the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal were aware of this matter in 2015 and 2016.
Flaws in the state immunity defence
The issue in the 2011 case was whether the state immunity was absolute or restrictive in commercial acts in Hong Kong. In sharp contrast, the issue in Terrex detention incident is whether state owned property automatically enjoys state immunity. To claim state immunity, the owner state must have an exclusive right to control its property and others have no right to do so. (See the email below dated 20 January 2017 for references)
Since the shipping company seemed to have made an independent decision to unload the vehicles without a license, the vehicles didn’t have state immunity because the Singapore government didn’t have a full control over them.
If the decision was made with the government’s consent or acquiescence, the vehicles certainly enjoyed state immunity (and it was absolute in Hong Kong). Given the fact that the sovereignty of Hong Kong/China was violated by such a wrongful act, Hong Kong authorities were in a position to lawfully detain the vehicles under Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001 by the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations.
If the state immunity defence is correct and state owned property is always “protected by sovereign immunity”, any country can legally recover the confiscated arms from Hong Kong customs even if this country deliberately orders a shipping company to unload the arms without a license. In order words, deliberate infringements of sovereignty can be legally committed in the name of a country’s sovereign/state right over the arms. This reasoning is self-contradictory.
Why did the breach of licensing requirements take place?
There is plenty of speculation about the motives behind the seizure of the vehicles but I didn’t see a report analyzing the breach of licensing requirements.
The infringement of sovereignty of a state is a very serious matter so such an infringement can only be explained by reason of malice, or the malice on the part of the shipping company in the present incident. If a judge conducts a one-sided cross-examination at a hearing, the only explanation is malice.
It is evident that MINDEF was in a position to decide whether the vehicles should be unloaded, or not, as a government matter before the vehicles arrived at Hong Kong. The shipping company was in a position to abide by rather than make such a decision.
As such, the MINDEF ought to expressly state it if it considers that the misconduct on the part of the shipping company was caused by “incompetence, inexperience, lack of professionalism, reckless, honest mistake, negligence, or even gross negligence”. The MINDEF may wish to produce specific clauses of its contract with the shipping company to discredit my analysis.
I understand that the misconduct could be caused by any 3rd party such as Hong Kong, Taiwan and mainland China.
The return of Terrex vehicles: a matter of compromise
After the incident, the Singapore government put in little effort to identify the cause of it but persistently requested the Hong Kong authorities for reasons and legal basis for detention and finally, the head of the government stepped in. All these actions can be justified by the government’s faith in the rule of law.
However, this justification flatly contradicts the fact that the government responded with silence when its legal position came under criticism. On 20 January, or 4 days before Hong Kong announced its decision, I informed the academics, the Attorney-General’s Chamber (AGC) and MINDE of the flaws in the state immunity defence and provided the legal basis for the detention of the vehicles.
The AGC and MINDEF should be able to re-assess the merits of the government’s legal position on the same day; however, there has been no response to my 2 follow-up letters addressed directly to A.G. Lucien Wong (See the emails below dated 25 and 31 January 2017).
I think the government’s silence cannot be justified by reason of “incompetence, inexperience, lack of professionalism, reckless, honest mistake, negligence, or even gross negligence” but can only by the government’s deliberate intention to cover up the fundamental mistake it has made.
It seems to me that when accepted Hong Kong’s decision on 24 January, the government acted as if it had still defended its legal position. I am not sure whether the government would have repeated its demand for the legal basis for the detention of the vehicles if the state immunity defence hadn’t been proved false.
It is clear to me that Singapore government intentionally gave hard time to the Hong Kong authorities but its pressurization failed unexpectedly and consequently, the issue was settled as a matter of compromise between two parties. Here is the latest news that disproves my opinion but I stand by my objective analysis because this the second time that the Singapore government has faced serious credibility problems at the international level within 3 months.
The consequence of the Hong Kong authorities’ decision
It appears to the world that the return of the vehicles is a victory for the Singapore government for upholding international law because the Hong Kong authorities acquiesced to the state immunity defence. As such, Hong Kong’s decision has set a dangerous precedent for all other countries that adhere to the doctrine of absolute state immunity.
My requests
With respect, I would request the Chief Executive to give a straight answer with yes or no to the Singapore government’s state immunity defence in the interests of justice.
Since both parties claimed that the Terrex detention issue was a matter of law, I would request the Chief Executive to treat my letter seriously on the basis of equality before the law.
Hong Kong has both a strong tradition of free speech and a reputation for the rule of law. Given the fact that the Terrex detention issue has become public to the world, I would like to request the Hong Kong media to get to the bottom of this issue to protect Hong Hong’s reputation as a key international port and its commitment to the rule of law.
Thank you for your attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Yan Jun
(Singapore NRIC: S7684361I)
******************
From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 15:05
To: Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General)
Cc: agc@agc.gov.sg; MINDEF; PM Office; Eugen Tan; Tan Cheng Han; Voices (Today); Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Workers' Party
Subject: Follow-up letter ( The return of Terrex : a matter of law or a matter of compromise)
Dear the Attorney-General Mr Lucien Wong,
1. I refer to my email sent to the A.G. on 25 January 2016. The email was copied to various organizations.
My criticism
2. In this email, I challenged the state/sovereign immunity defence, or the government’s legal position, in the Terrex detention issue.
The AG’s duty
3. Now the state immunity defence has become public to the world and the Hong Kong authorities seem to have accepted it. It is evident that the A.G. has a duty to defend the government’s legal position in the face of criticism.
4. This point is particularly important because I copied the criticism email to the AGC on 20 Jan, or 4 days before the Hong Kong authorities announced its decision to return the Terrex vehicles to Singapore.
The government’s integrity
5. I believe 1 day is enough for the AGC to assess the merits of state immunity argument. Now the vehicles already arrived in Singapore on 30 Jan (See here) but so far there is no response from the government. The silence on the part of the AGC/A.G. can be reasonably treated as acceptance of the criticism on the basis of the A.G.’s duty to defend the government’s legal position.
6. As a result, the integrity of the government is at stake. In this situation, the A.G./AGC is supposed to reiterate the government’s legal position if the government stands by it.
7. Thank you. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Yan Jun
From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:19
To: Hui Agnes YAO (PA to Attorney-General)
Cc: agc@agc.gov.sg; Eugen Tan; Tan Cheng Han; Voices (Today); Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Workers' Party; PM Office
Subject: The return of Terrex : a matter of law or a matter of compromise
Dear Attorney-General (A.G.) Mr Lucien Wong,
1. I refer to my email copied to the AGC on 20 January 2017. (See email below) .
The challenge to the state immunity defence
2. In this email, I challenged the state immunity defence that was raised by the government and was further backed by the law academics in the Terrex detention issue.
3. The government’s position is clearly demonstrated in Defence Minster Dr. Ng’s parliamentary speech on 9 January and PM Lee’s letter to the Chief Executive C Y Leung of Hong Kong. (See here, Today 9 January 2017)
The response to my email
4. While the email was sent to two law academics, A/P Eugene Tan of Singapore Management University (SMU) and Prof. Tan Chen Han of the National University of Singapore (NUS), it was copied to the AGC, newspaper Today, the Ministry of Defense (MINDEF) and the opposition parties.
5. So far there is no response from any party.
The consequences of the prevalence of the defence
6. Hong Kong is one of the world’s most established transhipment ports, so its decision in this matter may serve as a dangerous precedent for all the countries that accept the doctrine of absolute state immunity.
7. In other words, even if a state deliberately directs its contractor/shipping company to unload strategic commodities such as arms without a license in a sovereign state that adheres to absolute state immunity, this state is supposed to retrieve its arms legally on the ground of state immunity, regardless of the infringement of sovereignty it causes.
8. Such reasoning is apparently against the principle of equality of states in international law, or the foundation of the doctrine of absolute state immunity.
My request
9. I would request the A.G. to respond to my challenge on behalf of the government and to settle the issue of whether the state-owned property automatically enjoys state immunity.
10. Given the fact that the government treats the Terrex detention issue as a matter of law (See here, ST 13 January 2017), the A.G. has an obligation to defend the government’s legal position.
11. What the AGC is supposed to do is simply to read the contract between the contractor/shipping company (APL) and the MINDEF. In this way, the issue concerning whether the shipping company is in a legal position to make a decision independently on the unloading of the armored vehicles will be settled as a matter of law.
My response
12. The government’s legal position is a very serious matter and now the vehicles at issues are to be returned soon. If there is no convincing answer from the A.G.(or the AGC) before the Terrex ICVs return to Singapore, it is reasonable for me to voice my opinion in the interests of justice.
13. Thank you. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Yan Jun
From: Yan Jun [mailto:medp1128@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 10:46
To: Eugen Tan; Tan Cheng Han
Cc: Voices (Today); MINDEF; agc@agc.gov.sg; Reform Party; Singapore Democratic Party; Workers' Party
Subject: Terrex issue: State immunity vs Malice
Dear A/P Eugen Tan and Prof. Tan Cheng Han,
I refer to your brief analyses of state immunity in the article Sovereign immunity: An explainer (Today, 9 Jan 2017). With respect, I disagree with your analyses.
The academics’ opinion
It was explained in the article that state-owned property automatically enjoys state immunity so the detention of the 9 armoured vehicles by Hong Kong authorities was supposed to be illegal.
This argument is consistent with the government’s position that the vehicles ought to be returned on the basis of state immunity. While the unloading of the vehicles without a license is illegal, the government treats the wrongful act as a matter between the shipping company and the Hong Kong authorities. (See here)
The issue: Does state-owned property automatically enjoy state immunity?
My answer is in the negative. The privilege or the immunity that a state enjoys in respect of the equality of states refers to “the right to do something that other persons have no right to do” [1]. In consistent with this notion, the acquisition of state immunity is subject to the condition that a state has a full control of its property so other persons are unable to deal with it [2]. It is self-evident that stolen property doesn’t have state immunity.
At the heart of Terrex incident is who is responsible for the unloading of the armoured vehicles. The unloading of arms without a license in a state is against the international law because such an act infringes the sovereignty of the state. The consequence of the infringement of sovereignty is so disastrous that an act like this can only be explained by reason of malice.
If the academics are right, the government can legally recover the vehicles even if the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) deliberately ordered the shipping company to unload the vehicles without a license.
Legal basis for the detention of the vehicles
If MINDEF is primarily responsible for the unloading, the vehicles certainly enjoy state immunity because the unloading was an act of governmental nature and the vehicles were under complete control of the government. However, it is clear that the sovereignty of China has been violated and as a result, Hong Kong authorities could legally detain the vehicles under Article 1 and 2 and 12 of the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001 by the International Law Commission (ILC) of the United Nations [3].
If the shipping company is primarily responsible for the unloading, the vehicles don’t enjoy state immunity because neither the shipping company nor the vehicles were under the control of MINDEF. In other words, MINDEF didn’t have an absolute privilege to deal with the vehicles and consequently, MINDEF is not responsible for the infringement of sovereignty of China.
Questions for MINDEF
While “Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen urged people not to speculate on reasons or impute motives as to why the vehicles were held (See here)”, it is evident that MINDEF ought to explain in public why the vehicles were unloaded without a license at Hong Kong in order to back its claim of state immunity. In fact, the decision with regard to the unloading of the vehicles, or not, is supposed to be exclusively made by MINDEF as a government matter. The shipping company’s duty is to abide by rather than make such a decision.
If MINDEF treats the unloading as a genuine mistake such as gross negligence on the part of the shipping company, it ought to voice its opinion in public. For the sake of prudence, MINDEF may wish to state that it had no intention of unloading the vehicles at Hong Kong due to lack of a license. In this way, MINDEF can completely get off the hook even if the incident was caused by the 3rd party including Hong Kong and Taiwan and mainland China.
Why I write this letter
Soon I will stage my 5th public protests against the judicial corruption in the Supreme Court (See my letters to the PM Lee Hsien Loong on 8 July and 8 Dec 2016) but I am afraid that passersby may ask me about Terrex issue.
Terrex issue has nothing to do with my protests so I have no comments on it in public but will refer the passersby to academics for clarification. While I can pass along my opinion to the press, I am not sure it will appear in the newspaper.
Thank you for your attention to my concerns. I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Yan Jun
[1] Protection of officials of foreign states according to international law by Franciszek Przetacznik. (Springer; 1983 Edition , ISBN: 9024727219). p.10. Para. 2. Or see State Immunity: A Vanuatu Perspective by J.D. Foukona. Para 2.1 See http://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=13176&type=98
[2] Trendtex Trading Corp. v. Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] 2 W.L.R. 356. Lord Denning's judgment under "Alter ego or organ of government". See: http://www.uniset.ca/other/css/19772WLR356.html
[3] International Law by Malcolm N. Shaw (7th Edition, 2014) p.569, Para 2. Article 1 reiterates the general rule that every internationally wrongful act of a state entails responsibility. Article 2 provides that there is an internationally wrongful act of a state when conduct consisting of an action or omission is attributable to the state under international law and constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the state. Article 12 stipulates that there is a breach an international obligation when an act of that state is not in conformity with what is required of it by that obligation, regardless of its origin or character.
Disclaimers:
_________________________________________________________
This e-mail message (together with any attachments) is for the designated recipient only. It may contain information that is privileged for the designated recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, retention, disclosure, copying, printing, forwarding or dissemination of the message is strictly prohibited. If you have received the message in error, please erase all copies of the message (including attachments) from your system and notify the sender immediately.
