Tibetan sovereignty and independence from China.

Umm... I think that is just what I said.

'If'. That is the key word in the sentence. At this point, hypotheticals are as useful as they ever are. The fact remains that there is a large Han presence in Tibet. One that out-numbers the Tibetans, not all of which are even proven to want independence themselves. If you want 'the majority' to agree with independence, get ready to oust the majority of the population.
I don't think anybody can say that for sure. Even if it wasn't annexed, the Chinese people would probably move there anyways and the population would grow. And farming innovations are not that predictable.

And is there a statue of limitations on this? A starting and ending point?

Actually, it kind of... does.
Ruling with an iron fist is ruling with an iron fist. Its still ruling. That is war.
Just saying definition, not that the Chinese control is right or not.

Lets say The Netherlands wants to go to war with Belgium to "Reunite the Netherlands". If they win the war, they can't annex Belgium because of two thing. "The Treaty of London" and UN laws. But if my claim, that you agreed with, was in effect, the Netherlands can annex Belgium because Belgium is a small nation. This is just an example

Another example would be Belgium going to war with Luxembourg to "Reclaim land for Greater Belgium". If they win the war, Belgium still can't control the land because of UN laws. But if my claim was in effect, Belgium can annex Luxembourg because it is a small nation.

In today's society, taking complete control over other countries land is illegal. In china's case with Tibet, the UN let it slide, but I blame it on power and influence back then. Now, 50-60 years later, the UN needs to get on this case because this is a black mark on the UN.

LOL. If Chinese influence BACK THEN could stop the U.N. from doing anything, nothing is going to happen now.

You didn't answer to my question of a statue of limitations. I kind of want a straight answer.

UN law forbids the annexation of other countries no matter what the claim is.

Incidentally, the majority of people living in Tibet are not Han Chinese. There is a large minority of Han Chinese, but they are not even close to being the majority.

*Sigh* Since you are not going to answer the question, I'll just put out my answer...
If it was 'yes':
Then the Chinese government would just have to hold on long enough.
If it was 'no':
Then EVERY country is in violation of that particular statute.

There is no statute of limitations on annexation. Any territory gained by conquest conducted post-foundation of the UN is illegal and will be illegally held forever.

My point was that if there is no limit on it, then all terrictories taken pre-U.N. also count. Therefore, every nation is in violation.

Oh, I misunderstood you question on statute of limitations. But Kali's answer would have been similar to mine.

And my answer would be no different.

It is only illegal if it happens after it becomes law. If you kill someone but it is not illegal at the time, you do not get in trouble. If it becomes illegal later, you would still not get in trouble because you killed that person while it was still legal.

He is correct, though can't rember from where he is.

I have studied law [to a certain extent] and am well aware of this. However, my question is whether or not it applies identically to the matter of countries and nations, which have a much larger implication than any one murder.

Retroactive punishment is stupid and illegitimate, no matter what the scale of the crime might be. China, however, acted while the UN was already in power and annexation was already illegal.

And what did anyone do to stop it...................exactly.

That does not make it any more legal.

I was talking about how the western powers and the U.N sat by and watched as a country was forcefully absorbed.

Wake up, world! Turn against those cultural imperialists!

Yes but it is still illegal.