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
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS