Can The United States Succeed From The Un Without Them Being Declared A Rogue State And Having The

Wouldn't it be better for the US southern states to secedes from the union?

It would be best for every state to secede from the Union, since the USA was never a federal union to begin with-- but only a federal republic of internationally sovereign states.Current "official" history holds that the states formed a federal union of domestically sovereign states, like Brazil, and that therefore no state could secede; however in reality they only formed a federal republic of internationally sovereign states, like the UN, in order to keep the federal government from gaining supreme final autohrity over the People of any state.However Lincoln and others re-wrote history in order for the federal govenrment to gain supreme final authority through brute-force and censorship, and so the USA has since been a corrupt imperial pseudo-state to which the People do not consent.For this reason, every state must secede, by simply proving that they are internationally sovereign state, and petitioning the other nations of the world to support their sovereignty, under penalty of losing their own if they refuse.When the states seceded in 1861, they failed to expressly petition the other nations of the world to recognize their long-standing sovereignty under the 1783 Treaty of Paris, et seq, under penalty of losing their own sovereignty if they refused;  for this reason, the secession could be labeled a rebellion rather than simply a falling-out among internationally sovereign states, and  Britain and France thus were under less obligation to recognize them, and to declare the Union as a rogue imperial pseudo-state; and it took over the states in 1865, and soon spread outward to Europe via interventionism causing the World Wars.As a result, the People are slaves to a government to which they do not consent, and this will never change until they rise up and take back their states from the current regime, via voting to secede.

Why is it so difficult for India to convince United Nations/USA to declare Pakistan a 'terrorist state'?

Vested interests.Any major power won't act against Pakistan because they have vested interests. Countries like Israel, USA, France, Russia and China earn billions of dollars in arms trade with both the nations.If Pakistan is labelled a terrorist nation, USA, China and Russia will have to stop their supply of military equipments to Pakistan. This is something they cannot afford to do. Plus, if USA wishes to stay in Afghanistan, it will need Pakistani assistance for its troops and assets there. US requires Pakistan to survive in Afghanistan. China is a huge investor in Pakistan, it too will have to halt its investments in Pakistan if it is declared a terrorist nation. In short no country would like to be seen as someone supporting a terrorist state.Also, if Pakistan is labelled a terrorist state, it will have to halt its support to terrorist organizations. This will cause a small but significant reduction in Indian imports of weapons since hostilities may dip. Russia, Israel, US and France are suppliers to Indian military, this will hit their business.So labelling Pakistan as a terrorist state doesn't work for anyone.

Why did China sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1996?

In the words of LBJ, it’s better to be inside the tent urinating out, than outside the tent urinating in.UNCLOS provides a good framework for settling disputes and codifies a lot of international law. By having ratified UNCLOS and being subject to it, China plays a part in determining how UNCLOS is interpreted and applied, and it generally works to China’s advantage.One problem with the news is that they only seem to notice when someone is screaming, and they ignore instances when it hasn’t. UNCLOS has forced Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines to reduce their maritime claims which works to China’s advantage, and in the Gulf of Tonkin negotiations, China invoked UNCLOS principles which resulted in a negotiated settlement that was very much in China’s favour.Even in the case of the dispute with the Philippines, it has been much, much in China’s interest to have ratified UNCLOS. China ends up diplomatically in much better shape by arguing that it is bound by the terms of UNCLOS and arguing over the interpretation of the treaty than by rejecting it completely. (Do a google search of “unclos” and “island” and you will find incredible amounts of ink on over the question of what is an island?)There’s also the issue that it may not matter whether China has signed or not. There are enough nations that have signed one can easily argue that UNCLOS codifies customary international law, and that all nations are bound by it whether they signed it or not.It’s also a great propaganda move. Every time the US complains that China is a rogue state, it can bring up that it has signed and ratified UNCLOS and the US has not.