This is such a keyboard warrior moment here with so little brain cells involved in the actual reasoning, and I can see that you're clearly trying to make use of the general anti-separatist sentiment here in Canada to rile people up that I find it almost pointless to reply to you. If you think that by simply listing some legitimate sources, you'd have the upper hand in an argument, you'd be dead wrong.

First off, while i certainly oppose Alberta's separating from Canada, if they make a legit case to show that the majority of their citizens are in support of that, I don't see why they can't just separate. Heck, any province can do that if they want to through legitimate means. Let's freaking talk about it.

Secondly, The Rule of Law is important, but it is not absolute. The Law has many limits, and heck, it even changes over time. Nothing that changes over time can be absolute; that's just contradictory.

Further, the Rule OF Law is something that is implemented, and good lawyers are trained to understand and uphold the "spirit" of the law, not the exact stipulations of it, which often leaves a lot of details unspecified or vague. And the Law isn't always updated in a timely manner to answer every complication or conflict in human society; that is practically impossible and untenable. In the case of China and Taiwan, let's say I forgive you to have very conveniently acknowledged the PRC as the sole owner of the name "China" while ignoring the ROC's claim over the name, and thus conveniently claiming that Taiwan should simply be treated as the land that the PRC has sovereigty over. The argument over who should be the legitimate receipient of the benefits from the aigned signed Treaty of San Francisco is irrelevant due to the civil war that's happened in China later on. Both parties are technically, or should I say, legally, at war with each other ever since. And if you really want to argue about that one dumb treated, well, there the damn Treaty of San Francisco itself doesn't legitimize either the PRC or ROC as the government of China. So bringing this up is moot, and, frankly, it just tells me what contents you've been fed with.

Now onto the where the limits of the law comes in. If we simply follow the letters of the law, oh boy do we have some fun situations that'd happen. So many darn countries would simply not exist if we simply follow it to the letter. France could've forever denied having signed a treaty with England to easily legitimate the UK as we know it, or, back in those days, apply enough pressure militarily and economically to the England to supress its people's desires to declare their own independence. This is what we see today with China; the people of Taiwan has repeatedly showed a desire to declare their own independence from the war, only to be threatened by China with military and economic force. While the Law certainly isn't under China's control, if we simply go by your wat of following the law to the dot, then you are simply ruling BY Law while claiming that this is the Rule OF Law, while simultaneously acknowleging thar it's totally fine and legitimate for stronger countries to strongarm weaker countries into capitulation and submission, all while putting their own claim on "following the law". If you do not understand what's so messed up here, I have nothing else to say to you.

The Rule OF Law is and should always be upheld with discretion, with a good understanding of its spirit instead of its letters, because its absolutism is only probably relevant for its time and not guaranteed to be timeless, unless the human society is held in stasis. Otherwise, and idk if you've even come to notice, it's very easily for interested parties to overwhelm the meaning of the law and uphold them in their own fashion, and thus Rule BY Law.

And finally, to your last 2 paragraphs, I'd say hold your fucking horses right there. Nobody is convincing civilians to be up in arms and fight in another nation here in Canada. IDK where you're even getting that from, and you seem so far radicalized that you appear to be rather extreme in how you even comprehend and interpret things. We're talking about Japan re-arming themselves to fight for Taiwan here, and I am in no way encouraging the Japanese to do so. What I am doing is to sympathize with their situation and understand why they think that this is their way to ensure their own survival. I don't care who the fuck you are, which country you're from, or what your beliefs are, but if you can't look at the situation that Japan is in and tell me they aren't doing this for self protection, for a country that has literally given up arms for almost 80 fucking years, you either need to grow up and understand human politics, or you're a naive tool for the CCP.

If you're just here to be a tool, then I have wasted my breath on you, but I hope this message would still somehow make some sense to you, or to someone else. Peace out.