用戶名:   密碼:



譯者:unknown     發布時間:2018-06-06     超過 0 位網友閱讀



Why can't the world remove China's UN security council membership as China doesn’t follow the international court order on the South China Sea?



Joseph Wang, studied at Ph.D Astronomy UT Austin, Physics MIT
Answered Aug 18
Because every other member of the Security Council ignores decisions by international courts when it’s not in their national interest. Take a look at
Nicaragua v. United States - Wikipedia - US ignores ruling of World Court
Chagos Marine Protected Area - Wikipedia - UK ignores PCA ruling
And there is this ongoing lawsuit between the Ukraine v. Russia
Haven’t found anything from France.
The other thing is that you’ve missed the memo. The Philippines has a new President, and China and the Philippines are getting along quite well now. The message from China to the Philippines was that “look, we really don’t care about those islands, we just don’t want you to be a proxy for the United States interests.” As it turns out China has stopped doing things that the Philippines finds objectionable and relations are good right now.

因為(不止中國)每個其他的安理會成員,當國際法庭的決定不符合它們的國家利益的時候,都選擇無視。看一看“鏈接:尼加拉瓜起訴美國-維基”,美國無視世界法院的規定。“鏈接:查戈斯海洋保護區-維基”英國無視污染控制局(Pollution Control Agency)的規定并且這是烏克蘭與俄羅斯之間正在進行的訴訟。


Wenbin Wu, Chinese citizen
Answered Aug 10
The World is not here today, kid.
You asked two things in one question. The first is about the UN. The second about the SCS. Let’s deal with them one by one.
For the UN, it’s pretty simple. The World is precisely the five UNSC permanent members, i.e., China, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia. Let’s say one of the Big Five proposes to remove China’s permanent membership -> China vetos that motion -> the end. Within the UN framework, absolutely no one can remove a UNSC permanent member. That’s a paradox.
As for the South China Sea court ruling, I’ve answered related questions multiple times, so here I just quote some of my comments to Collin Anthony Spears, an American citizen living in Taiwan who blocked me a long time ago but just reappeared under my answer to Why is China famous for claiming lands?
Can you provide any evidence the court has shown any international legal authority in the past, or that in any significant case it provided guideline that was obeyed by participants? No. Plus China wasn’t even on court. Is that the so-called procedural justice? … (Note: China claims South China Sea islands based on) the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation.
since those times there has been like 60 years of international law created…like the The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS), which China signed. A treaty which China is violating.
So that (note: the Delclaration and the Proclaimation) doesn’t count anymore? Is it officially abolished? Any new international convention coming out saying the SCS belongs to somebody else? I just saw a petty pesuo ruling (from a so-called court that the UN wouldn’t even recognize. If you have an issue with this, please tell us a single case that the “court” ever worked before. Same as always, evidence) telling the SCS belongs to NOBODY, which of course, nobody in the region, including China, takes seriously. A piece of trash, that is. Plus the very initiator of the case, the Philippines, saw past it in 2 months. Their president still being hated for this! Sad!
Buddy you really need to update your worldview. You came from THE coutry that DIDN’T EVEN SIGN the UNCLOS. Plus UNCLOS doesn’t say China can’t claim its own territory. China is doing just that, playing happily on its own territory. If you have a problem with this, to say the least, you can bomb us out of here! Like you can.
America signing onto a treaty or not doesn’t mean it is not an international standard. The U.S. is not a primary affected party in this situation nor is the U.S. in a border dispute over this issue. This has nothing to do with the U.S. as several nations in the region do want freedom of navigation through the SCS, including India, Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, even the EU has chimed in, because they have trade interests there.
The UNCLOS clearly states what is exclusive economic territory and what is outside a nations territory. It also talks about what an island is and what can be claimed as territory. China signed it.
Now they don’t like the rules, so they are flouting them.
So you countered one argument. Good! Internationale!
99% of the times UNCLOS tells you WHAT HAPPENS WITH a territory, not WHAT IS a territory. Thus, does it have anything to do with China, or any other countries in the region like Vietnam’s sovereignty claim? No. Does it define what is an artificial island? No. For the rest 1%, China got presence all over the SCS, and nAtuRaL reefs are naturally becoming our islands down here. Can you prove they are artificial islands and thus illegal and furthermore unsuitable for being any country’s territory using UNCLOS? No.
What are you gonna do then? You know, international organizations are just an instrument. In the end it’s countries running the show. So which country’s perspective are you using? An “international” perspective? Can “international” hand in a case to the “court”? Can “international” sail ships all around? Hahaha. If you are using the US perspective, well, the US doesn’t claim a shit in the SCS, and it isn’t even part of the UNCLOS. What does it have to do with this? If it wants to do the cop around thing again, then good, we are waiting for it right here! Duh!
Deleted his own comment or moderated by Quora.
Oh dude, what I meant is
4. We are the imperialism.
It’s just that. Nothing more, nothing less. This is a game of imperialism vs. imperialism vs. imperialism. Yes the West is right, China is one among the imperial-isms, just like them. Perhaps you were reluctant to bring up Vietnam again, which claims and occupies hell of a lot in the SCS. Yeah, it’s another small imperialism. Both our countries beat them once. The US blew them back to the Bronze Age. China blew them further back to the Stone Age. Otherwise they would have been claiming hell a lot more. It’s just nature. There’s nothing wrong in imperialism whatsoever. Like the racial profiling goes, man with the biggest gun gets the biggest fun.
Anyway, at least at this point you probably know why the UNCLOS has absolutely nothing to do with the sovereignty claims in the SCS. It’s exactly why nobody in this region, I mean exactly nobody, is bringing up that piece of trash like it is a thing. Guess we can call that an improvement.


關于南中國海的法院的規定,我已經多次回答了相關的問題,所以這里我只引用一些我對科林·安東尼·斯皮爾斯(Collin Anthony Spears)的評論。這人是一位生活在臺灣的美國公民,很久前“膈應(block)”過我,最近再次出現在我回答的“為什么中國以宣稱土地而聞名?( answer to Why is China famous for claiming lands?)”里。












Robin Daverman, World traveler
Answered Aug 9
Why can't the world remove China's UN security council membership as China doesn’t follow the international court order on the South China Sea? China has never contributed to world peace, on the contrary China is a big threat to world peace.
Let this question be a demonstration that whenever A and B fight, C benefits.
The question accuses China. The answers sh*t on the US with “what about you”. The OP is Indian.
This is the most common way the world works. The one who’s most eager for the US and China to have a fight in North Korea is Japan. The one who most want the US and Russia to fight in Syria is Saudi Arabia. So on and so forth.
So please, stop shooting at the US so much. The ‘politically correct’ American attitude towards the UN is that they are a bunch of petty assh*les infringing on our sovereignty, and if they ever try to impose their judgment on us, we shall promptly invade Hague with our Marines and teach them a lesson. "Hague Invasion Act": Bush Signs a New Law Designed to Intimidate Countries That Ratify the Treaty for the International Criminal Court So why the heck would we care when China is doing like 1% of what we are doing, really? When President Trump is so much into “we break bad deals” himself? ‘This deal will make me look terrible’: Full transcripts of Trump’s calls with Mexico and Australia
The US will NEVER threaten to kick somebody out of the UN, because the UN is simply not that significant for us. Who cares about UN? The UN is mostly for the benefit of smaller countries - they get some degree of protection from invasion by the more powerful countries in their neighborhood if they follow all UN rules. Stop and think for a minute - who has the most to lose if there’s no UN? Those little defenseless countries with a lot of resources. They can be easily overrun by 20 other countries in a heartbeat. Pax Americana makes it possible for everybody to pet the little cat, but nobody is allowed to take the cat home. The US has little to fear even if there’s no UN, with the biggest military, protected by two oceans. The big guys in UNSC all know that they can’t afford to get into a fight with each other anymore. That’s what UNSC is for - for the big military powers to negotiate with each other. If there’s a proxy war, the proxy country is supposed to spill their blood for our political objectives, OK?
The US and China are joined in the hips economically with annual trade volume of almost $600 billion annually. We are openly for sale. China gave our President a whole bunch of valuable trademarks, and more than half of our Congressmen have business ties with China. If India wants some benefit, show us some real money, instead of doing this kind of useless online venting. American people need to be paid too. How about open your highly protected market for our Agro, stop abusing our H1-B Visa program like a temp agency, pay legitimate royalties to our Pharma, and do $650 billion trade with the US, plus pay our politicians a couple $billion or something. In case you haven’t noticed - Mr. Trump even want more money out of our longest-term allies like Canada! Sorry if Realpolitik is a b*tch.






Joseph Holleman
Updated Aug 11
Compared to the US, its allies, and even Russia…how is China a threat to world peace??
Last I checked China has had two relatively minor border skirmishes with India and Vietnam in the 1960s but has not bombed or gone to war with, well, anyone since that time. They were brutally invaded by Japan during World War II, but they have not invaded or made war on anyone since the 1960s.
After Deng, China’s focus has been growing its economy and becoming a power in international trade, not making war on other countries.
If the rest of the world did likewise I daresay the world would be a MUCH safer and peaceful place.





Zeyang Fan, lives in China
Answered Aug 10
Ok, I am going to talk about two points. First, the so called international court. Second, removing China’s UNSC membership.
•        The “international court”.
The “international court” is the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Although it is also located in Hague, it is not the International Court of Justice, which is the UN court. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is an intergovernmental organization located at The Hague in the Netherlands. The PCA is not a court "in the traditional sense", but provides services of arbitral tribunal to resolve disputes between member states, international organizations, or private parties arising out of international agreements. The organization is not a United Nations agency. Seems like lots of people doesn’t even know this very simple fact. Which means the arbitration has nothing to do with UN. After the arbitration, UN’s official Weibo in China posted a weibo, making it clear that UN has nothing to do with the “international court”.
•        Removing a permanent member of UNSC.
Lets see what the United Nations Charter says about this.
Chapter V: The Security Council
Article 23
1. The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of China, France, the union   of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution.
Obviously, these five countries are permanent members of the UNSC because the charter says so. They were not elected by the other members, nor weren’t they granted by someone else. It is simply because the charter says so. It has been this way since 1945, that was when UN was found. PRC inherited the membership from ROC after ROC was overthrown. Russia inherited the membership from Soviet union   after USSR collapsed.
So, if you want to remove a country, or add another country, you would have to change the charter of UN.
How could the charter be changed? Lets see.
Article 108
Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.
It means, if you want to change the permanent members of UNSC,
1.        2/3 of the UN members would have to participate in the voting
2.        2/3 of these nations has to agree with the change
3.        The five permanent members of UNSC agrees
There are currently 192 members in UN. So this means, even if the 28 NATO members, Japan, South Korea, India, all agrees to remove China, you would still need another 97 countries to agree to remove China from UNSC. This already seems impossible to me. But lets ignore this, lets say you got the 128 votes needed, you would still need UNSC to agree with the decision. Which means you would need China to not veto this. Still seems possible to you? I don’t think so.



1. 安全理事會以聯合國15會員國組織之。中華民國、法蘭西、蘇維埃社會主義共和國聯盟、大不列顛及北愛爾蘭聯合王國及美利堅合眾國應為安全理事會常任理事國。大會應選舉聯合國其他10會員國為安全理事會非常任理事國,選舉時首宜充分斟酌聯合國各會員國于維持國際和平與安全及本組織其余各宗旨上之貢獻,并宜充分斟酌地域上之公勻分配。




Ruoyu Liu, studied at Sun Yat-Sen University (2014)
Answered Aug 9
See these four flags? Theses four countries were members of Big Four that had won the WW2, they together made up the Four Policemen, a post-war council proposed by FDR to guard the world order. The Four Policemen came into fruition as the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. And France was later added as the fifth member of the council in 1945 due to the insistence of Churchill. Later on PRC inherited the seat of ROC and Russia inherited the seat of USSR.
In other words, China's permanent membership in UNSC is part of the cornerstone of postwar order. Unless there is a WW3 that foundamentally changes the current world pattern, there's nothing you can do to alter or remove any of the UNSC permanent members.




Bevin Chu, veteran commentator on Sino-US relations
Answered Sep 29
Why can't the world [sic!] remove [sic!] China's UN security council membership as China doesn’t follow the international court order [sic!] on the South China Sea?
Your question is a public admission that you lack any understanding of great power politics, and how these nominally objective “international bodies” actually work.
Arbitration is only binding when both parties agree to participate. China did not even agree to the arbitration. The Philippines PAID the arbitration agency for its ruling. The ruling was bought and paid for, and has ZERO moral or legal validity.
You have also mistakenly assumed that China’s territorial claim is invalid. The reality is that NOBODY disputed China’s claims to the South China Sea right after WWII, when Japan, which had occupied the region during the war, returned the islands in question to China.
It was only years or even decades later, that other nations in the region started making belated claims that this or that island “was always ours”.





Leo Moran, Papers in Modern Military History, Small Unit Tactics, Strategy, Military Law
Answered Aug 15
Why, in your mind, should China be singled out for ignoring the decision of the International Court?
I ask because ALL of the UNSC Permanent Members have, on multiple occasions, ignored the rulings of International Courts, the worst repeat-offender among them being the United States.
If China was stripped of its UNSC membership, then shouldn’t the same thing be done to France, the UK, and the US as well? Or do we apply a double standard and prove once and for all that we in the West are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites?



Ray Comeau, interested in geo-politics and politics in general
Answered Aug 9
Maybe other people have a different opinion.
A global survey conducted by WIN/Gallup International, polled residents in 68 countries on everything from the global economy to politics and living conditions.
Country with highest % received from each country
24 percent of the surveyed countries ranked the United States as the greatest threat to world peace today, followed by Pakistan at 8 percent, China at 6 percent and four countries (Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea) tied at 5 percent.

由WIN/Gallup International發起的全球調查,就全球經濟政治和生活條件調查了68個國家的居民。



Ellis Ho, Hong Konger in Mainland China
Answered Aug 9
Unfortunately, people in Russia and China and many countries are talking exactly the same things about US.
Shall we remove US first to be fair?
US has not signed the agreement to recognise that court. US has nothing in SCE. US has wars with lots of countries over the world. Are the evidences more concrete?



匿名發表  用戶名: 密碼: 驗證碼:

聯合國譯帖 - 熱門推薦
雙語美文 - 閱讀榜
聯合國譯帖 - 最新收錄
國外優秀論壇 - 為您推薦
經驗分享 - 閱讀榜
聯系郵箱:[email protected]