Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

weird thought:

if things were switched around a bit and Russia was the one actively looking to intervene

what would people think?

will we be talking about it like this right now or would there be more of a "oh noes cold war part 2" slant to the discussions?

You aren't following me. I'm talking about what the people of Libya want, which seems to be self-determination.

@emperor

lol sorry i just went on a tangent there. got the idea from a friend.

on the self determination issue i can definitely understand why they wouldnt want assistance. they want to keep the integrity of the rebellion intact

during the earlier parts of the rebellion the rebels were arguing over how to organize themselves. some rebels felt that choosing leaders with experience would be a logical choice to organize the rebellion

and others wanted non military, non government to lead the revolution as it conveys the spirit of the fight better.

if they were hesitant accepting ex military and ex government, its understandable that theyd be uncomfortable about having foreigners aid them as well

though as of last update they seem to have taken leaders from the government and the military

lets hope this isnt a bad idea

Emperors Faithful wrote:This is wierd. Regardless, there are signs that the Libyans themselves aren't keen on direct intervention.

Except for when they repeatedly and directly request no fly zones at virtually every level of standing from political ambassador at the UN to resistance military fighters to run of the mill protestors. But hey, thats a nice sign.

Bakerofish wrote:
if recognition is a requirement of sovereignity and sovereignity is power then i think i fulfilled your request

the funny thing is that Chris mentions all of this and maintains that the UN has no real power to do anything

they have no power to govern how nations interact but they have power to recognize sovereign natio

I am close to wits end with you......
Sovereignity != Power. External Sovereignity = A states right to exist, without control on it from outside nations. Internal Sovereignity = A recognition by the people of a state that the state has power over them.

It's not that the UN has the power to recognize sovereignity. It's just that gaining a seat on the UN General Assembly is a good sign that you have acheived external sovereignity. It's not that the UN is saying that 'Ok, these guys are the new government' it's recognizing the fact that the power structure in that country has changed, and recognizing who has actual power. The UN has no power without its enforcers backing it up, but it can be a good barometer about how the world feels about individual states.

That have no power to govern how nations intereact, and they also do not have the power to recognize sovereing nations. However, the question here is not recognizing Libya as a sovereing nation. No one is denying that Libya is sovereign. No one is denying Libya's right to exist as an independent nation state. Recognition here does not refer to sovereignity, but a recognition of the de facto situation on the ground.

You keep telling us that we don't understand the difference between de facto and de jure. Well, I say we understand perfectly. It's just that de jure doesn't matter. Like I said, if the whole world decides to just ignore Gadaffi no matter what he says, and what he claims his legal position to be, who's going to stop them? No one. So even if de jure Gadaffi maintains control, it's completely irrelevant.

*raises eyebrows*

It's just that de jure doesn't matter.

prove it.

If your statement is true, when the rebels took control of the majority of Libya and becamethe de facto government as you said then whats stopping the other nations from taking out gaddafi this very minute?

if gaddafi didnt have the right to rule at this point as you claim then hes just a madman threatening a country and can then be taken out with no repercussions.

why hasnt anyone tried?

*i predict a lot of tinfoil

Like I said, if the whole world decides to just ignore Gadaffi no matter what he says, and what he claims his legal position to be, who's going to stop them? No one

again, the world ignoring Gaddafi does not take his legal right to rule away from him. the world does not dictate who runs a country. that matter has to be dealt with internally. They are doing so right now.

give me a historical instance where in a UN-member nation with a power struggle, the world ignored the de jure ruler who is still vying for power for the de facto one. go on ill wait.

It's not that the UN is saying that 'Ok, these guys are the new government' it's recognizing the fact that the power structure in that country has changed, and recognizing who has actual power.

WHY HAS THE UNITED NATIONS NOT DONE SO? surely doing so right now would curtail any further violence or at least give the UN legal right to intervene in a military manner. Surely this would allow the "all in" approach that i prefer.

oh wait wait wait...cuz they dont have the keen grasp of international protocol that you do.

youre not at your wits end. youve went past that point a good while ago.

I love the absurdity of this. LOL sovereignity does NOT equal power? the right and ability to rule a country does NOT equal power?

if ruling a country is not power then shoot the world is going nuts over a whole lot of nothing

1) There is nothing stopping anyone from taking out Gadaffi. We've just decided we'd rather not get involved, and will sit here watching the rebels do their thing instead of anything else. If the West decided it wasnt Gadaffi dead NOW....well there is nothing stopping them. They just choose not to.

2) Yeah, I've agreed it doesn't take away his legal right to rule. It's just that his legal right to rule means absolute bupkiss when his country decided they didn't want him ruling them anymore. An example? PRC and Taiwan, the world decided they'd ignore Mao's new China for about 30 years, while dealing with Taipei as if the Nationalist government continue to control both Taiwan and the Mainland. Eventually, of course, the world had to bow to the reality of the situation.

3) Because it's not in their interests to get that involved just yet. It's why the UK is apparently negotiating with the rebels, possibly in an attempt to prepare the way for official recognition.


4) Because sovereignity resides in a state's right to be a state, not in the person ruling it.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:This is wierd. Regardless, there are signs that the Libyans themselves aren't keen on direct intervention.

Except for when they repeatedly and directly request no fly zones at virtually every level of standing from political ambassador at the UN to resistance military fighters to run of the mill protestors. But hey, thats a nice sign.

I was responding to the calls for foreign troops on the ground. But hey, that's a lovely example of snide posting, mate.

Bakerofish wrote:give me a historical instance where in a UN-member nation with a power struggle, the world ignored the de jure ruler who is still vying for power for the de facto one. go on ill wait.

Does China count?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@emperor
i dont think anyone is comfortable with that idea

Think of it this way, would the South or North in the US Civil War have accepted foreign intervention? The South was aided by the UK, but this is a lot different from the things being proposed here.

That depends on who the foreign intervention favored and what exactly it entailed.

The difference here though is that the Libyan rebels and civilians are ASKING for the assistance via a no-fly zone to prevent bombing of civilian targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BBC and CNN reporters risking their lives to give you stories from Libya:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/07/ras.lanuf.libya.wedeman/index.html?hpt=C1

Slowly, NATO is spurred into action:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/07/libya.military.response/index.html

Again, why do think the rebels will be better? Why not get involve in the dozen or so other conflicts in Africa. Humanitarian aid, sure I am down with that sort of. But haven't we learned our lesson from Iraq?

Haven't we learned our lesson from Bosnia and Kosovo. Are we going to go into decade Three and still have troops there? Now we have Albanians wkilling US soldiers in Germany.

I don't know, maybe the world is the right answer.

That's disturbing...it may seem that Gadaffi is at least in a stalemate with the rebles now, if not pushing them back. Of course, that's just one reporter, so it's unlikely to be indicative of the entire situation on the ground.

Glad to know NATO is getting ready to do something...if they're laucnhing reconaissance flights, I wonder if that means they're considering a no fly zone. I'm also wondering whatever became of those SAS troopers that apparently went to Benghazi...

Frazzled wrote:Again, why do think the rebels will be better? Why not get involve in the dozen or so other conflicts in Africa. Humanitarian aid, sure I am down with that sort of. But haven't we learned our lesson from Iraq?

Haven't we learned our lesson from Bosnia and Kosovo. Are we going to go into decade Three and still have troops there? Now we have Albanians wkilling US soldiers in Germany.

I don't know, maybe the world is the right answer.

We can try that, but then parts of the world want to say you.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't...I have such faith in humanity, don't you? /sarcasm

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Again, why do think the rebels will be better? Why not get involve in the dozen or so other conflicts in Africa. Humanitarian aid, sure I am down with that sort of. But haven't we learned our lesson from Iraq?

Haven't we learned our lesson from Bosnia and Kosovo. Are we going to go into decade Three and still have troops there? Now we have Albanians wkilling US soldiers in Germany.

I don't know, maybe the world is the right answer.

We can try that, but then parts of the world want to say you.

They already do, in case you haven't noticed. Time to be like Japan. Provide aid, and diplomacy, but otherwise just trade.

You seem to be under the false impression that if we suddenly stop intervening in Africa/the Middle East we'll stop getting terrorist threats.

Bakerofish wrote:
oh wait wait wait...cuz they dont have the keen grasp of international protocol that you do.

You do know chris is an International Relations student in one of the best Universities in Britain right?

Bakerofish wrote:sovereignity

halonachos wrote:

Then France had issues with Vietnam and couldn't hold that together and we stepped in.

Then there was some more invasions in the middle east that we had to help deal with because we said we would.

.

History not taught much in the USA then?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote: I'm also wondering whatever became of those SAS troopers that apparently went to Benghazi...

Released that evening unharmed.

Helps to warn people you are arriving, especially when arriving armed by Chinook in the middle of the night when the only people the rebels expect to see arrive by helo are pro-Gaddafi forces...

ChrisWWII wrote:1) There is nothing stopping anyone from taking out Gadaffi. We've just decided we'd rather not get involved, and will sit here watching the rebels do their thing instead of anything else. If the West decided it wasnt Gadaffi dead NOW....well there is nothing stopping them. They just choose not to.

people have been trying to kill gaddafi for years. why not now when you claim theres no legal reason not to?

weak.

Yeah, I've agreed it doesn't take away his legal right to rule. It's just that his legal right to rule means absolute bupkiss when his country decided they didn't want him ruling them anymore. An example? PRC and Taiwan, the world decided they'd ignore Mao's new China for about 30 years, while dealing with Taipei as if the Nationalist government continue to control both Taiwan and the Mainland. Eventually, of course, the world had to bow to the reality of the situation.

predictable. and really doesnt help your case at all. It actually shows the UN charter and "de jure" or "legal right to rule" being important and upheld.

understand that "Taiwan" is a convenient way for the rest of the world to refer to The Republic of China (ROC) as there is already a People's Republic of China (PRC). There cant be two Chinese governments as this muddies a number of important things.

cliffs notes version. ROC and PRC are both "de facto" sovereigns of their respective territories. However both claim "de jure" status as the sole governing body of China

I quote you: "It's just that de jure doesn't matter"

then how come "de jure" or legal right to rule became a factor in the UN exercising its charter to remove ROCs seat in the assembly and award it to the PRC?

If there is no body that upholds the UN charter...

let me take a second to quote you here:

Let's also bear in mind that the UN charter is not law, but rather an agreement between nations. It's got as much backing it as the old League of Nations did...well, a bit more, but Clause 4 didn't stop us in Iraq or Afghanistan did it?

Then how come the ROC was outvoted and the PRC was given the seat in the assembly? How is this decision enforced among countries?

ROC was backed by the US and they STILL couldnt hold claim to de jure? The US who could "do anything" and not have anyone shut them down?

read and understand. Do not force what you "know" over what is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipso_jure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Taiwan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignity

Ketara wrote:You do know chris is an International Relations student in one of the best Universities in Britain right?

No. And frankly it doesnt show. I guess his professors never taught him to state his sources.

Maybe you can help him support his claims? if im wrong i would really want to be corrected and i think ive proven im willing to listen to provable claims. Ive offered my points and supported them. Chris has not done so.

@biccat

see above. PRC claims de facto rule over China AND de jure as a successor government. Taiwan cant hold "de facto" claim since they were ousted by the PRC and lost "de jure" when they were ousted.

Bakerofish wrote:
people have been trying to kill gaddafi for years. why not now when you claim theres no legal reason not to?

weak.

There is no reason stopping them. The best explanation is that they don't want to deal with the political fall out if word gets out that a Western antion tried to assasinate a rival head of state.

predictable. and really doesnt help your case at all. It actually shows the UN charter and "de jure" or "legal right to rule" being important and upheld.

understand that "Taiwan" is a convenient way for the rest of the world to refer to The Republic of China (ROC) as there is already a People's Republic of China (PRC). There cant be two Chinese governments as this muddies a number of important things.

Both states claim to be the government of all China, and for a long time Taiwan sat in the chair labeled China in the UNSC. The big problem is that both claim to be China...so who's right? De facto, the PRC, and that's what the world recognizes.

then how come "de jure" or legal right to rule became a factor in the UN exercising its charter to remove ROCs seat in the assembly and award it to the PRC?

The United States and other key states began to see a larger benefit to recognizing the PRC, both for taking advantage of the Sino-Soviet split to further harm the Soviet Union, and more recently the fact that most states would rather trade with the PRC, and in order to do so they must have diplomatic relations with the PRC.

In short, the US and the West pulled their support for the ROC being the government of China, and switched their recognition to the PRC. Without this support, the ROC had no choice but to accept the situation, and settle for what they could. The PRC and ROC is really an interesting situation....especially given your definitions of de jure law, the ROC really should be the government we all recognize, as they never ceded power to the PRC.....however, the world recognized the de facto situation, and realized that the PRC is the true government of China, and it made no sense to continue to pretend Taiwan was really in charge.


Edit: For someone so concerned with sources, you seem to be relying on wikipedia alot...

Melissia wrote:You seem to be under the false impression that if we suddenly stop intervening in Africa/the Middle East we'll stop getting terrorist threats.

They can't drive a truck bomb into our base in Tripoli if we don't have a base in Tripoli.

Bakerofish wrote:@biccat

see above. PRC claims de facto rule over China AND de jure as a successor government. Taiwan cant hold "de facto" claim since they were ousted by the PRC and lost "de jure" when they were ousted.

What's the basis for the legal right to be a sovereign? I think that's what ChrisWWII is getting at.

Taiwan never lost their legal right to rule, at least, not in their opinion.

If some rebel group claims the legal right to rule Libya, does that abolish Ghadaffi's claim? When does his claim expire? When did Saddam Hussein's claim expire? Did it exist until the rope goes taut?

I haven't been paying that close attention to Libya, because our President is taking the opinion that another dictator is going to be better than the current dictator. I don't see that as much of a change, except for the fact that we've already spent millions propping up the current dictator and we're going to lose our 'investment.'

@chris

lol at least im not pulling my sources out of thin air. wiki isnt flawless but generally speaking it works as you can start cross checking the citations for credibility and again if im wrong counter em.\

cite better sources

im sure you have interesting anecdotes from professors and textbooks and research material to back you up. kinda hard to translate over the web though. again if you have a better set of sources than i do please list them. I love to read

whats fun about you is you pull stuff like this:

The United States and other key states began to see a larger benefit to recognizing the PRC

you display incredible mass mind-reading powers that somehow can timetravel

There is nothing stopping anyone from taking out Gadaffi. We've just decided we'd rather not get involved, and will sit here watching the rebels do their thing instead of anything else. If the West decided it wasnt Gadaffi dead NOW....well there is nothing stopping them. They just choose not to.

ooh and i didnt know you had that level of authority and using "I just dont want to" as a rationale as well. Very gradeschool.

levity aside, youre confusing conjecture for fact. Youre tainting fact with your own POV.

and you convenietly ignore facts when they dont align with your mindset:
ex: the US didnt get enlightened out of the blue, they were OUTVOTED in the PRC/ROC issue

prove your claims. state your sources.

ChrisWWII wrote:There is no reason stopping them. The best explanation is that they don't want to deal with the political fall out if word gets out that a Western antion tried to assasinate a rival head of state.

There's also (in the U.S.) an executive order prohibiting assassination.

War being a particularly nebulous area of law, this (apparently) doesn't prohibit targetting of specific named individuals during wartime.

I've pretty much lost interest in this thread, but I figured I'd throw this out and see what happens: Baker, you were adamant that the UN was unable to recognise the rebels as the legitimate government of Libya because it would be violating Article 2.

Bakerofish wrote:http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

How do you reconcile this with your calls for a full scale invasion to crush Gaddaffi utterly? Would that not also be in violation of Article 2, and thus something that the UN would never do?

http://ann.sagepub.com/content/324/1/75.abstract

Any international relations student can tell you that the United States was not 'outvoted' in anyway. The United States chose of its own free will to recognize the governmen in Beijing as the government of all China. It did this without any external pressure, and the subsequent 'alliance' between the two powers was clearly an attempt to exploit the Sino-Soviet split. This is a simple matter of the historical record, and you are welcome to find some source that damns all of history.

I'm am conjecturing based on the available evidence, and the available evidence, suggests that the United States and other Western Powers do not want to deal with the political fall out that would accompany the termination with extreme prejudice of Gadaffi.

You are welcom to find sources that contradict this statement, but snarking at how you think I'm an idiot will not help you.

Edit:

biccat wrote:
There's also (in the U.S.) an executive order prohibiting assassination.

War being a particularly nebulous area of law, this (apparently) doesn't prohibit targetting of specific named individuals during wartime.

I knew there was something in the US...I thought it was the Carter doctrine, but that's dealing with the Middle East. Ah well.

Bakerofish wrote:ooh and i didnt know you had that level of authority and using "I just dont want to" as a rationale as well. Very gradeschool.

.......as an academic myself, I have to say, even with no particular view in this topic as to who's right or wrong, you might want to tone yourself down a little bit. It was a figure of speech in an internet debate. He's not writing his thesis here. And considering your level of grammatical skill displayed so far, you're hardly in a position to be nitpicking like that.

levity aside, youre confusing conjecture for fact. Youre tainting fact with your own POV.

With regards to politics, international relations, and other things of such substance, your POV always taints what you write. Bias is considered to be so inherent at a higher level of discourse, that its rarely even worth mentioning in such a context, unless directly relevant.

prove your claims. state your sources.

Why should he? I mean, seriously? As said, he's not writing his dissertation or thesis. This is an internet debate. Providing a bibliography with appropriate footnotes is a waste of time, the opposing person never listens anyway. Several times I personally have quoted direct source from relevant material in online debates, and most of the time its just ignored flat out. To the point where I simply don't bother any more. I know my stuff, why should I care what some random internet bod thinks?

And as already stated, wiki is hardly a reputable source if we are to consider direct relevant source material.

To be perfectly frank, you seem to be demanding he attach relevant academic footnotes and compose a structured essay to everything you say, whilst not even bothering to run your own replies through a spell checker and citing wikipedia as your source. One sided, no?

biccat wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@biccat

see above. PRC claims de facto rule over China AND de jure as a successor government. Taiwan cant hold "de facto" claim since they were ousted by the PRC and lost "de jure" when they were ousted.

What's the basis for the legal right to be a sovereign? I think that's what ChrisWWII is getting at.

Taiwan never lost their legal right to rule, at least, not in their opinion.

If some rebel group claims the legal right to rule Libya, does that abolish Ghadaffi's claim? When does his claim expire? When did Saddam Hussein's claim expire? Did it exist until the rope goes taut?

I haven't been paying that close attention to Libya, because our President is taking the opinion that another dictator is going to be better than the current dictator. I don't see that as much of a change, except for the fact that we've already spent millions propping up the current dictator and we're going to lose our 'investment.'

ive posted the links that answer those questions and i just highlited the main points here.

to answer though:

Taiwan has yet to come up with a way to convince the UN that they didnt though. The way the PRC played this is sheer genius.

Taiwan claims to be "China" and even after getting ousted they claim de jure rule though PRC held the majority of the territories. UN recognizes ROC as China. PRC then establishes economic, military and political independence from ROC (de facto) and petitions for a place in the UN and declaring ROCs presence illegal

PRCs argument: the PRC succeeded to the sovereignty of China in 1949-1950, including that over Taiwan, although Taiwan continued to be under the administration of the old Republic of China government. This sovereignity was established through force of arms, economic presence and political relationships.

Taiwan had to prove otherwise.

both sides were given equal opportunity to claim "China"

UN nations took their sides. US backed ROC. Russia backed PRC (surprise! lol) and it came down to a vote. PRC was then given the seat and was declared successor government to the Founding Member China

this is the genius stroke:

Taiwans defense the entire time was under the banner of "China" and since they were outvoted they lost their status as "China" in the UN General assembly. They were now no longer a sovereign nation as they declared their territory "China"

their only chance to be recognized as a sovereign nation was to claim their territories as seperate and independent from China. They wanted to secede and join the UN under the name "Taiwan"

except the PRC, "CHINA" according to the UN established an anti secession law before Taiwan was able to secede successfully. According to the UN, Taiwan cannot be accepted as part of the UN because to do so would infringe on PRCs claim of sovereignity.

Taiwan had to secede by force and the civil war continued and still continues in a way today.

its an amazing story.

you other questions: in order to lay legal claim to Libya Gaddafi has to give up his claim. by either suddenly ceasing to breathe or taking it up the tailpipe and stepping down. there are other ways but it all boils down to if Ghaddafi can no longer offer a reasonable resistance to the rebel claims.

Saddam's claim to power ended when he couldnt hold baghdad and was captured and thus under the power of a coalition.

to debate whether the invasion in Iraq was legal is something thats still being petitioned in the UN today. i think the Netherlands was asked to investigate and file reports on the US and Britain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_2003_Invasion_of_Iraq

You fail to note that the PRC did not get the seat on the UNSC or the GA until the 1970s. There was never a 'vote' as you so describe. The Soviet Union backed the PRC, and the West backed the RoC as you describe, and for 20 odd years, the RoC maintained that it was the government of all China, and the US, the West and the UN recognized it as such. However, after the Sino-Soviet split, the West decided it was more prudent to back and help the PRC, to create a 'second front' in the Cold War. There was no 'vote', it was all a matter of diplomatic recognition.

More importantly, the RoC has not seceeded as the secessionist movement within the RoC is not strong enough to adequaetely fuel the desire for an indepent state. Not to mention, the PRC has never remitted its threat to use force if their 'wayward province' decides it wants to set up its own government. If Taiwan seceeded from China, and declared itself a soverein state, the only reason they wouldn't be given a seat in the GA right away, is that the PRC would raise holy hell, and fight tooth and nail every step of the way.

Your flight of fancy here fliess in complete disregard to the historical record, and the stucture of the relations between states.



Ketara, thank you for saying that. I have enough trouble fighting in the St. Andrews library for access to books to right my silly little freshers essyas on, so there is no way in hell I'm going through the trouble to write a full scale essay here. And even if I was, I'd have to be citing sources and explaining how they back up my argument, not just throwing sources and saying 'these prove you wrong lol'.

Bakerofish wrote:ive posted the links that answer those questions and i just highlited the main points here.

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see how those links make your point. You need to explain your point, then use sources to back it up.

Bakerofish wrote:PRCs argument: the PRC succeeded to the sovereignty of China in 1949-1950, including that over Taiwan, although Taiwan continued to be under the administration of the old Republic of China government. This sovereignity was established through force of arms, economic presence and political relationships.

Taiwan had to prove otherwise.

There are two problems with this:

1) the PRC wasn't recognized as "China" until 1971. Consider the UN Security Council resolutions concerning Korea, despite both the USSR and China holding veto powers.

2) The burden of proof should rest with the group contesting the legal right, not with the group that holds the legal right. The PRC contested ROC's legal claim to rule China, they should bear the burden of proof.

Bakerofish wrote:UN nations took their sides. US backed ROC. Russia backed PRC (surprise! lol) and it came down to a vote. PRC was then given the seat and was declared successor government to the Founding Member China

Again, China didn't 'win' the seat until 1971.