The discussion and debate that ensued after Taiwan's recent failed "dual strategy" bid to enter the UN did not put forth new strategies to achieve the dream of UN representation. This bid was Taiwan's 13th consecutive effort to accomplish that aim. This failure is particularly poignant since many world leaders voiced their concern about the plight of Taiwan in their short addresses at the UN General Assembly in New York.
But their efforts had no effect upon the problem of representation. Whatever considerations may have been behind the UN General Committee's decision not to put the item on the General Assembly's 60th session agenda, it undoubtedly continues the grave injustice perpetuated upon the 23 million people of Taiwan.
The immediate cause behind the committee's decision the People's Republic of China's (PRC) fierce opposition.
Questions such as "Who owns the title to Taiwan in international law" need to be decided on merit since the Republic of China, or Taiwan, is a de facto state that has been independently carrying out all the usual government functions -- including foreign relations -- for more than half a century.
The international legal doctrine of effective occupation will surely fortify Taiwan's claim, since this doctrine is held in high esteem and given weighty consideration by international courts and tribunals.
The question can also be solved by negotiations between Taiwan and the PRC, with or without mediators. That would be in the best interest of both parties.
But before that, the UN, a globally respected organization, cannot arbitrarily be sidelined by the PRC. That would clearly run counter to international law. That is totally unbecoming of an international society based upon the rule of law.
To every impartial observer, there is a crisis in the Taiwan Strait which has the potential of erupting into a major war with catastrophic consequences, affecting not only the region but the entire world.
Such a situation surely engages the UN Security Council to fulfill its primary responsibility under Article 24(1) of the UN Charter: to maintain international peace and security.
Even non-member states have certain obligations when the council steps in to maintain the peace. The presence of a party involved in the dispute (PRC) at the Security Council cannot and shall not be valid grounds to shirk the critical responsibility entrusted in the organization by its charter.
The council shoulders the primary responsibility of maintaining global peace and security, as mandated by the UN Charter, although the word "primary" does not mean "sole," as expounded by the International Court of Justice in the celebrated "Nicaragua Case." Naturally, that means other agencies and regional mechanisms can play a legitimate role in this situation.
Unfortunately, this has not happened so far with the Taiwan issue, so the Security Council is bound to deal with this issue.
Taiwan can also bring this matter to the attention of the council under Article 35(2) of the Charter which says, "a State which is not a Member of the UN may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purpose of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter."
Taiwan can request that the Security Council, in accordance with Article 36(1) of the UN Charter, investigate the Taiwan question, the merits of the complaint and recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
The Hawaiian Kingdom filed a similar complaint against the US with the council in 2001[7] concerning the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since the Spanish-American War of 1898.
Taiwan, of course, has a right to be heard before the council under Article 32.
Though it's possible the complaint may be rejected by Beijing's veto, such a strategy will bring many advantages to Taiwan.
The cause of Taiwan will be highlighted and the appeal to the international community will be more powerful than its past 13 failed attempts to enter the UN through the General Assembly.
Such a maneuver would bring the Taiwan issue and the dilemma of its 23 million people to the attention of the world.
The international community needs to swear that no one state will be allowed to decide questions of right by might.
Manesh SV is a legal researcher in India.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
RSS