为什么世界不取消中国的联合国安理会成员资格，鉴于中国不遵循国际法庭在南中国海... [美国媒体]

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?

为什么世界不取消中国的联合国安理会成员资格，鉴于中国不遵循国际法庭在南中国海上的命令？


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.

乔瑟夫·王，曾学习于麻省理工物理学，UT奥斯汀物理学博士
因为（不止中国）每个其他的安理会成员，当国际法庭的决定不符合它们的国家利益的时候，都选择无视。看一看“链接：尼加拉瓜起诉美国-维基”，美国无视世界法院的规定。“链接：查戈斯海洋保护区-维基”英国无视污染控制局（Pollution Control Agency）的规定并且这是乌克兰与俄罗斯之间正在进行的诉讼。

没有找到来自法国的任何信息。
另一件事是你错过了备忘录。菲律宾有一位新总统，中国和菲律宾现在相处得很好。中国对菲律宾发出来的消息是“瞧，我们真的不在意那几个岛，我们只不过是不希望你成为美国利益的代理人。”在发出这个信息的时候，中国已经停止做让菲律宾反感（的事），并且当前（中菲）关系良好。

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.

吴文斌，中国公民
这世界不是这样的，孩子。
你在一个问题里问了两个问题。第一个是关于联合国。第二个是关于南中国海。我们一个一个的说。
关于联合国，这个真的很简单。这个世界由五个联合国常任理事国构成。例如，中国、英国、法国、俄罗斯。当五大常任理事之一建议踢掉中国，移除中国常任理事国资格→中国参与投票→终结。在联合国框架内，毫无疑问没人能踢掉一个常任理事国。这是自相矛盾的。

关于南中国海的法院的规定，我已经多次回答了相关的问题,所以这里我只引用一些我对科林·安东尼·斯皮尔斯（Collin Anthony Spears）的评论。这人是一位生活在台湾的美国公民，很久前“膈应（block）”过我，最近再次出现在我回答的“为什么中国以宣称土地而闻名？（ answer to Why is China famous for claiming lands?）”里。
文斌：
你有什么证据能证明，（国际）法院在过去展现过国际法律权威吗？（意指法律得以贯彻执行。）或者，在任何重大事件中，它提供了被参与者们所遵守的指导？没有，包括中国，没有一个遵守的。这是所谓的程序正义吗？（注：中国宣称南中国海海岛是基于《开罗宣言》和《波茨坦宣言》。）

科林：
自《开罗宣言》和《波茨坦宣言》以来，国际法的诞生至今已有60年的历史。比如联合国大会通过的海洋法(UNCLOS)，一个中国签署了的法律。一个正被中国违反的条约。
文斌：
所以《开罗宣言》和《波茨坦宣言》就不作数了？它被正式废除了？有任何新国际大会出来声称南中国海属于其他某个人或国家了？我只看到一个小法院的裁定（一个联合国都不承认的所谓的法院。如果你对此有疑问，请告诉大家，这个所谓的“法院”过去是怎么运作的。同样的，证据拿出来），告知南中国海不属于任何人或组织，包括中国，严肃的。一张废纸，就是这样。包括始作俑者菲律宾，回顾过去2个月里，他们的总统依旧厌恶这个裁定！真是难过呢！

伙计，你真的需要更新你的世界观。你的美国甚至都不承认《联合国海洋法公约》。包括该公约没有声称中国不能宣称南中国海是自己的领土。中国不过是正在自己的领土上做喜欢做的事情。如果你有任何疑问，退一步说，你（甚至）可以把我们武力敢走！如果你能的话。
科林：
美国有没有签署这个公约，不意味着它就不是国际标准了。美国在这种情况下，不是主要的相关方，也不是美国的边境争端。这与美国无关，这是在该地区的几个国家想要在南中国海的航行自由，包括印度，日本，印度尼西亚，菲律宾，越南，甚至欧盟也一边帮腔，因为他们在这里有贸易利益。

《联合国海洋公约》明确声明什么是专属经济区域和国家领土之外是什么。里面也谈到了什么是“岛”，什么时候可以被宣称为领土。中国签署了的。
现在他们不喜欢这些规定了，所以他们藐视了它们。
文斌：
所以你在一场辩论中进行了反驳。很好！
《联合国海洋法公约》百分之99的部分都在告诉你围绕领土所发生的事，而不是告诉你什么是领土。因此，围绕中国，这个公约有什么关系吗？或者在这个区域内如越南的主权主张上，有什么关系吗？没有。它有明确什么是人造岛吗？没有。而余下的百分之1，中国在南中国海上拥有的自然礁石变成了我们的岛了。你能证明这些人工岛是非法的，且在公约内不适用于其他任何国家的领土吗？不能。

你接下来要做什么？你知道的，国际组织不过是一个工具。最终它不过是国家们的自我展示的（平台）。所以你在借用哪个国家的视角（来看待这个事）？“国际”视角？“国际”能向法院提交报告吗？“国际”的航船航行在各地？哈哈哈哈哈哈。如果你在用美国的视角，那么，美国没有在南中国海这事上宣称任何东西，它甚至都不是《联合国海洋法公约》的一员。所以它为何非要这样做呢？如果它想要再次做世界警察，那么好吧，我们在这里等着它！切！
科林：
删除了自己的评论或由Quora删除了。
文斌：
噢，伙计，我说什么来着。

4.我们是帝国主义。
就是这样。仅此而已。这就是一个帝国主义VS帝国主义VS帝国主义的游戏。是的，西方是对的，中国就是帝国主义的一员，就如它们一样。可能你不愿意再次教训越南，一个在南中国海上声称并占领海量（岛屿）的国家。是啊，另一个小型的帝国主义。我和你的国家都击败过他们一次。美国把它们炸回了青铜时代，中国把他们炸回了石器时代。另一方面他们将会声称更多的岛屿。这是自然而然的事。帝国主义或其他什么，本来也没什么问题。就像种族歧视，或者用枪来寻乐的人。
无论怎样，至少在这点上你可能知道，为什么《联合国海洋法公约》在南中国海上的主权主张这事上什么都不是。这就是为什么没有人在这个地区，我的意思是无人把那张纸当回事。我猜，我们能称之为一种进步。

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.

罗宾·代夫曼，全球旅行者
让我们举一个例子来形容这个问题：A和B打架，C是好处。
这问题指控中国。美国的“证词”是“你瞧瞧你在南中国海的那熊样”。印度是旁观者。
这是最常见的世界运行方式。他们中最渴望中美在北朝鲜打架的是日本。他们中最希望美俄在叙利亚打架的是沙特阿拉伯。等等还有。

所以请你，请你们不要再频繁针对美国了。对于联合国，美国的“政治正确”的态度是：那是一小群侵犯我们主权的混蛋（），并且如果他们曾经试图将他们的判断强加给我们，我就会用我们的海军陆战队迅速地入侵海牙（国际法庭），给他们上一堂课。
链接：“海牙入侵行动”：布什签署一项新的法律旨在恐吓批准该条约的国际刑事法庭（见截图）

 
所以为什么我们TMD要关心中国正在做这世界百分之1的国家都在做的事情？你认真的？当特朗普总统沉浸在“我们摧毁了坏交易”时，这是他自己做到的？
链接：“这交易对我来说太可怕了”：特朗普与墨西哥和澳大利亚通话的完整记录。

 

美国绝不会威胁要把某人踢出联合国，因为联合国对于美国来说没什么意义。谁在乎联合国？联合国更多的为了小国家们的利益---如果他们遵守联合国规定，那么他们可以在面对来自更强大的邻居入侵时可以得到一定程度的保护。停下来思考一分钟---如果没有联合国，谁会损失最多？拥有大量资源的缺乏自我保护的小国家们。他们很容易被其他20个国家联合蹂躏。美式和平使每个人都养宠物猫但又不被允许带回家成为可能（译注：成果在我，成本在你）。作为世界上最强的军事力量，又有两大洋保护的美国，即使没了联合国也几乎不会害怕。联合国安理会里的大家伙们都知道，他们无法担负与其中任何一个陷入战争的代价。那才是联合国的目的---为了强权们能彼此坐在谈判桌上。为了我们（强权国家们）的政治目标，如果发生代理人战争，代理国就会被我们支持并挥洒他们的鲜血，明白了吗？

中美因每年交易额接近6000亿美元而相互交织在一起难分彼此。我们为了贸易而开放。中国给了我们总统一整个极具价值的贸易市场，并且我们超过一半的国会议员跟中国建立了商业往来。如果印度想要一些利益，真金白银拿出来，而非做这类无用的网络宣泄。美国人也需要付钱（才会干活）。给我们的农业开放你们那高度保护性的市场如何？别搞得跟一个临时机构一般滥用我们的H1B签证，给我们的制药公司支付合理的使用费，并跟美国达到6500亿美元的贸易额，再加上给我们的政客数十亿美元献金或同等其他的东西。假如你没被关注---特朗普先生甚至希望跟我们保持有最悠久同盟关系的如加拿大，出更多钱。所以我很抱歉，在这个婊子“现实政治”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.

约瑟夫·霍利曼
跟美国和它的盟友相比，即使跟俄罗斯相比……所以，怎么得出中国是世界和平的一个威胁的？
最近我查阅到了，两个相对规模较小的1960年代的中国跟印度和越南的边境冲突，但任何从那时起的人都没有遭到轰炸，或走向了战争。在第二次世界大战期间，他们遭受过日本残酷的侵略。但自1960年代以来，他们没有入侵任何人或者制造过任何战争。
邓小平后，中国的精力用在了自身经济的增长，和在国际贸易上成为强大的一员，而不是跟其他任何国家发生战争。
如果这世界上的国家都这么明智的花，我打赌，这个世界会变成一个更加安全和更加和平的地方。（注：该条评论点赞数远超任何一条其他评论）

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.

范泽阳，居住于中国。
我接下来来回答你这2个问题。首先，所谓的国际法庭。其二，开除中国联合国理事会成员资格。
·“国际法庭”
“国际法庭”是常设仲裁庭。虽然它坐落在海牙，但并不是联合国国际法庭，那个是联合国的法庭（这个不是）。重设仲裁庭（PCA）是坐落在荷兰海牙的政府间组织。常设仲裁庭不是“传统意义上”的法庭，但作为仲裁庭提供服务来解决国家成员间的争端，国际组织间的争端，或者私人党派间引起的国际协定争端。我再强调：这个组织不是联合国机构。看起来似乎很多人甚至不知道这个简单的事实。这意味着它的裁决不是联合国做出的。这个裁决做出之后，联合国在中国的微博上发了一个微博，明确表示：联合国没有所谓的“国际法院”。

 

·开除联合国安理会的常任理事国资格
我们来看看，联合国宪章怎么说的。

第五章：安全理事会
第二十三条
1. 安全理事会以联合国15会员国组织之。中华民国、法兰西、苏维埃社会主义共和国联盟、大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国及美利坚合众国应为安全理事会常任理事国。大会应选举联合国其他10会员国为安全理事会非常任理事国，选举时首宜充分斟酌联合国各会员国于维持国际和平与安全及本组织其余各宗旨上之贡献，并宜充分斟酌地域上之公匀分配。

毫无疑问，明显地，如联合国宪章所说，这5国家是安理会常任理事国成员。他们不是由别的国家选出来，也不是别的谁授予的。宪法简明扼要的点出来了。它自1945年就存在了，那是联合国建立的时候。当中国民国被推翻后，中华人民共和国继承了中华民国的成员资格。苏联崩溃后，俄罗斯继承了苏联的资格。
所以，如果你想开除一个国家，或者添加一个国家，你得修改联合国宪章。

第108条
本宪章之修正案经大会会员国三分之二表决并由联合国会员国三分之二、包括安全理事会全体常任理事国，各依其宪法程序批准后，对于联合国所有会员国发生效力。
意味着：如果你想要修改常任理事国成员资格，
1.有三分之二联合国成员参与投票
2.有三分之二联合国成员同意修改
3.五大常任理事国同意修改

联合国当前有192个成员。这意味着，即使28个北大西洋公约组织，日本，南韩，印度，都同意开除中国，你还需要另有97个国家同意开除中国。这在我看来似乎已经不可能了。不过无视这个，加入你获得了128张支持票，你依旧需要安理会（常任理事国）同意这个决定。意味着你需要中国投弃权票。这样看来你依旧觉得这是可能的？我不这么认为。

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.

刘若愚，曾就读于中山大学（2014）

 

看见这4面国旗了？这4个国家曾经是第二次世界大战的胜利国，他们一起成为“四大警察”，为保护世界秩序，由富兰克林·德兰诺·罗斯福（美国第三十二任总统）于战后委员会宣布。“四大警察”成为联合国安理会常任理事国。而法兰西由于丘吉尔首相的坚持，与1945成为常任理事国成员。随后中华人民共和国代替了中国民国的席位，而俄罗斯代替了苏联的席位。
换言之，中国的常任理事国成员资格是战后秩序的基石。除非第三次世界大战来根本上改变当前的世界模式，你没有任何可能，来改变或开除任何一个常任理事国成员资格。

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”.

贝文·楚，中美关系资深评论员
为什么世界不移除中国的联合国安理会成员资格，鉴于中国不遵循国际法庭在南中国海上的命令？（原文如此）
你的提问，是对你缺乏任何大国政治理解力的公开证明，并且那些所谓的“国际机构”又是如何运作的？
当双方同意参与的时候，这个裁决不过是盲目地。中国甚至不会同意这份裁决。菲律宾制服裁决机构让他们进行裁决。这份裁决是买来的，并且这份裁决毫无意义和法律上的有效性。
并且你还错误地假设，中国的领土宣言是无效的。事实是在二战后，中国宣称南中国海时没有人持异议。当日本在战争期间占有这片区域时，考虑过返还这些岛屿给中国。
不过数年，甚至数十年后，其他该区域的国家才开始迟钝的宣称这个或那个岛“一直都是我们的”。

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·莫兰,在现代军事史,小股部队战术,战略,军事法上发表论文。
为什么要（开除）？在你脑袋里，中国应该被认为无视国际法庭的裁决？
我得说，所有联合国常任理事国都在多个场合无视了国际法庭们的判决，而他们中最糟糕的惯犯就是美国。
如果中国被剥夺了联合国安理会成员资格，那么同样的事不也用该发生在法兰西、不列颠和美国么？或者我们为了整个西方世界的我们好，用双重标准证明一次（中国应该被开除），也是没意义的，不过是一群伪君子

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，着迷于地缘政治学
也许其他人有不同观点。
由WIN/Gallup International发起的全球调查，就全球经济政治和生活条件调查了68个国家的居民。
所有国家中，获得高百分比的国家
（图解：哪个国家对世界和平威胁最大？2017年2月19日-25条评论）
投票国家的百分之24把美国排在当今世界和平的最大威胁之列，紧随其后：巴基斯坦8%，中国6%，其他四国阿富汗、伊朗、以色列、北朝鲜共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?

爱丽丝·何，居住于大陆的香港人
不幸地是，俄罗斯和中国的以及很多其他国家的人民正在就美国，谈论同样的事。
公平地说，我们应该优先开除美国么？
美国还没签署协议来承认这个法庭。南中国海也跟美国无关。美国对世界很多国家发动了战争。需要更多的具体证据么？