用戶名:   密碼:

當前位置:首頁社區國外譯帖聯合國中國不遵循國際法庭判決為什么不取消中國安理會資格?
看世界譯帖
聯合國

中國不遵循國際法庭判決為什么不取消中國安理會資格?


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

所以為什么我們TMD要關心中國正在做這世界百分之1的國家都在做的事情?

原文地址:https://www.quora.com


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?

為什么世界不取消中國的聯合國安理會成員資格,鑒于中國不遵循國際法庭在南中國海上的命令?

中國不遵循國際法庭判決為什么不取消中國安理會資格?





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.

喬瑟夫·王,曾學習于麻省理工物理學,UT奧斯汀物理學博士
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。

沒有找到來自法國的任何信息。
另一件事是你錯過了備忘錄。菲律賓有一位新總統,中國和菲律賓現在相處得很好。中國對菲律賓發出來的消息是“瞧,我們真的不在意那幾個島,我們只不過是不希望你成為美國利益的代理人。”在發出這個信息的時候,中國已經停止做讓菲律賓反感(的事),并且當前(中菲)關系良好。



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?
————
Wenbin:
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.
Collin:
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.
Wenbin:
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.
Collin:
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.
Wenbin:
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!
Collin:
Deleted his own comment or moderated by Quora.
Wenbin:
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.

吳文斌,中國公民
這世界不是這樣的,孩子。
你在一個問題里問了兩個問題。第一個是關于聯合國。第二個是關于南中國海。我們一個一個的說。
關于聯合國,這個真的很簡單。這個世界由五個聯合國常任理事國構成。例如,中國、英國、法國、俄羅斯。當五大常任理事之一建議踢掉中國,移除中國常任理事國資格→中國參與投票→終結。在聯合國框架內,毫無疑問沒人能踢掉一個常任理事國。這是自相矛盾的。

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。

文斌:
你有什么證據能證明,(國際)法院在過去展現過國際法律權威嗎?(意指法律得以貫徹執行。)或者,在任何重大事.件中,它提供了被參與者們所遵守的指導?沒有,包括中國,沒有一個遵守的。這是所謂的程序正義嗎?(注:中國宣稱南中國海海島是基于《開羅宣言》和《波茨坦宣言》。)

科林:
自《開羅宣言》和《波茨坦宣言》以來,國際法的誕生至今已有60年的歷史。比如聯合國大會通過的海洋法(UNCLOS),一個中國簽署了的法律。一個正被中國違反的條約。

文斌:
所以《開羅宣言》和《波茨坦宣言》就不作數了?它被正式廢除了?有任何新國際大會出來聲稱南中國海屬于其他某個人或國家了?我只看到一個小法院的裁定(一個聯合國都不承認的所謂的法院。如果你對此有疑問,請告訴大家,這個所謂的“法院”過去是怎么運作的。同樣的,證據拿出來),告知南中國海不屬于任何人或組織,包括中國,嚴肅的。一張廢紙,就是這樣。包括始作俑者菲律賓,回顧過去2個月里,他們的總統依舊厭惡這個裁定!真是難過呢!

伙計,你真的需要更新你的世界觀。你的美國甚至都不承認《聯合國海洋法公約》。包括該公約沒有聲稱中國不能宣稱南中國海是自己的領土。中國不過是正在自己的領土上做喜歡做的事情。如果你有任何疑問,退一步說,你(甚至)可以把我們武力敢走!如果你能的話。

科林:
美國有沒有簽署這個公約,不意味著它就不是國際標準了。美國在這種情況下,不是主要的相關方,也不是美國的邊境爭端。這與美國無關,這是在該地區的幾個國家想要在南中國海的航行自由,包括印度,日本,印度尼西亞,菲律賓,越南,甚至歐盟也一邊幫腔,因為他們在這里有貿易利益。

《聯合國海洋公約》明確聲明什么是專屬經濟區域和國家領土之外是什么。里面也談到了什么是“島”,什么時候可以被宣稱為領土。中國簽署了的。
現在他們不喜歡這些規定了,所以他們藐視了它們。

文斌:
所以你在一場辯論中進行了反駁。很好!
《聯合國海洋法公約》百分之99的部分都在告訴你圍繞領土所發生的事,而不是告訴你什么是領土。因此,圍繞中國,這個公約有什么關系嗎?或者在這個區域內如越南的主權主張上,有什么關系嗎?沒有。它有明確什么是人造島嗎?沒有。而余下的百分之1,中國在南中國海上擁有的自然礁石變成了我們的島了。你能證明這些人工島是非法的,且在公約內不適用于其他任何國家的領土嗎?不能。

你接下來要做什么?你知道的,國際組織不過是一個工具。最終它不過是國家們的自我展示的(平臺)。所以你在借用哪個國家的視角(來看待這個事)?“國際”視角?“國際”能向法院提交報告嗎?“國際”的航船航行在各地?哈哈哈哈哈哈。如果你在用美國的視角,那么,美國沒有在南中國海這事上宣稱任何東西,它甚至都不是《聯合國海洋法公約》的一員。所以它為何非要這樣做呢?如果它想要再次做世界警察,那么好吧,我們在這里等著它!切!

科林:
刪除了自己的評論或由Quora刪除了。

文斌:
噢,伙計,我說什么來著。

4.我們是帝國主義。
就是這樣。僅此而已。這就是一個帝國主義VS帝國主義VS帝國主義的游戲。是的,西方是對的,中國就是帝國主義的一員,就如它們一樣。可能你不愿意再次教訓越南,一個在南中國海上聲稱并占領海量(島嶼)的國家。是啊,另一個小型的帝國主義。我和你的國家都擊敗過他們一次。美國把它們炸回了青銅時代,中國把他們炸回了石器時代。另一方面他們將會聲稱更多的島嶼。這是自然而然的事。帝國主義或其他什么,本來也沒什么問題。就像種族歧視,或者用槍來尋樂的人。
無論怎樣,至少在這點上你可能知道,為什么《聯合國海洋法公約》在南中國海上的主權主張這事上什么都不是。這就是為什么沒有人在這個地區,我的意思是無人把那張紙當回事。我猜,我們能稱之為一種進步。



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.

羅賓·代夫曼,全球旅行者
讓我們舉一個例子來形容這個問題:A和B打架,C是好處。
這問題指控中國。美國的“證詞”是“你瞧瞧你在南中國海的那熊樣”。印度是旁觀者。
這是最常見的世界運行方式。他們中最渴望中美在北朝鮮打架的是日本。他們中最希望美俄在敘利亞打架的是沙特阿拉伯。等等還有。

所以請你,請你們不要再頻繁針對美國了。對于聯合國,美國的“政治正確”的態度是:那是一小群侵犯我們主權的混蛋(),并且如果他們曾經試圖將他們的判斷強加給我們,我就會用我們的海軍陸戰隊迅速地入侵海牙(國際法庭),給他們上一堂課。
鏈接:“海牙入侵行動”:布什簽署一項新的法律旨在恐嚇批準該條約的國際刑事法庭(見截圖)

所以為什么我們TMD要關心中國正在做這世界百分之1的國家都在做的事情?你認真的?當特朗普總統沉浸在“我們摧毀了壞交易”時,這是他自己做到的?
鏈接:“這交易對我來說太可怕了”:特朗普與墨西哥和澳大利亞通話的完整記錄。

美國絕不會威脅要把某人踢出聯合國,因為聯合國對于美國來說沒什么意義。誰在乎聯合國?聯合國更多的為了小國家們的利益---如果他們遵守聯合國規定,那么他們可以在面對來自更強大的鄰居入侵時可以得到一定程度的保護。停下來思考一分鐘---如果沒有聯合國,誰會損失最多?擁有大量資源的缺乏自我保護的小國家們。他們很容易被其他20個國家聯合蹂躪。美式和平使每個人都養寵物貓但又不被允許帶回家成為可能(譯注:成果在我,成本在你)。作為世界上最強的軍事力量,又有兩大洋保護的美國,即使沒了聯合國也幾乎不會害怕。聯合國安理會里的大家伙們都知道,他們無法擔負與其中任何一個陷入戰爭的代價。那才是聯合國的目的---為了強權們能彼此坐在談判桌上。為了我們(強權國家們)的政治目標,如果發生代理人戰爭,代理國就會被我們支持并揮灑他們的鮮血,明白了嗎?

中美因每年交易額接近6000億美元而相互交織在一起難分彼此。我們為了貿易而開放。中國給了我們總統一整個極具價值的貿易市場,并且我們超過一半的國會議員跟中國建立了商業往來。如果印度想要一些利益,真金白銀拿出來,而非做這類無用的網絡宣泄。美國人也需要付錢(才會干活)。給我們的農業開放你們那高度保護性的市場如何?別搞得跟一個臨時機構一般濫用我們的H1B簽證,給我們的制藥公司支付合理的使用費,并跟美國達到6500億美元的貿易額,再加上給我們的政客數十億美元獻金或同等其他的東西。假如你沒被關注---特朗普先生甚至希望跟我們保持有最悠久同盟關系的如加拿大,出更多錢。所以我很抱歉,在這個婊子“現實政治”上。



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.

約瑟夫·霍利曼
跟美國和它的盟友相比,即使跟俄羅斯相比……所以,怎么得出中國是世界和平的一個威脅的?

最近我查閱到了,兩個相對規模較小的1960年代的中國跟印度和越南的邊境沖突,但任何從那時起的人都沒有遭到轟炸,或走向了戰爭。在第二次世界大戰期間,他們遭受過日本殘酷的侵略。但自1960年代以來,他們沒有入侵任何人或者制造過任何戰爭。

鄧小平后,中國的精力用在了自身經濟的增長,和在國際貿易上成為強大的一員,而不是跟其他任何國家發生戰爭。

如果這世界上的國家都這么明智的花,我打賭,這個世界會變成一個更加安全和更加和平的地方。(注:該條評論點贊數遠超任何一條其他評論)



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
COMPOSITION
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.

范澤陽,居住于中國。
我接下來來回答你這2個問題。首先,所謂的國際法庭。其二,開除中國聯合國理事會成員資格。
·“國際法庭”
“國際法庭”是常設仲裁庭。雖然它坐落在海牙,但并不是聯合國國際法庭,那個是聯合國的法庭(這個不是)。重設仲裁庭(PCA)是坐落在荷蘭海牙的政府間組織。常設仲裁庭不是“傳統意義上”的法庭,但作為仲裁庭提供服務來解決國家成員間的爭端,國際組織間的爭端,或者私人黨派間引起的國際協定爭端。我再強調:這個組織不是聯合國機構。看起來似乎很多人甚至不知道這個簡單的事實。這意味著它的裁決不是聯合國做出的。這個裁決做出之后,聯合國在中國的微博上發了一個微博,明確表示:聯合國沒有所謂的“國際法院”。

·開除聯合國安理會的常任理事國資格
我們來看看,聯合國憲章怎么說的。

第五章:安全理事會
第二十三條
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。

毫無疑問,明顯地,如聯合國憲章所說,這5國家是安理會常任理事國成員。他們不是由別的國家選出來,也不是別的誰授予的。憲法簡明扼要的點出來了。它自1945年就存在了,那是聯合國建立的時候。當中國民國被推翻后,中華人民共和國繼承了中華民國的成員資格。蘇聯崩潰后,俄羅斯繼承了蘇聯的資格。
所以,如果你想開除一個國家,或者添加一個國家,你得修改聯合國憲章。

第108條
本憲章之修正案經大會會員國三分之二表決并由聯合國會員國三分之二、包括安全理事會全體常任理事國,各依其憲法程序批準后,對于聯合國所有會員國發生效力。
意味著:如果你想要修改常任理事國成員資格,
1.有三分之二聯合國成員參與投票
2.有三分之二聯合國成員同意修改
3.五大常任理事國同意修改

聯合國當前有192個成員。這意味著,即使28個北大西洋公約組織,日本,南韓,印度,都同意開除中國,你還需要另有97個國家同意開除中國。這在我看來似乎已經不可能了。不過無視這個,加入你獲得了128張支持票,你依舊需要安理會(常任理事國)同意這個決定。意味著你需要中國投棄權票。這樣看來你依舊覺得這是可能的?我不這么認為。



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.

劉若愚,曾就讀于中山大學(2014)

看見這4面國旗了?這4個國家曾經是第二次世界大戰的勝利國,他們一起成為“四大警察”,為保護世界秩序,由富蘭克林·德蘭諾·羅斯福(美國第三十二任總統)于戰后委員會宣布。“四大警察”成為聯合國安理會常任理事國。而法蘭西由于丘吉爾首相的堅持,與1945成為常任理事國成員。隨后中華人民共和國代替了中國民國的席位,而俄羅斯代替了蘇聯的席位。

換言之,中國的常任理事國成員資格是戰后秩序的基石。除非第三次世界大戰來根本上改變當前的世界模式,你沒有任何可能,來改變或開除任何一個常任理事國成員資格。



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”.

貝文·楚,中美關系資深評論員
為什么世界不移除中國的聯合國安理會成員資格,鑒于中國不遵循國際法庭在南中國海上的命令?(原文如此)

你的提問,是對你缺乏任何大國政治理解力的公開證明,并且那些所謂的“國際機構”又是如何運作的?

當雙方同意參與的時候,這個裁決不過是盲目地。中國甚至不會同意這份裁決。菲律賓制服裁決機構讓他們進行裁決。這份裁決是買來的,并且這份裁決毫無意義和法律上的有效性。

并且你還錯誤地假設,中國的領土宣言是無效的。事實是在二戰后,中國宣稱南中國海時沒有人持異議。當日本在戰爭期間占有這片區域時,考慮過返還這些島嶼給中國。
不過數年,甚至數十年后,其他該區域的國家才開始遲鈍的宣稱這個或那個島“一直都是我們的”。



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?

里昂·莫蘭,在現代軍事史,小股部隊戰術,戰略,軍事法上發表論文。
為什么要(開除)?在你腦袋里,中國應該被認為無視國際法庭的裁決?
我得說,所有聯合國常任理事國都在多個場合無視了國際法庭們的判決,而他們中最糟糕的慣犯就是美國。

如果中國被剝奪了聯合國安理會成員資格,那么同樣的事不也用該發生在法蘭西、不列顛和美國么?或者我們為了整個西方世界的我們好,用雙重標準證明一次(中國應該被開除),也是沒意義的,不過是一群偽君子



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.

雷·科莫,著迷于地緣政治學
也許其他人有不同觀點。
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。

所有國家中,獲得高百分比的國家

(圖解:哪個國家對世界和平威脅最大?2017年2月19日-25條評論)
投票國家的百分之24把美國排在當今世界和平的最大威脅之列,緊隨其后:巴基斯坦8%,中國6%,其他四國阿富汗、伊朗、以色列、北朝鮮共5%。



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?

愛麗絲·何,居住于大陸的香港人
不幸地是,俄羅斯和中國的以及很多其他國家的人民正在就美國,談論同樣的事。
公平地說,我們應該優先開除美國么?

美國還沒簽署協議來承認這個法庭。南中國海也跟美國無關。美國對世界很多國家發動了戰爭。需要更多的具體證據么?


更多
評論加載中。。。
我還要發表看法:
"看世界"溫馨提醒:
1、請勿發表違反國家法律評論,評論請文明用語;
2、禁止發布廣告評論。
匿名發表  用戶名: 密碼: 驗證碼:

瀏覽過本頁的網友還關注:
聯合國譯帖 - 熱門推薦
第一贊助商
雙語美文 - 閱讀榜
第二贊助商
聯合國譯帖 - 最新收錄
第三贊助商
國外優秀論壇 - 為您推薦
第四贊助商
經驗分享 - 閱讀榜
歡迎愛好網帖翻譯的朋友加入我們:
QQ群:307195648
聯系郵箱:[email protected]
無覓關聯推薦,快速提升流量
毕尔巴鄂vs格兰纳达