The recent letters by Richard Hartzell on international law and how it relates to the question of Taiwan's sovereignty have been informative (Letters, July 4 and March 19, page 8). Nonetheless, they leave this writer with a sense of puzzlement. How relevant, I ask, is international law to the topic? The presumption seems to be, and quite reasonably for a lawyer, that it is at the root of the issue. Here, I will argue otherwise.
First, international law's effectiveness rests upon the willingness of nation-states to abide by its strictures. Because there is no arbitrary third party, or court system with the backing of an enforcement agency, laws may be broken with impunity. The sole consequence is the opprobrium of the international community.
In addition, in many countries, perhaps most, international law must first be ratified by domestic law and large countries in particular reserve the right to override international law when convenient. In the US for example, the Taiwan Relations Act and other domestic laws provide the impetus for US actions related to Taiwan. You can rest assured that the State Department and the US administration do not spend their time pouring over old international accords. China on the other hand, seems to be quite happy to use "law" as a tool to achieve it's own ends. China's "Anti-Secession" Law, both reinforces the supremacy of domestic law and the tendency of the powerless to invoke international law.
A similar issue is the origins of any international "law." By it's very limitations, international law emerges through a consensus of dominant powers at the time. As a result, some are more commonly obeyed that others. The so-called Law of the Sea is a good example of this, as it is in every nation's interests for their trading vessels to move through the seas without hinderance. However, other agreements, such as the Treaty of Versailles, were imposed on one minority (Germany, and Austria-Hungary mainly) by another minority, in this case the victors. In other words, while international laws rests upon international agreements, they may not reflect the consensus of nation-states at the time, they maybe irrelevant today, or worse, may be simply ignored.
Next, in the field of political science at least, the notion of national sovereignty is generally independent of international law. One commonly used definition is Hans Morgenthau's. He states that the main measure is a monopoly of organized violence throughout an uncontested, clearly defined, geographical region. Taiwan meets this criteria. As Hartzell mentioned, it has all the aspects of a state. What he does not mention is that there are numerous examples of states that do not meet these criteria that are still considered sovereign: Colombia, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and numerous African "states."
Finally, it is likely that most countries, aside from China, would happily recognize Taiwan as a normal country, complete with the trappings of sovereignty, if there was no pressure from China, which raises and interesting point: If the international community would treat Taiwan as a sovereign nation, it is in fact a sovereign nation. Ipso facto.
To sum up, Taiwan is, to all intents and purposes, sovereign. Waffling on about various issues of international law merely muddies the waters and detracts from the main issue: China is the only obstacle between Taiwan and statehood.
Benjamin Adams
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry