《联合国宪章》专门设立敌国条款，规定德意日等法西斯或军国主义国家的任何一国有再次实施侵略政策的任何步骤，中法苏英美等联合国创始成员国有权对其直接实施军事行动，无须安理会授权。
“The Charter of the United Nations specifically establishes an enemy state clause, stipulating that if any of the fascist or militaristic states like Germany, Italy, or Japan takes any step to once again implement a policy of aggression, the founding members of the United Nations, such as China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have the right to take direct military action against it without the authorization of the Security Council.”
Question is, would they actually do it? Or would they just pull a Medvedev and keep repeating “technically we could nuke you”?
I understand China finds it important to constrain itself to international law to retain a moral high ground. But Russia did the exact same thing with regards to Ukraine and it didn’t amount to much in their defense. At least I suppose now history is judging them favourably for it.
Any first strike will mean war, and I think it’s in China’s interests (and foreign policy style) to wait for the first strike to come from the enemy and react.
I highly doubt that China would strike Japan directly, especially before securing Taiwan. Any Chinese offensive would instantly reignite the Korean War and draw Taiwan into the fray, while irrevocable destroying any goodwill China maintains with the Philippines, Vietnam, and India, among others.
The campaign would also be a bloodbath as a result of the PLA being forced to rely on supply lines stretched across the East China Sea, with Chinese troops being limited to any gains made during initial amphibious landings, which themselves are a costly endeavor. While the JGSDF pales in comparison to the PLA, the home turf advantage, ability to funnel Chinese forces into narrow fronts, and high probability of major cities turning into quagmires, would make the entire operation hellish for the PLA and Chinese morale.
Instead of a cry for open conflict, China’s comments are probably more of a warning to Japan to not interfere with a Taiwanese offensive, since Japanese bases, airfields, and ports are the lynchpin of any potential American involvement or defensive strategy.
Translation: “just to let y’all know, legally we can whup they ass anytime we want”
So if japan implements any policy of aggression, China can invade them and UNSC just stands there, hands tied. Thats how I like it. Fuck the fascists in japan, germany (and Nato, honestly)
That’s what it says on paper but it wouldn’t work out that way.
The security council (sans Russia) will not have their hands tied. Anyways China would be fighting NATO+ regardless. International law is no more worth than toilet paper.
it’s worth a lot less, at least you can use toilet paper to wipe your ass
Removed by mod
How does this have so many upvotes? What exactly is funny about nuking an entire country?
Eh it’s just a little bit of a revenge cope fantasy. We don’t really fantasise about actually eradicating the japanese and therefore the proletariat and oppressed.
I would say most of this thread would instantly turn against China if they just suddenly started genociding them lul
hexbear has an odd sense of humor
I wouldn’t want to put this behavior label on hexbear as a generality. It reads like sociopathic revenge fantasy under the guise of anti-imperialism. Something that China’s policy behaves nothing like btw, so it’s all the more weird fantasizing about China acting petty and vengeful for laughs.
I am a little thankful someone has pointed this out. I know this isn’t exactly a serious forum, and jokes are fine, but I really dont get why the first instinct of people is to go “what if we did what the Americans did last time? But now it’s fine cause China is doing it. [hypothetically]” Maybe it’s my own biases from reading the accounts of the bombings, but I dont find them especially funny.
I’m glad it could help in that way. Tbh, I get a bit self-conscious complaining about this kind of thing. Even though I don’t usually find that kind of thing funny even in an ironic way, I generally try to assume good faith that people are, like, righteously angry and going for catharsis or things such as that and don’t want to chastise them over trying to process their feelings and deal with the horrors of the world. But I also get concerned if it looks like it’s edging into territory of, “What if we were the baddies? Haha jk, unless…”
they do have this emoji
sometimes combined with 
i don’t think they’re serious about it
I would say it’s one thing to have a silly looking image and it’s another to explicitly state that it would be funny if they nuked a particular country. But this is the problem of irony poisoning. Stuff that may have only ever started out as over the top jokes can reach a point it starts sounding a bit too serious and sincere.
very true, i personally find jokes like that a little distasteful
deleted by creator
yep, but the when combined it implies the nuclear button, which is funny
deleted by creator
As someone living in Germany, please don’t. Though, I wouldn’t be mad at China for getting some revenge on the BRD (West Germany) in some way or another.
…like Germany, Italy, or Japan…
Are there anymore on that list? :)
Formally those three are the main Axis powers. But personally i would also add Finland, Romania and Hungary, all of which enthusiastically and voluntarily joined forces with the Nazis to invade the USSR.
Also Croatia and Bulgaria who collaborated with the Nazis to mass murder Serbs in Yugoslavia (the Croat fascists then finished the ethnic cleansing they started back in WWII during the Yugoslav wars in the 90s with the help of NATO).
In Asia, Thailand was the main Japanese collaborator.
Finally, Switzerland and Sweden managed to maintain plausible deniability by pretending that they were neutral but in reality both countries helped Nazi Germany a lot economically during the war, but i guess that doesn’t suffice to qualify them as aggressor countries…
Da, jebi ustaše
I was curious if there were any more named countries on the UN charter. Not that the Charter itself holds any real power.
This is what the Charter says:
So that does include Finland
Looks like it, yes.
Oh Damn. (Honestly wasn’t expecting you to search that up - thanks)
As far as I remember, the first anti fascist partisan detachment in Yugoslavia, was created in Croatia. Croatia contributed, relative to their population, the most partisans out of all Yu nationalities and with other nations of Yugoslavia is considered a victor of WW2, since they liberated their country themselves and were on the side of Allies.
Wasn’t Spain also an Axis collaborator?
Spain was fascist but not part of the Axis pact. The Spanish fascists received substantial help from Nazi Germany during the civil war against Republican Spain, but throughout WWII they declared themselves neutral and stayed mostly isolated due to being occupied with their own internal problems and exhaustion from the civil war.
They agreed to allow some volunteers to join Germany, but Spain itself never officially joined the war. There were plans for a potential joint German-Spanish attack on British territories on the Mediterranean but these never materialized because Spain was too vulnerable to a potential British trade blockade.
There was some trade with Nazi Germany including of a few resources that were important for the war, but the overall amounts were not large due to Spain being economically quite weak and devastated from the civil war. “Neutral” and “democratic” Sweden provided much more raw materials for the Nazis than fascist Spain did.
So yes, they were collaborators but not co-belligerents.
What happens if the us in violation of this law decides to help Japan anyway? What would the in even at that point?
Nothing.
Good to know that international law doesn’t apply to the US
International law only applies to those on whom it can be enforced by someone stronger. Great powers are functionally above international law unless they voluntarily choose (like China) to abide by it. For great powers the purpose of international law is to regulate the actions of smaller states on the one hand, and on the other hand to legitimize the actions of great powers and minimize discontent and resistance.
It should be noted that international law, like all laws, are also only followed when convenient by those that could choose to stop following it, China is no exception.
Yes, the UNSC is a legitimation tool more than an enforcing body.
International Law, like all laws, only exist as far as the legal body is willing and able to enforce it. If I declare myself emperor of all mankind, and claim that you owe me tribute, do you think that decree should apply to you? If I showed up to your house with a bunch of dudes with guns and forced you to pay tribute to me under the extreme threat of violence would your answer change?
