Jump to content

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

UN General Assembly
Resolution 2758
Voting by country in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758
  Voted in favor
  Voted against
  Abstained
  Non-voting member
  Non-UN-members/dependencies
Date25 October 1971
Meeting no.1,976
CodeA/RES/2758(XXVI) (Document)
SubjectRestoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations
Voting summary
  • 76 voted for
  • 35 voted against
  • 17 abstained
ResultAdopted
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758
Traditional Chinese聯合國大會第2758號決議
Simplified Chinese联合国大会第2758号决议
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu PinyinLiánhéguó Dàhuì 2758 hào juéyì
Wade–GilesLien2-ho2-kuo2 Ta4-hui4 2758 hao4 chueh2-yi4
Tongyong PinyinLianheguo Dahuei 2758 hao jyueyi
Yale RomanizationLyanhegwo Dahwei 2758 hau Jyweyi
Wikisource has original text related to this article:

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, also known as the Resolution on Admitting Peking,[1] was passed in response to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668 that required any change in China's representation in the UN be determined by a two-thirds vote referring to Article 18[2] of the UN Charter. The resolution, passed on 25 October 1971, recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations" and removed "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek" (referring to the then-authoritarian Kuomintang regime as the dominant party in the Republic of China, whose central government had retreated to Taiwan from the mainland) from the United Nations.[3]

In the 2020s, disputes over the interpretation of the resolution have arisen, with Taiwan, the United States, Canada, the European Union, United Kingdom and Australia disagreeing with the PRC's interpretation about conflating the resolution with its One China principle and using it against Taiwan's right of participation in international organizations.

Background

[edit]

The Republic of China (ROC) was founded in 1912 in Mainland China, and expanded its jurisdiction to Taiwan in 1945.[4] In 1945, it became one of the 51 original member states of the United Nations, which was created in 1945. At that time, however, it was embroiled in civil war: the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang, was fighting troops led by the Chinese Communist Party. This lasted until 1949, when Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China (PRC) in Beijing and the Nationalists retreated to Taiwan, from which Japan had withdrawn in 1945 and to which it would in 1951 renounce all right, title and claim.[4] By January 1950 the PRC was in control of mainland China but was unable to capture Taiwan, Penghu, Matsu or Kinmen, and thus these remained Kuomintang-ruled.[5][1]

Although the ROC government continuously claimed to return to its mainland, by the 1970s, an increasing number of UN members became aware that this government no long represented hundreds of million people on the mainland.[1] The PRC claimed to be the successor government of the ROC, while the Kuomintang in Taiwan championed the continued existence of the Republic of China. Both claimed to be the only legitimate Chinese government, and each refused to maintain diplomatic relations with countries that have recognized the other. The ROC continued to represent China in the UN until Resolution 2758 was passed.[4]

Proceedings at the United Nations

[edit]

On 15 July 1971, 17 UN members: Albania, Algeria, the Congo, Cuba, Guinea, Iraq, Mali, Mauritania, North Yemen, Romania, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Yugoslavia, and Zambia, requested that a question of the "Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations" be placed on the provisional agenda of the twenty-sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly.[6] In an explanatory memorandum accompanying their request, the 17 UN members observed that for years they had protested against what they considered were hostile and discriminatory policy followed by several governments with regard to the communist government of mainland China, which they considered to be the genuine representative of the Chinese people.[6] The existence of the People's Republic of China, they declared, was a reality which could "not be changed to suit the myth of a so called Republic of China, fabricated out of a portion of Chinese territory".[6] In the view of the 17 UN members, the ROC were unlawful authorities installed in the island of Taiwan which claimed to represent China, and they remained there only because of the permanent presence of United States Armed Forces.[6] No important international problems, they added, could be solved without the participation of the People's Republic of China. It was in the fundamental interests, they concluded, of the United Nations to "restore" promptly to the People's Republic of China its seat in the organization, thus putting an end to a "grave injustice" and "dangerous situation" which had been perpetuated in order to fulfill a policy that had been increasingly repudiated.[6] This meant the immediate expulsion of the representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek regime from the seat which it held in the United Nations.[6][7]

On 17 August 1971, the United States requested that a second item, "The representation of China in the United Nations" also be placed on the provisional agenda.[6] In the explanatory memorandum accompanying the U.S. request, the U.S. said that in dealing with the problem of the representation of China, the United Nations should take cognizance of the existence of both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China; it should reflect that incontestable reality in the manner in which it made provision for China's representation.[6] The U.S. asserted that the UN should not be required to take a definitive position on the respective conflicting claims of the People's Republic of China or the Republic of China, pending a peaceful resolution of the matter as called for by the United Nations Charter.[6] Thus, the U.S. added, the People's Republic of China should be represented and at the same time provision should be made to ensure that the Republic of China was not deprived of its representation.[6][7]

On 22 September 1971, the United States proposed at the UN General Committee that the two items be combined into one item called "The Question of China".[6] The proposal was, however, rejected by 12 votes to 9 with 3 abstentions.[6]

On 25 September 1971, the first Albanian-backed draft resolution, A/L.630 and Add.1 and 2, was submitted by 23 states including 17 of the states which had joined in placing the question on the agenda, to: "...restore to the People's Republic of China all its rights and expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek."[8]

On 29 September 1971, a second draft resolution, A/L.632 and Add.1 and 2, sponsored by 22 members including the U.S., was proposed declaring that any proposal to deprive the Republic of China of representation was an important question under Article 18 of the UN Charter, and thus would require a two-thirds supermajority for approval.[9]

On 29 September 1971, a third draft resolution, A/L.633, sponsored by 19 members including the U.S., was proposed by which the Assembly would affirm the right of representation of the People's Republic of China and recommend that it be seated as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, while also affirming the continuing right of representation of the Republic of China.[10]

Adopted resolution 2758

On 15 October 1971 the representatives of 22 UN members requested the UN Secretary-General to distribute, as an official Assembly document, a statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China dated 20 August 1971.[6] In this statement, made in response to the U.S. letter of 17 August 1971 and its accompanying explanatory memorandum, the People's Republic of China declared that the U.S. proposal was a blatant exposure of the Nixon government's scheme of creating "two Chinas" in the United Nations. It added that there was only one China, the People's Republic of China.[6] Taiwan, it continued, was an inalienable part of Chinese territory and a province of China which had already been returned to the motherland after the Second World War.[6] It went on to state that the U.S. was plotting to separate Taiwan from China and was wildly attempting to force members of the UN to submit to its will.[6] The Chinese government declared that the Chinese people and government firmly opposed "two Chinas", "one China, one Taiwan", or any other similar arrangement, as well as the claim that "the status of Taiwan remains to be determined".[6] They declared they would have absolutely nothing to do with the UN in such scenarios.[6]

Discussion at the Assembly took place at 12 plenary meetings between 18 and 26 October 1971 with 73 member states taking part.[6] During the debates four more draft resolutions were submitted - three by Tunisia and one by Saudi Arabia. Broadly, each of these draft resolutions was a variation on the third draft resolution described above, backed by the U.S. Notably, the Saudi-proposed resolution would have held that the people of the island of Taiwan had a right to self-determination.[6] Similarly, the Tunisian resolution would have called for the Republic of China government to be represented in the United Nations under the name "Formosa".[6]

Algeria's representative in the debates submitted that to recognize that the government of the People's Republic of China was lawfully entitled to represent China did not imply the eviction of a member but the eviction of the representatives of a dissident minority regime.[6] The U.S., in its submission, took the opposite view; arguing that adoption of the resolution expelling the representatives sent from Taipei would imply the termination of the membership of a longstanding member. The spokesman of the Republic of China submitted that his country had earned its place in the United Nations by virtue of its contribution to peace and freedom during the Second World War.[6] He said the Chinese communist regime, which had never had the moral consent of the Chinese people, could in no way be regarded as the representative of the great Chinese nation.[6] Various members including two permanent members of the security council, the United Kingdom and the USSR, argued that requiring the matter to be subject to a supermajority vote was not appropriate because the adoption of the Albanian proposed resolution did not involve the admission or expulsion of a member. Rather it concerned only credentials and Taiwan had never been a member.[6] They argued there was only one Chinese state that was a member. Any other Chinese state would have to apply for membership in accordance with the Charter.[6]

On 25 October 1971, the voting took place. In the first vote held, the Assembly rejected the U.S. backed proposal that the matter would require a supermajority vote — the 'important question motion' [A/L.632 and Add.1 and 2].[11] The Assembly then voted on a separate U.S. proposal that the words "and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupied at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it" be removed from the draft resolution A/L.630 and Add.1 and 2. The U.S. representative suggested that this motion, if adopted, would "have the effect of welcoming the PRC to the General Assembly and the Security Council, while at the same time not affecting the representation of the ROC in this hall".[11] The motion was rejected by a vote of 61 to 51, with 16 abstentions.[11]

At this point the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the ROC, Chow Shu-Kai, stated "in view of the frenzied and irrational manners that have been exhibited in this hall, the delegation of the Republic of China has now decided not to take part in any further proceedings of this General Assembly."[11] He said the "ideals upon which the United Nations was founded and which the General Assembly has now been betrayed".[11]

The Assembly then adopted draft Albanian proposed resolution A/L.630 and Add.1 and 2, by a roll-call vote of 76 to 35, with 17 abstentions, as Resolution 2758.[3] The Beijing government began representing China at the UN from 15 November 1971 and its delegates were seated at the UN Security Council meeting held on 23 November 1971, the first such meeting where representatives of the Beijing government represented China.[6]

Votes

[edit]
Vote Tally States Percent of members Percent of votes
In favour 76 Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Bhutan, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burma, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Kuwait, Kingdom of Laos, Libyan Arab Republic, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, People's Republic of the Congo, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Sweden, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia 59.37% 68.46%
Against 35 Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (Democratic Republic of), Costa Rica, Dahomey, Dominican Republic, EI Salvador, Gabon, Gambia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Ivory Coast, Japan, Khmer Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Paraguay, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Swaziland, United States of America, Upper Volta, Uruguay, Venezuela 27.34% 31.53%
Abstain 17 Argentina, Bahrain, Barbados, Colombia, Cyprus, Fiji, Greece, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Panama, Qatar, Spain, Thailand 13.28% X
Total 128 100% 100%
Source: Resolution 2758 voting record[12]

Interpretations

[edit]

United Nations

[edit]

On 21 September 2007, the UN General Assembly rejected Taiwan's membership bid to "join the UN under the name of Taiwan", citing Resolution 2758 as acknowledging that Taiwan is part of China.[13] The UN General Assembly and its General Committee's recommendations on the "Taiwan question" reflected long-standing UN policy and is mirrored in other documents promulgated by the United Nations.[14][15][16] For example, the UN's "Final Clauses of Multilateral Treaties, Handbook" (2003) states:

...regarding the Taiwan Province of China, the Secretary-General follows the General Assembly’s guidance incorporated in resolution 2758 (XXVI) of the General Assembly of 25 October 1971 on the restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations. The General Assembly decided to recognize the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations. Hence, instruments received from the Taiwan Province of China will not be accepted by the Secretary-General in his capacity as depositary.[17]

According to academic Margaret Lewis of Seton Hall University School of Law, the resolution over the representation in the UN has been widely interpreted to support China's claim over Taiwan. It has effectively blocked Taiwan from joining the UN and its subsidiary organizations, although it literally did not block Taiwan from participating in the UN.[1]

It has often been noted that Article 23 of the UN Charter states, "The Republic of China, France [...] shall be permanent members of the Security Council." Similarly, Article 110 specifies that "The present Charter shall come into force upon the deposit of ratifications by the Republic of China [...]" These provisions remain valid to this day, despite Taiwan's withdrawal.[18][19][20][21]

China

[edit]

The Chinese government claims that Resolution 2758 also represented a process to rule out the ambiguity of Taiwan's status in the debates at the UN General Assembly, where the admission of the People's Republic of China to the UN was not considered a question of new membership, but a question of credentials, or who represented China to the UN.[22] After 1949, Taiwan was regarded as the rump state of the Republic of China, which had lost control of most of its mainland territory, rendering it unable to represent China internationally—a position solidified by Resolution 2758.[23]

The Chinese government insists that the term "China" in Resolution 2758 also refers to Taiwan.[24] Yang Tao, a senior Chinese diplomat, asserted that People's Republic of China had replaced the Republic of China as the representation of China since its foundation in 1949. He noted that Resolution 2758, passed by a majority vote, recognised the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China, and did not acknowledge any other representation of China or Taiwan. Yang contended that if China's representation did not include Taiwan, there would have been no need to expel the representative of Chiang Kai-shek.[25] Beijing asserts that Taiwan falls completely within China's international law identity,[25][26] without any need to mention Taiwan separately, according to state media outlet China Daily.[26]

Beijing states that the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation affirmed Taiwan's return to China, while acknowledging that the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty did not explicitly address Taiwan's sovereignty.[23] Chinese diplomats criticised the United States for disregarding the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation in which they believed that the United States had agreed on the return of Taiwan to China.[25][27] The Chinese government also claims that it reached a consensus with Taiwan in 1992, in which both China and Taiwan agreed that there is but one China across the Taiwan strait. China set this consensus as a premise to engage any official interaction with Taiwan.[28]

For decades, China has been poaching Taiwan's diplomatic allies based on one-China principles, as a tool to pressure Taiwan. In early 2024, Nauru was the first country to cite Resolution 2758 for cutting its diplomatic tie with Taiwan and building a formal relation with China.[24] The official Xinhua News Agency noted that China established diplomatic ties with 183 countries on the condition of its one-China principle.[26]

Taiwan

[edit]

In 2000, Taiwanese foreign minister Tien Hung-mao addressed to the Legislative Yuan that the Republic of China was a founding member of the United Nations, yet Resolution 2758, which addressed the representation of the people of the Mainland Area, excluded the representation of the people of the Taiwan Area, a situation he found inappropriate. Tien noted that if Taiwan seeks to join the UN as a new member, its application would likely face a veto from China and objections from other UN Security Council members. Alternatively, if Taiwan aims to rejoin the UN, it must overturn Resolution 2758, which requires a two-thirds majority vote in the UN General Assembly—a highly challenging objective to achieve.[29]

The Pan-Green Coalition, led by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), believes that Resolution 2758 has been distorted by China and aim to return to the UN as Taiwan,[30] while the Kuomintang (KMT)-led Pan-Blue Coalition is against the resolution itself and aims to amend the resolution to allow the Republic of China to return to the UN.[31] The two camps are also divided on whether there is a consensus in 1992. President Ma Ying-jeou from KMT accepted this consensus during his administration, while the consensus was later denied by President Tsai Ing-wen from the DPP who questioned whether such consensus ever actually taken place in the meetings.[28]

Two referendums were held in 2008 to determine whether the country should re-join the UN as the Republic of China or join the UN as Taiwan. Both referendums failed to meet the required voter turnout.[32] A United States Department of State spokesman warned such referendums may alter the status quo of Taiwan, breaking the promises that Chen made to President George W. Bush.[33] Since 2009, Taiwan has no longer submitted any request to join the UN, while it still requests other nations to speak for the unfairness underlying the exclusion of Taiwan from the UN system.[34]

In September 2024, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs initiated a plan to call attention to the Chinese distortion of Resolution 2758.[35] Several DPP legislators urged the Legislative Yuan to declare that Resolution 2758 does not concern Taiwan's sovereignty or international status.[23] The DPP legislators attempted to make an interim motion, which was, however, ignored by the president of the Legislative Yuan, Han Kuo-yu from the KMT, throughout the parliamentary session.[36][37]

United States

[edit]
Further information: Taiwan–United States relations, Three Communiqués, Taiwan Relations Act, and Six Assurances

The US's official policy is to recognize the PRC government as "the sole legal government of China", and "it acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China".[38] While keeping diplomatic relations with the PRC, the US expects that "the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means".[39][40] The US "would continue to maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan".[38] According to a 2014 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, the US administrations have not explicitly stated a position on the political status of Taiwan.[41]

In April 2024, US State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Mark Lambert spoke at a German Marshall Fund (GMF) seminar, saying that "Resolution 2758 does not endorse, is not equivalent to, and does not reflect a consensus for the PRC's 'one China' principle".[42] Lambert added that the Chinese government "mischaracterizes the resolution by falsely conflating it with China’s ‘one China’ principle and wrongly asserts that it reflects an international consensus for its ‘one China’ principle."[43][44] In May 2024, State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said that the US's 'one China' policy "has not changed".[45]

According to some analysts at the GMF, Resolution 2758 solved the issue of "China's representation" in the United Nations—but it left the issue of Taiwan's representation unresolved.[46][42]

Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China

[edit]

In July 2024, at the first Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China summit in Taiwan, attending lawmakers agreed on a resolution to counter China's interpretation of Resolution 2758 in their home country legislatures.[47][48]

Australia

[edit]
Further information: Australia–Taiwan relations

In August 2024, the Parliament of Australia formally condemned China's use of UN Resolution 2758.[49][50] The parliament declared that UN Resolution 2758, "does not establish the People’s Republic of China's sovereignty over Taiwan and does not determine the future status of Taiwan in the UN".[49]

Netherlands

[edit]

In September 2024, the House of Representatives recognized that UN Resolution 2758 does not judge Taiwan's future participation in the UN or other international organizations, and also does not support China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan. The vote of 147 to 3 rejects China's altered interpretation of the resolution in its claims over Taiwan and calls for an EU-wide effort to support Taiwan's representation.[51][52]

European Union

[edit]

In October 2024, the European Parliament recognized that Resolution 2758 does not take a position on Taiwan, has no bearing on Taiwan's participation in UN bodies, and that China's coercive measure to achieve unification are contradictory to international law.[53][54] The European Commission stated that it opposes "any unilateral actions that change the status quo by force or coercion."[55]

Canada

[edit]

In November 2024, the House of Commons of Canada unanimously passed a motion stating that Resolution 2758 does not establish PRC sovereignty over Taiwan and has no bearing on Taiwan's future participation in UN bodies.[56][57]

United Kingdom

[edit]

In November 2024, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom unanimously passed a motion stating that Resolution 2758 does not address the political status of Taiwan, does not establish PRC sovereignty over Taiwan, and is silent on Taiwan's participation in UN bodies.[58][59]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d Hale, Erin. "Taiwan taps on United Nations' door, 50 years after departure". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 30 November 2024.
  2. ^ "Charter of the United Nations: Chapter IV: The General Assembly". Archived from the original on 28 November 2010. Retrieved 23 December 2010.
  3. ^ a b UN General Assembly (1971). "Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations". Resolutions Adopted by the General Assembly During Its 26th Session, 21 September-22 December 1971: 2. Archived from the original on 27 December 2022. Retrieved 23 March 2023.
  4. ^ a b c Yang, Sheng-tsung (1 January 1996), "The Republic of China's Right to Participate in the United Nations", The International Status of Taiwan in the New World Order: Legal and Political Considerations, Brill Nijhoff, pp. 117–132, ISBN 978-90-04-63978-2, retrieved 30 November 2024
  5. ^ "Taiwan in Time: Fixing the KMT, 1950 edition". Taipei Times. 19 January 2020. Archived from the original on 13 September 2024. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa United Nations (31 December 1971). Yearbook of the United Nations 1971. United Nations. pp. 126–128, 136. ISBN 978-92-1-060198-6. Archived from the original on 26 November 2023. Retrieved 31 December 2023.
  7. ^ a b Stamelos, Charalampos; Tsimaras, Konstantinos (2022), Abidde, Sabella O. (ed.), "The UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971 Recognizing the People's Republic of China as the Legitimate Representative of the State of China", China and Taiwan in Africa: The Struggle for Diplomatic Recognition and Hegemony, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 101–119, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-95342-3_7, ISBN 978-3-030-95342-3, retrieved 8 December 2024
  8. ^ "Restoration of the lawful rights of People's Republic of China in the United Nations: draft resolution / Albania, Algeria, Ceylon, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Iraq, Mali, Mauritania, Nepal, Pakistan, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, People's Republic of the Congo, Romania, Somalia, Syrian Arab Republic, Sudan, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zambia". United Nations. 25 September 1971. Archived from the original on 23 December 2023. Retrieved 10 March 2024.
  9. ^ "Restoration of the lawful rights of People's Republic of China in the United Nations: draft resolution /: Australia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Fiji, Gambia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Japan, Lesotho, Liberia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Philippines. Swaziland, Thailand, United States of America and Uruguay". United Nations. 29 September 1971. Archived from the original on 23 December 2023. Retrieved 10 March 2024.
  10. ^ "Restoration of the lawful rights of People's Republic of China in the United Nations: draft resolution /: Australia, Chad, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Gambia, Haiti, Honduras, Japan, Lesotho, Liberia, New Zealand, Philippines, Swaziland, Thailand, United States of America and Uruguay". United Nations. 29 September 1971. Archived from the original on 23 December 2023. Retrieved 2 May 2023.
  11. ^ a b c d e General Assembly, 26th session: 1976th plenary meeting, Monday, 25 October 1971, New York. 1974. pp. 33–35, 40. Archived from the original on 10 March 2020. Retrieved 15 August 2019.
  12. ^ "General Assembly, 26th session : 1976th plenary meeting, Monday, 25 October 1971, New York (A/PV.1976)". United Nations Digital Library. 1974. p. 41. Archived from the original on 15 February 2020. Retrieved 15 August 2019.
  13. ^ "GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS WORK PROGRAMME FOR SIXTY-SECOND SESSION, REJECTS BID TO INCLUDE AGENDA ITEM ON TAIWAN | UN Press". press.un.org. Archived from the original on 29 December 2023. Retrieved 29 December 2023.
  14. ^ Tribunal, UN Administrative (21 November 1996). "Administrative Tribunal judgement no. 778 :: case no. 841, Chu against the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board". United Nations. Archived from the original on 15 December 2023. Retrieved 24 May 2024.
  15. ^ "Secretary-General's press conference | United Nations Secretary-General". www.un.org. Archived from the original on 1 August 2021. Retrieved 24 May 2024.
  16. ^ "Highlight 9 July 2008 | United Nations Secretary-General". www.un.org. Archived from the original on 24 May 2024. Retrieved 24 May 2024.
  17. ^ ""Final Clauses of Multilateral Treaties, Handbook", United Nations, 2003" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 March 2012. Retrieved 7 December 2016.
  18. ^ "專論》 聯合國2758號決議是台灣的生門？ 還是死門？ | 政治". Newtalk新聞 (in Chinese). 24 September 2024. Retrieved 8 December 2024.
  19. ^ 傅雲欽 (6 July 2007). "中華民國還在聯合國？". Liberty Times.
  20. ^ 經濟日報. "學者：自衛反擊權涉國際法 聯合國憲章讓中國投鼠忌器 | 政經焦點 | 要聞". 經濟日報 (in Chinese). Retrieved 8 December 2024.
  21. ^ Institute, Global Taiwan (31 October 2018). "Searching for a Basis for Taiwan in the United Nations". Global Taiwan Institute. Retrieved 8 December 2024.
  22. ^ Yi, Xin (19 March 2024). "Taiwan's status undetermined? A fallacy". Permanent Mission of China to the UN and other International Organizations in Vienna. Retrieved 30 November 2024.
  23. ^ a b c Nan, Hao. "UN Resolution 2758 debate: A growing global effort to challenge China's claims on Taiwan?". ThinkChina. Lianhe Zaobao. Retrieved 30 November 2024.
  24. ^ a b Wei, Sim Tze. "Will Taiwan face further diplomatic isolation amid Beijing's use of UN Resolution 2758?". ThinkChina. Lianhe Zaobao. Retrieved 30 November 2024.
  25. ^ a b c 张玲. "美蓄意歪曲挑战联大第2758号决议 外交部：美国的谎言重复一千遍，也变不成事实". 中国台湾网. Retrieved 8 December 2024.
  26. ^ a b c Zhang, Yi (14 September 2024). "Taiwan parties, groups slam false claims about UN resolution". China Daily. Retrieved 30 November 2024.
  27. ^ "秦刚：战后秩序必须维护 国家统一必须实现 - 国际 - 即时国际". 星洲网 Sin Chew Daily Malaysia Latest News and Headlines (in Chinese (China)). 11 May 2023. Retrieved 8 December 2024.
  28. ^ a b Chen, Yu-Jie; Cohen, Jerome A. (2019). "China-Taiwan relations re-examined: the "1992 consensus" and Cross-Strait agreement". Penn Carey Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. University of Pennsylvania Law School. Retrieved 20 July 2024. Unlike her predecessor Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen has not recognized the existence of the "1992 Consensus." Yet, she has tried to reach a middle ground between Beijing's stance and that of her own party, the DPP. In her inaugural speech, she carefully worded her position, acknowledging the first meeting between SEF and ARATS in 1992 as "historical fact." She stated that the meeting had "arrived at various joint acknowledgments and understandings" and was conducted "in a spirit of mutual understanding and a political attitude of seeking common ground while setting aside differences," a phrase often used by Beijing... In other words, while Tsai did not accept the "1992 Consensus," she acknowledged that the 1992 meeting took place in a positive spirit that should lay the groundwork for sustaining crossstrait peace.
    ...Under international law, the 1992 SEF-ARATS exchanges would not amount to a legally binding agreement on the meaning of "One China" and other sovereignty questions. While SEF and ARATS apparently possessed the capacity to represent their own governments in concluding agreements on cross-strait cooperation, the intention of each organization was to sign legal instruments recording their agreement on the specific matters under negotiation... The parties never evinced an intention to conclude an agreement on sovereignty matters involving the notion of "One China" precisely because they could not reach agreement on the thorny issues involved. Instead, they bypassed the "One China" issues and went on to conclude formal written agreements on technical matters. In other words, the element of intent to create legal obligations on sovereignty questions did not exist. This is evident from the caution of SEF—it carefully avoided committing itself to a written agreement with regard to the all-important political issue and suggested that each side orally state its differing position separately. This poses a contrast with the formal agreements later concluded by the two organizations on various economic and technical matters. None of these cross-strait agreements touched upon the "One China" issue, and all were concluded without regard to it.
  29. ^ "立法院報告「我國參與聯合國策略之檢討」". 中華民國外交部全球資訊網 (in Chinese). 17 March 2022. Retrieved 8 December 2024.
  30. ^ "台灣VS.中華民國！「2758號」提案 綠藍過招". Yahoo News (in Chinese). 20 September 2024. Retrieved 30 November 2024.
  31. ^ "藍提案反對2758號決議 籲速讓中華民國重返聯合國". 中央社 CNA (in Chinese). 20 September 2024. Archived from the original on 9 October 2024. Retrieved 12 October 2024.
  32. ^ Fiske, Nick (22 March 2008). "Taiwan referendums on UN membership fail". JURISTnews. Retrieved 30 November 2024.
  33. ^ "Taiwan to push U.N. referendum despite China protest". Reuters. 10 August 2007.
  34. ^ "駁國民黨批評 外交部：國際友台動能超越以往". Central News Agency. 15 September 2021. Archived from the original on 21 October 2021. Retrieved 21 October 2021.
  35. ^ "台灣聯合國協進會赴美 籲聯大討論 "2758號決議" 的 "一中" 問題". Voice of America (in Chinese). 10 September 2024. Archived from the original on 15 September 2024. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
  36. ^ "朝野協商未處理2758決議不涉台 吳思瑤：悲憤忍淚 | 政治". 中央社 CNA. 18 September 2024. Archived from the original on 24 September 2024. Retrieved 24 September 2024.
  37. ^ "朝野協商綠委提案「2758號不涉台決議」 韓國瑜冷處裡直接散會". 上報. 18 September 2024. Archived from the original on 19 September 2024. Retrieved 19 September 2024.
  38. ^ a b Governments of United States of America and the People's Republic of China (17 August 1982). US–PRC Joint Communique, August 17, 1982  – via Wikisource.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  39. ^ Congress of the United States (10 April 1979). Taiwan Relations Act  – via Wikisource.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
  40. ^ Kan, Shirley A.; Morrison, Wayne M. (4 January 2013). "U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. p. 4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 December 2016. Retrieved 11 May 2017.
  41. ^ Kan, Shirley A. (10 October 2014). "China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. p. 39. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 April 2017. Retrieved 7 March 2017.
  42. ^ a b Glaser, Bonnie S.; deLisle, Jacques (30 April 2024). "Exposing the PRC's Distortion of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to Press its Claim Over Taiwan". German Marshall Fund. Archived from the original on 30 April 2024. Retrieved 30 April 2024.
  43. ^ "US official raps China over UN Resolution 2758". Taipei Times. 1 May 2024. Archived from the original on 1 May 2024. Retrieved 1 May 2024.
  44. ^ Ching, Nike (28 May 2024). "US refutes China's characterization of UN Resolution 2758". Voice of America. Archived from the original on 29 May 2024. Retrieved 29 May 2024.
  45. ^ Miller, Matthew (28 May 2024). "Department Press Briefing – May 28, 2024". United States Department of State. Archived from the original on 29 May 2024. Retrieved 30 May 2024.
  46. ^ Drun, Jessica; Glaser, Bonnie S. (24 March 2022). "The Distortion of UN Resolution 2758 and Limits on Taiwan's Access to the United Nations". German Marshall Fund. Archived from the original on 29 December 2022. Retrieved 29 December 2022.
  47. ^ Yang, William (30 July 2024). "Foreign lawmakers shine light on China tensions over Taiwan". Voice of America. Archived from the original on 30 July 2024. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
  48. ^ Chung, Jake (31 July 2024). "PRC distorts UN resolution: Lai". Taipei Times. Archived from the original on 30 July 2024. Retrieved 30 July 2024.
  49. ^ a b Packham, Ben (21 August 2024). "Parties unite to condemn Beijing's UN machination". The Australian. Archived from the original on 21 August 2024. Retrieved 21 August 2024.
  50. ^ Tillett, Andrew (21 August 2024). "Australia leads push-back against China's anti-Taiwan campaign". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 22 August 2024. Retrieved 22 August 2024.
  51. ^ "Moties ingediend bij het tweeminutendebat AVVN". www.tweedekamer.nl (in Dutch). 11 September 2024. Archived from the original on 13 September 2024. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  52. ^ 中央通訊社 (13 September 2024). "荷蘭國會通過動議 拒絕中國扭曲聯大第2758號決議 | 政治". 中央社 CNA (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 13 September 2024. Retrieved 13 September 2024.
  53. ^ Benakis, Theodoros (24 October 2024). "Parliament warns China is trying to distort history and international law in Taiwan". European Interest. Retrieved 25 October 2024.
  54. ^ "European Parliament backs Taiwan on UN resolution". Taipei Times. 25 October 2024. Archived from the original on 8 November 2024. Retrieved 25 October 2024.
  55. ^ "European Commission joins Taiwan, US in highlighting Resolution 2758". Taipei Times. 24 October 2024. Retrieved 25 October 2024.
  56. ^ Khan, Fion (7 November 2024). "Canada House passes motion on UN Resolution 2758". Taipei Times. Retrieved 11 November 2024.
  57. ^ "Canada House of Commons backs Taiwan's international participation". Taiwan News. 7 November 2024. Retrieved 11 November 2024.
  58. ^ "UK passes UN Resolution 2758 motion". Taipei Times. 30 November 2024. Retrieved 30 November 2024.
  59. ^ Chau, Thompson (28 November 2024). "British Parliament rejects China's U.N. claims over Taiwan". Nikkei Asia. Retrieved 30 November 2024.
[edit]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_2758_(XXVI)&oldid=1264591506"