Legal argument flawed
HoonTing (雲程) has broken new ground in the search for a collective security mechanism for Taiwan.
In contrast, Hofstra University law professor Julian Ku has argued that Taiwan should be left to fend for itself against a Chinese invasion. He has incorrectly stated that it is illegal to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. Professor Ku has made the argument that defending Taiwan is illegal under UN Charter Article 51 — the right to collective self-defense.
The geopolitical problem in northeast Asia is that there has not been a multilateral treaty signed for collective self-defense against Chinese interference. Since Japan signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951, there has been only the bilateral mutual defense treaty signed with the US. Japan signed the bilateral defense treaty on the same day that it signed the peace treaty.
The US and South Korea signed a bilateral defense treaty in 1955. The US-ROC Mutual Defense Treaty was also signed in 1955, but then former US president Jimmy Carter’s administration terminated this bilateral treaty in 1980. The Taiwan Relations Act is a substitute for this termination, but the treaty-making powers were examined in Goldwater versus Carter (1983).
There is an argument that the executive branch can exercise their monopoly over foreign affairs, but the court states they had not examined the issue of the termination in terms of actions by the commander-in-chief. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has attempted to drive a wedge between the bilateral security arrangements in Northeast Asia with the conflicts over the Diaoyu Islands (釣魚).
The solution for collective self-defense lies in the trilateral relationship between the US and Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.
While Professor Ku argues that collectively defending the island of Taiwan is illegal, the “San Francisco System” fosters the continuation of the 1950s’ geopolitical problems of the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan.
Hoon Ting, however, explores historical concepts of derecognized exiled governments and their roles in the geopolitical situation of Northeast Asia. Some exiled governments are sponsored by their recognizing states, and this bilateral military relationship between the US and its co-belligerent exiled government (eg, Free French on Continental France) demonstrates they were the instruments of both foreign policy and military strategy.
The San Francisco System underwrites the security of the ROC and casts a shadow whenever creating collective security arrangements for Northeast Asia.
US policy makers must become cognizant that the geopolitical history of the Korean War Armistice is rooted in the San Francisco System. US Foreign policy has military ramifications for the protection of both South Korea and Taiwan, but then termination of mutual defense treaties was never examined by the US Supreme Court in Goldwater versus Carter.
Perhaps it is time to reexamine treaty-making powers in US jurisprudence before the PLA lawyers adopt the international law advice of Professor Ku.
US leadership in our collective security arrangement must be reformulated before blue-helmeted PLA troops start invading Taiwan under the legal auspices of Article 51 of the UN Charter.
I look forward to further research on the topic.
Seung Mi Hong
Seoul, South Korea
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
The diplomatic dispute between China and Japan over Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s comments in the Japanese Diet continues to escalate. In a letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, China’s UN Ambassador Fu Cong (傅聰) wrote that, “if Japan dares to attempt an armed intervention in the cross-Strait situation, it would be an act of aggression.” There was no indication that Fu was aware of the irony implicit in the complaint. Until this point, Beijing had limited its remonstrations to diplomatic summonses and weaponization of economic levers, such as banning Japanese seafood imports, discouraging Chinese from traveling to Japan or issuing
Since leaving office last year, former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) has been journeying across continents. Her ability to connect with international audiences and foster goodwill toward her country continues to enhance understanding of Taiwan. It is possible because she can now walk through doors in Europe that are closed to President William Lai (賴清德). Tsai last week gave a speech at the Berlin Freedom Conference, where, standing in front of civil society leaders, human rights advocates and political and business figures, she highlighted Taiwan’s indispensable global role and shared its experience as a model for democratic resilience against cognitive warfare and
The diplomatic spat between China and Japan over comments Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi made on Nov. 7 continues to worsen. Beijing is angry about Takaichi’s remarks that military force used against Taiwan by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could constitute a “survival-threatening situation” necessitating the involvement of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Rather than trying to reduce tensions, Beijing is looking to leverage the situation to its advantage in action and rhetoric. On Saturday last week, four armed China Coast Guard vessels sailed around the Japanese-controlled Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台), known to Japan as the Senkakus. On Friday, in what
RSS