The Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan, commonly known as the Treaty of Taipei, was signed and came into effect in 1952. In considering the legal aspects of this treaty, it is essential to distinguish between the questions of jurisdiction over the territory of Taiwan and the legal status of the Republic of China (ROC).
While the former concerns a territorial dispute under international law, the latter is a matter of the nature of states and governments. The issues are quite different.
The Treaty of Taipei confirmed the terms of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. It could not lay down terms exceeding those in that treaty. In both treaties, Japan renounced its claim to the territories in question. The Treaty of Taipei does not mention to whom those territories would be transferred.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) opinion that the treaty confirmed the transfer of sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu (the Pescadores) to the ROC simply does not comply with the facts.
From a legal point of view, the main point of the Treaty of Taipei was to deal with the question of which government had the right to represent China. According to the wording of the treaty, Japan signed it with “the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores),” as opposed to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government in Beijing.
By this wording, Japan made clear that the Chinese government it recognized was the one that then represented China in the UN — the ROC.
The situation now is quite different. The world largely accepts the principle of “one China” championed by the PRC government in Beijing. Those who claim that Taiwan belongs to the ROC reduce the Taiwan question to one resulting from the division of China through civil war.
These days there is no longer any question of two Chinas existing side by side, and the PRC is widely recognized as the successor state to the ROC.
That being the case, those who equate Taiwan with the ROC are actually providing the government in Beijing with justification for claiming the right to inherit ownership of Taiwan.
Another school of thought holds that Taiwan’s sovereignty remains undetermined — an argument that has some legal validity. However, no other country lays claim to sovereignty over Taiwan. The ROC has exercised effective and stable rule over Taiwan for many decades. On these grounds, the ROC may claim ownership of Taiwan based on the principles of prescription and effective rule in international law.
If that be the case, and given that, as already mentioned, the PRC is successor to the ROC, then the former would have legal grounds for taking over Taiwan.
Both theories on Taiwan’s sovereignty — that it is undetermined and that it has been returned to China — treat Taiwan in the same way as when dealing with changes of territorial demarcation between international legal entities (states or international organizations).
In fact, Taiwan is not the object of a territorial dispute between China and any country.
The question is one of establishing Taiwan as a country in itself. It is not necessary for the inhabitants of Taiwan to first prove that Taiwan does not belong to China or that its legal status is undetermined as a precondition for declaring independence.
Just as with the US long ago, the inhabitants of Taiwan only need to clearly and unambiguously state their desire to establish a new state. Such a declaration would have a firm basis and justification in international law.
Let us be quite clear: Taiwanese people have the right to establish a country of their own.
Lin Chia-lung is a former Government Information Office minister.
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
RSS