Most international organizations detail in their founding documents how they will deal with membership applications. On face value, the UN is the most open of international organizations. Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the UN Charter states that "Membership in the UN is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present charter and, in the judgment of the organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations."
Five conditions for membership can be enumerated from Article 4, paragraph 1 of the UN Charter: An applicant must (1) be a state; (2) be peace-loving; (3) accept the obligations of the UN Charter; (4) be able to carry out these obligations; and (5) be willing to do so.
On May 28, 1948, the International Court of Justice ruled that a state that meets these five conditions should not be rejected for political reasons.
In light of this ruling, the biggest obstacle to Taiwan joining the UN is the question of statehood. This is something of a gray area, as neither the UN Charter nor other international laws and regulations contain guidelines that can be used to determine whether an applicant is a state or not.
However, although the court ruled that the five conditions in the UN charter are exhaustive, there was a caveat:
"This does not mean, however, that the conditions of Article 4 preclude taking into account relevant political factors that fall within their scope. Appreciation of such factors derives from the very broad and elastic nature of the prescribed conditions and, according to the court, it does not contradict the exhaustive character of these conditions."
In other words, although Taiwan meets at least four of the conditions for UN membership, the fact that there is some doubt as to its statehood provides China with the leverage it needs to oppose Taiwan's membership.
Although an application for UN membership is a legal issue, it is also unavoidably a political matter. Thus, although a Taiwanese declaration of independence is not a legal requirement for membership, it is, in my opinion, a political necessity.
Chiang Shih-hsiung is a doctoral student in the Graduate School of Law at Kobe University.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS