Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2009
The state of China — a nation of possibly 460,000,000 people — has been a Member of the United Nations since the foundation of that organization in 1945. As a Member, China is legally entitled to representation in United Nations organs unless and until, pursuant to preventive or enforcement action taken by the Security Council, the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership may be suspended by the General Assembly upon recommendation of the Security Council. The representatives of China in United Nations organs from 1945 to the present have been accredited by the National Government of the Republic of China. By the end of 1949 control over the mainland of China and over perhaps 450,000,000 people had passed from the National Government to the (communist) “Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China,” the effective control of the National Government having been reduced largely to the island of Formosa.
1 See United Nations Charter, Art. 5.
2 The Charter of the United Nations was signed “For China.” Article 23 states that “The Republic of China” shall be a permanent member of the Security Council. The changing of title by the Chinese Communist Government from “Republic of China” to “People's Republic of China” has not been regarded either by the Chinese communist authorities or by the United Nations as involving the creation of a new state of China whose position would be that of a non-Member of the United Nations, the admission of which might conceivably be subject to a veto in the Security Council. SeeKelsen, Hans, Recent Trends in the Law of the United Nations (1951), p. 948–949Google Scholar; “China's U. N. Status,” Letter to the Editor from Hudson, Manley O., New York Times, 05 16, 1951Google Scholar.
3 See, Chou En-Lai, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, to Trygve Lie, Secretary-General, United Nations, August 26, 1950. General Assembly document A/1364, September 14, 1950. See also Chou to Lie, November 18, 1949, General Assembly document A/1123, November 21, 1949.
4 Security Council document S/1466, March 9, 1950, p. 5.
5 General Assembly Resolution 498 (V) adopted February 1, 1951; General Assembly document A/PV.327, February 1, 1951.
6 Cuban Memorandum on Representation, General Assembly document A/1308, August 4, 1950, p. 4: “This distinction between credentials and representation is an undeniable legal and political reality. Credentials merely accredit the powers conferred by a government on its representatives; representation, on the other hand, is the right of a government to act on behalf of the state. Consequently, the objections lodged against credentials with those who have to decide on the validity of those credentials do not necessarily affect the legality of the representation of the government that has issued them. Nevertheless, objections made to the representation which a government claims or invokes necessarily and directly affect the competence or right of that government to act and to be represented as such on behalf of the State.”
7 Fawcett, J. E. S., “China and the Security Council,” International Law Quarterly, III, (1950), p. 581–586Google Scholar.
8 On the distinction between direct recognition of states and indirect recognition resulting from co-membership in the United Nations, seeBriggs, Herbert W., “Community Interest in the Emergence of New States: The Problem of Recognition,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1950, p. 169, 177 ffGoogle Scholar.
9 Security Council document S/1468, p. 5.
10 Ibid., p. 6. For criticism of this Memorandum by the Chinese Representative to the United Nations, Dr. T. F. Tsiang, see Security Council document S/1470, March 15, 1950.
11 International Court of Justice Reports, 1947, p. 62Google Scholar
12 See Lauterpacht, H., Recognition in International Law (1947), p. 87–140Google Scholar; Chen, T. C., The International Law of Recognition (1951), p. 97–130Google Scholar.
13 General Assembly document A/AC.38/L.6, October 7, 1950.
14 Secretary of State Hughes, July 19, 1923, that “while this Government has laid stress upon the value of expressed popular approval in determining whether a new government should be recognized, it has never insisted that the will of the people of a foreign State may not be manifested by long continued acquiescence in a regime actually functioning as a government.” Nor was the application of criteria of stability and apparent acquiescence “in derogation of the democratic ideals cherished by our people”; it proceeded “upon a consideration of the importance of international intercourse” and upon the principle of “non intervention in the internal concerns of other peoples.” Hackworth, , Digest of International Law, I, p. 178Google Scholar.
15 Chen, cited above, p. 125; see, Lauterpacht, cited above, p. 109.
16 General Assembly document A/AC.38/SR. 18, October 20, 1950, p. 116–117.
17 Security Council document S/1443, document S/PV.459, January 10, 1950, p. 3.
18 Ibid., p. 2.
19 Ibid., p. 4. The vote was as follows: In favor, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kingdom, United States; against, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia; abstaining, India.
20 Security Council document S/PV.461, p. 9.
21 Security Council document S/PV.460, p. 8.
22 Ibid., p. 8.
23 See, generally, Yearbook of the United Nations, 1950, p. 74, 108, 415, 421–435, 846 The only exception to the general pattern occurred in the Executive Committee of the Universal Postal Union, which is not a United Nations organ. In May 1950 that Committee “decided that in view of the technical character of the U. P. U. and the de facto situation existing in China, apart from any political considerations, the representative of the People's Republic of China should be allowed to attend the Montreux session as the sole accredited representative of China,” pending later consultation of postal administrations after consideration of the question of Chinese representation by the fifth session of the United Nations General Assembly. (Ibid., p. 698.) On May 21, 1951 the Committee reversed itself and seated the Chinese Nationalist representatives, since the consultation of postal administrations had resulted in the following vote: 33 for seat ing Chinese nationalists; 23 for seating Chinese communists; 13 abstaining; 17 not voting. See compilation submitted by Secretary of State Dean G. Acheson covering Action on Chinese Representation in United Nations and Specialized Agencies, from January 13, 1950 to June 12, 1951, Military Situation in the Far East, Hearings before the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 82d Congress, 1st session, Appendix, p. 3204–3210.
24 Schwebel, Stephen M., The Secretary-General of the United Nations: His Political Powers and Practice (1952), p. 146–148Google Scholar; see also ibid., p. 98.
25 Security Council document S/PV.480/Rev.l. August 1, 1950, p. 1.
26 Ibid., p. 2.
27 See Malik's extended remarks on Stalin's approval and Acheson's rejection of Nehru's proposal to this effect in July 1950, ibid., p. 18–20.
28 Ibid., p. 12.
29 Ibid., p. 20.
30 Security Council document S/PV.482, August 3, 1950, p. 22.
31 The Members voting for the Indian draft resolution were: Afghanistan, Burma, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, India, Israel, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia. General Assembly document A/PV.277, September 19, 1950, p. 15.
32 The vote on reference to the special committee was 38 to 6, with 11 abstentions; and on seating the Nationalist representatives, 42 to 8, with 6 abstentions, ibid., p. 16.
33 General Assembly document A/1308, August 4, 1950, p. 4.
34 See the summary records of the Ad Hoc Political Committee, documents A/AC.38/SR. 18–24, 57–60, October 20, 21, 23, 25 and 26 and November 27 and 28, 1950, p. 111–160, 363–390.
35 General Assembly document A/AC.38/L.6, October 7, 1950.
36 General Assembly document A/AC.38/L.21, October 20, 1950, and ibid., Rev.l, October 31, 1950
37 See above, p.
38 See Report of Sub-Committee 2 to the Ad Hoc Political Committee, A/AC.38/L.45, 21 November 1950; Report of the Ad Hoc Political Committee, A/1578, 1 December 1950; and consideration in the Ad Hoc Political Committee A/AC.38/SR. 57–60.
39 General Assembly Resolution 396 (V). See also A/PV.325, 14 December 1950, p. 675. The resolution was adopted by a vote of 36 to 6, with 9 abstentions. The modification consisted in the reinsertion by the Assembly of the paragraph numbered “2” which had been deleted by the Ad Hoc Political Committee from its sub-committee's draft. The reason for the deletion had been doubt as to the desirability of permitting the Interim Committee on which Soviet Union and its satellites refused to serve, to make a recommendation on representation. In the event, the Assembly upheld the authority of its Interim Committee.
40 General Assembly document A/PV.277, p. 6.
41 General Assembly document A/AC.38/SR. 23, p. 153.
42 See General Assembly document A/1923, October 18, 1951, and A/PV.332, November 5, 1951.
43 See General Assembly document A/PV.342, November 13, 1951, p. 99–104 and Report of the General Committee, document A/1950, November 10, 1951, paragraph 6.
44 See General Assembly document A/PV.351, December 7, 1951, p. 211–213.
45 General Assembly document A/1844/Add.l.
46 See United Nations Conference on International Organization document 1178, June 24, 1945. (Revised) Report of Rapporteur of Committee 1/2; Kelsen, Hans, The Law of the United Nations (1950), p. 76Google Scholar.
47 See on this, Fawcett, cited above, p. 585, and Kelsen, , Recent Trends in the Law of the United Nations, p. 946–948Google Scholar.
48 Security Council document S/PV.460, January 12, 1950, p. 6. These conclusions are not negatived by the equivocal statements of Secretary of State Acheson, under pressure of his Senatorial inquisitors in June 1951, that although the legal advisors of the Department of State regarded a vote in the Security Council on Chinese representation as procedural and not subject to the veto, “there are other views on that point,” and it might be wise to request an opinion of the International Court of Justice on the question. See, Military Situation in the Far East, Hearings, cited, especially, p. 1728, 1819–1820, 1933–1935, 2022–2024, 2048–2049, 2087–2088, 2142–2143, 2159–2160.
