Umbilical disconnect actuator

Contamination of sensitive equipment when squibs are fired is prevented by O-rings which retain the debris of squib discharge within the disconnect device

Hong Kong's Umbrella Movement and Beijing's Failure to Honor the Basic Law

Over the past few months Hong Kong has been deeply embedded in political change and protests. These debates and confrontations in Hong Kong have had a particular constitutional character grounded in disputes over interpretation of the Hong Kong Basic Law’s constitutional text. Recent actions initiated by Beijing have, in the public eye, called into question solemn commitments made to Hong Kong under the “one country, two systems” model promised in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration. A series of reports and decisions issued this past year have been the source of public discontent. This paper will consider these causes and suggest avenues to a solution going forward.postprin

Hong Kong's Umbrella Movement: Beijing's Broken Promises

For almost three months beginning in late September 2014, the people of Hong Kong filled the streets of their city and made world headlines with a dramatic series of large, peaceful protests that became known as the Umbrella Movement. The protests' sparks included a June 2015 PRC State Council White Paper on the practice of 'one country, two system' in Hong Kong and the August 2015 Decision by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on electoral reform in Hong Kong. The former caused grave concern that Hong Kong's autonomy and rule of law were being eroded and the latter appeared to renege on promises of universal suffrage in Hong Kong. This paper explores Hong Kong perspectives on these developments and implications for Hong Kong's autonomy and the rule of law under the 'one country, two systems' framework.published_or_final_versio

International recognition of autonomy for indigenous populations: the case of Tibet

This chapter addresses China’s Tibet policy and the claims made about it in relation to international legal standards and practices. At this critical time in a Sino-Tibetan dialogue that has gone on since 2002, a book on activating human rights and peace offers an excellent venue for China and the international community to evaluate various claims and policies and consider a path forward. China’s claims about Tibet have provided a weak foundation for its policies. Emerging international standards concerning the human rights and political autonomy of indigenous ethnic populations may offer a more constructive path forward. Such standards may afford an agreeable alternative to the path of seeking independence that China fears. After the recent decision by the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo case upholding a right to declare independence Chinese anxieties about Tibetan intentions will only increase. Now may be the time for a policy change to pursue an autonomy model more likely to satisfy the Tibetan urge for self-rule in the Chinese context.published_or_final_versio

Tibet and China’s ‘National Minority’ policies

China's hard line and repressive policies have often stood in the way of its acceptance on the international stage. This legacy has nowhere been more evident than with respect to its national minority policies applied in Tibet. While China long ago in the 1951 17-point Agreement agreed to provide autonomy to Tibetans it has never delivered on this promise, offering repression and assimilation instead. In nearly every diplomatic outing, as was especially evident in the lead up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, China's Tibet policies have been an issue. With the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the 2008 Tibetan Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People China surely has excellent guidance for a more humane policy to meet Tibetan concerns. With reference to its historical legacy and international standards, this article encourages China to embrace such policy reform.postprin

Repression, resistance and resilience in Tibet

207075postprin

Chinese policies in Tibet: should India remain concerned?

India has long been engaged with the Tibet issue, though in recent years this engagement tends to focus more on strategic considerations, as some critics question the costs, in terms of Sino-Indian relations, of hosting Tibetan exiles. These costs are said to arise out of tense relations over border disputes, security concerns and trade. These strategic considerations may tend to drown out evaluation of the substantive situation that has produced the Sino-Tibetan impasse - which is the focus of this article. With its long relationship with Tibet, India can ill afford to ignore deep-seated social justice problems in the community that stretches along most of its northern border, especially if Chinese policies in Tibet are likely to increase or decrease refugee flows. This article offers an overview of the Sino-Tibetan dispute and efforts at resolution. After the March 2008 uprising, in a Chinese effort at damage control in the lead up to the Olympics, three quick Sino-Tibetan meetings took place, in May, July and October. In the October meeting the Tibetans produced a 'Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People,' which the Chinese side quickly rejected. In a November plenary meeting of representatives of the worldwide Tibetan exile community, which took place in Dharamsala, India, Tibetans resolved to push on with their efforts to achieve autonomy. With China knocking at the door, these developments will continue to demonstrate the importance of India’s fundamental commitments to the Tibetan people.published_or_final_versio

China & the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: The Tibetan Case

Using sovereignty as a shield, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has generally sought a pass in regard to enforcing international human rights compliance. Though it has signed numerous human rights treaties, its state-centered approach has sought to avoid all efforts at enforcement. This avoidance has nowhere been more absolute than its disavowal of any obligations regarding indigenous peoples’ rights. The PRC actually voted in support of the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (UN General Assembly 2008). It then promptly disavowed any obligation under the declaration, proclaiming there were no indigenous peoples in China. It proclaimed 5,000 years of unity and harmony with its 55 designated national minorities living in peace on their own land. Though a bloody history and recent protests by the most prominent of these minorities – Tibetans, Uyghurs, and Mongols – would tend to belie such assertion, the international community has rarely challenged this claim.postprin

The political economy and culture of human rights in East Asia

The Asian values debate has been one of the preeminent human rights debates in the world for the past two decades. The claim of some East Asian regimes for continued authoritarian government and denial of certain human rights on the grounds that this is in harmony with Asian values, helps preserve community and leads to higher growth is disputed in this article. This is done on the basis that liberal constitutionalism – which is defined here as democracy, the rule of law and human rights – when indigenised through debate and adaption to local conditions is not only in keeping with traditions but, as the experience of many countries in East Asia itself reveals, is better at managing the diverse interests that emerge in rapidly changing societies and is thereby a generator of political and economic stability. Thus, the East Asian discourse offers insights for human rights debates in many other developing countries globally.published_or_final_versio

State formation and autonomy: Does Chinese practice in Tibet meet international standards?

China’s hardline and repressive policies have often stood in the way of its acceptance on the international stage. This legacy has nowhere been more evident than with respect to its national minority policies applied in Tibet. While China long ago in the 1951 17-point Agreement agreed to provide autonomy to Tibetans it has never delivered on this promise, offering repression and assimilation instead. In nearly every diplomatic outing, as was especially evident in the lead up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, China’s Tibet policies have been an issue. With the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the 2008 Tibetan Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People China surely has excellent guidance for a more humane policy to meet Tibetan concerns. With reference to its historical legacy and international standards, this paper encourages China to embrace such policy reform.postprintThe American Political Science Association (APSA) 2012 Annual Meeting & Exhibition, New Orleans, L.A., 30 August - 2 September 2012. In APSA 2012 Annual Meeting Program, 2012, p. 1-1