Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T16:27:33.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Representation versus Membership: The Chinese Precedent in the United Nations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

L. C. Green
L. C. Green*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
Get access

Extract

In the communique issued in February 1972 after their meeting, President Nixon and Mr. Chou En-lai declared:

The Chinese side reaffirmed its position:

… the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal Government of China; Taiwan is a province of China which has long been returned to the motherland; the liberation of Taiwan is China's internal affair in which no other country has the right to interfere; and all United States forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan.

The Chinese Government firmly opposes any activities which aim at the creation of “one China, one Taiwan”, “one China, two governments”, “two Chinas” and “independent Taiwan”, or advocate that “the status of Taiwan remains to be determined”.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 10 , 1973 , pp. 102 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 11 Int’l Leg. Mat. 443, 445 (1972).

2 See, for example, Senator Scott, State Dept. spokesman Bray and Assistant Secretary of State Green, New York Times, Mar. 1, 3, 4, 1972, resp.

3 U.S.T.I.A.S. 1955, vol. 1, at 433; Documents on American Foreign Relations 1954, 360.

4 13 Dept. of State Bull. 5 ( 1950).

5 Tung, China and the Foreign Powers 345–46 ( 1970).

6 Mr. Yvon Beaulne, Permanent Representative of Canada to the U.N., in the General Assembly, Canadian Delegation Press Release No. 5, Oct. 18, 1971.

7 See, for example, Canadian response to Israeli request for recognition, Israel Foreign Office Letter, FO/I/60, Nov. 18, 1949, and Report of the Dept. of External Affairs, Canada, 1949, at 29 (1950).

8 For a discussion of some of these issues, see Green, , “Dissolution of States and Membership in the United Nations,” in Schwarzenberger, Law, Justice and Equity 152 (1967)Google Scholar —reprinted in 32 Sask. Law. Rev. 162 (1967).

9 1947, 10 & 11 Geo. 6, c. 30.

10 Supra note 8, at 159–62. See also, with regard to Malaysia and Singapore, Green, , “Malaya/Singapore/Malaysia: Comments on State Competence, Succession and Continuity,” 4 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 3 (1966).Google Scholar

11 See supra note 6.

12 Transcript of interview on “This Week,” broadcast on Channel 7, Melbourne, issued by the Prime Minister’s Office, Canberra.

13 See, for example, Johnson, , Self-Determination Within the Community of Nations (1967)Google Scholar; Whiteman, , 5 Digest of International Law 38 Google Scholar et seq.; Green, , “Self-Determination and Settlement of the Arab-Israeli Conflict,” 65 Am. J. Int’l L., Proceedings, 40 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 See, for example, Sec. of State Rogers, New York Times, Oct. 5, 37, and Mr. Bush, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., ibid., Oct. 19, 1971.

15 The Admission of a State to the United Nations, [1948] I.C.J. Rep. 57.

16 Namibia (South West Africa), Advisory Opinion, [1971] I.C.J. Rep. 16, 22.

17 See, for example, Chen, and Lasswell, , Formosa, China and the United Nations, ch. a, 3 (1967)Google Scholar, and Morello, , The International Legal Status of Formosa, ch. 4 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Tung, op. cit. supra note 5, at 408–09.

19 Review of Goddard, Formosa: A Study in Chinese History (1966), in 27 Journal of Asian Studies 394 (1968).

20 New York Times, Mar. 2, 1972.

21 See, for example, Kay, The New Nations in the United Nations 120–22 (1970).

22 See, for example, Chen/Lasswell, op. cit. supra note 17, at 23–24, 45, 49–50.

28 Fitzmaurice, , “Chinese Representation in the United Nations,” 6 Yearbook of World Affairs 36, 54–55 (1952) (italics in original).Google Scholar

24 The World Court has held statehood to be a prerequisite of membership: see supra note 15.

25 1 Hertslet, Treaties between Great Britain and China, and between China and Foreign Powers…Affecting British Interests in China 368 (1908).

26 9 Dept. of State Bull. 393 ( 1943).

27 1 Hertslet, op. cit. supra note 25, at 608.

28 Dept. of State Publication 6199, The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945 (1955).

29 13 Dept. of State Bull. 153 ( 1945).

30 Royal Institute of International Affairs, Survey of International Affairs 1939–46: The Far East 1942–46, at 141 (1955).

31 Ibid., 498. See also, 8 Docs. on American Foreign Relations 105–11, for Potsdam and other documents relating to the Japanese surrender.

32 Op. cit. supra note 30, at 499.

33 Ibid., 202.

34 Moscow Agreement, 1945, 8 Docs, on American Foreign Relations 834–42.

35 136 U.N.T.S. 45.

36 1 Japanese Annual of International Law 129 (1957).

37 Sino-Soviet Exchange of Notes, Aug. 14, 1945, Chen, Treaties and Agreements between the Republic of China and Other Powers 225–26 (1957).

38 See statement by British Foreign Office in Civil Air Transport Inc. v. Central Air Transport Corp., 35 H.K.L.R. 22, 162, 215; [1953] A.C. 70, 87.

39 Tung, op. cit. supra note 5, at 335, note 100.

40 Chen/Lasswell, op. cit. supra note 17, at 132.

41 13 Dept. of State Bull. 5 ( 1950).

42 P.C.I.J., Series А/В 53, at 71, 91 (1933).

43 Speaking in the General Assembly, Foreign Minister Malik talked of the United States seizure of “the Chinese island of Taiwan, which forms an inalienable part of China,” G.A., Official Records, Sixth Session, Nov. 13, 1951, at 82.

44 New York Times, Sept. 23, 1949 (italics added).

45 The Times (London), Jan. 6, 1950 (italics added).

46 Ibid, (italics added).

47 Acheson, , “U.S. Policy Toward Formosa,” 22 Dept. of State Bull. 80 (1950).Google Scholar

48 Supra note 38 (italics added).

49 548 H.C. Deb. (5th ser.) 2358 (1956).

50 536 H.G. Deb. (5th ser.), Written Answers, 159 (1955) (italics added).

51 Northedge, , “Britain and the United Nations,” in Twitchett, The Evolving United Nations, 141, 146 (1971).Google Scholar

52 See Green, , “Making Peace with Japan,” 6 Yearbook of World Affairs 1 (1952).Google Scholar

53 159 Brit, and For. State Papers 591; Chen, op. cit. supra note 37, at 454.

54 Sino-Soviet Exchange of Notes, Sept. 16, 1952, C.P.R. a Diplomatic Archives 89.

55 In 1950 the United States considered this a procedural issue, see Gross in Security Council, Jan. 12, 1950, S.C. Official Records, V, No. 2, 6.

56 Dulles, Jul. 8, 1954, 31 Dept. of State Bull. 87 (1954).

57 22 External Affairs 378 (1970) (italics added).

58 Ibid., 379.

59 See, for example, Rose v. The King [1947] 3 D.L.R. 618, 647 (per Bissonnette J.); Laane and Baltser v. Estonian State Cargo & Passenger S.S. Line, [1941] a D.L.R. 641.

60 See, for example, Krajina v. Tass Agency, [1949] 2 All E.R. 374, for acceptance of statement from Soviet ambassador; Sayce v. Ameer of Bahawalpur, [1952] 1 All E.R. 326, [1952] 2 Q.B. 390, for acceptance of statement by-government of Pakistan; and for discussion of rival claims to territory by India and Pakistan, Green, , “The Status of Pakistan,” 6 Indian Law Review 65 (1952).Google Scholar

61 Nov. 6, 1970, Ansa Bulletin (Rome), No. 121/1.

62 The Times (London), Oct. 27, 1971.

63 Joint Statement published by Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore, Nov. 16, 1971.

64 Austrian Consulate, Singapore, News from Austria, Political Bulletin 20/71.

65 The Times (London), Feb. 20, 1972 (as early as Sept. 27 Japan’s delegate had indicated that Japan believed China to be a “single“ country, ibid., Sept. 28, 1971).

66 Straits Times (Singapore), March 13, 1972.

67 Sept. 29, 1972, Peking Review, Oct. 6, 1972 (Vol. 15, No. 40, at 12), The Times (London), September 30, 1972.

68 The Times (London), Oct. 30, 1971.

69 Ibid., Oct. 30, Nov. 17, 1971.

70 Ibid., Oct. 27, 1971.

71 Ibid., Jan. 27, 1972.

72 Ibid., Nov. 24, 1971.

73 Supra note 8.

74 The Times (London), Oct. 30, 1971.

75 Ibid., Nov. 17, 1971.

76 Ibid., Nov. 4, 1971. This move should be compared with the Nationalist government’s action regarding the Chinese aircraft in Hong Kong, which formed the basis for the Civil Air Transport case, supra note 38.

77 The Times (London), Dec. so, 1971.

78 See Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, Art. 19.

79 See, for example, statement by the secretary of the Fédération Internationale de Natation Amateur, Straits Times (Singapore), Nov. 16, 1971.

80 See Green, , “Gentlemen’s Agreements and the Security Council,” 13 Current Legal Problems 255 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Representation in the Security Council — A Survey,” 11 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 48 (1962).