Talk:Concessions and leases in international relations

message: This entry appears to confuse a number of different concepts. First, the title is misleading. The content of the entry generally concerns what is ordinarily classified in international legal terms as 'leased territory' or 'territorial lease'. This means the granting of rights to States (or other international legal personalities) over specific territory, usually with the right to exercise sovereign-like powers. This is distinguished from the granting of commercial rights to private law entities, which are proper 'concession'. The entry concerns the international legal phenomenon and should therefore be titled accordingly. For the same reason, sentences such as '…the concessions in China were leased' is actually meaningless. 
* No, it explicitly refers to both territorial leases AND non-leased territorial concessions.
Along the same line, there is no such thing as 'territorial concession'. What the entry refers to is ‘cession of territory’. And indeed an important doctrinal question was in the past whether a territorial lease amounted to cession of territory or not (the answer usually being that it did not).
In addition there are specific inaccuracies: the validity of ‘unequal treaties’ was contested  because of the political coercion involved in their conclusion. This has nothing to do with force majeure. 
*The reasoning to contest is precisely that irresistible political/military coercion by a far stronger force cnstitutes he equiavlent of force majeure in private law, where it can be invoked as an invalidating circumstance
It would be helpful to add to the entry that post-2000 there are very few cases of territorial lease still in existence. The most famous and controversial is that of Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. 
*True, and thus stated in Guantanamo's section (to be corrected if there are any other left), but feel free to repeat it in the general text, I nearly did in the first place.
In the list of leases (and they are 'lease', not 'concession holders'), leases in Africa should be included, as well as the now-terminated Panama Canal Zone Lease. 
*Now that should make some welcome contributions, please go ahead Arcarius 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: I removed the claim that Guantanimo Bay is the last concession in the world, since the same section lists two other concessions to the U.S. that still exist. Granted, both are memorials, but the statement still amounted to an unsourced self-contradiction. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of text 

message: There is a very small piece of British soil on Ocracoke Island, North Carolina, USA  see this article: []   William.Richards (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Addition

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Concession (territory). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604062241/http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-runnymede/w-runnymede-history/w-runnymede-memorials.htm to http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-vh/w-visits/w-findaplace/w-runnymede/w-runnymede-history/w-runnymede-memorials.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified