Taichung’s right to host the East Asian Youth Games has been revoked due to Chinese pressure. The main reason given was a referendum proposal for the nation to take part in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics under the name “Taiwan” instead of “Chinese Taipei.”
However, there are domestic and international obstacles to the referendum proposal.
Although the Referendum Act (公民投票法) was amended last year to significantly lower the threshold needed to launch a referendum, and the proposed referendum has entered the second stage, it still needs to collect the signatures of at least 280,000 people.
Although the “birdcage” restrictions that required a turnout of at least 50 percent of all eligible voters and the approval of 50 percent plus one of all votes have been removed, the number of votes in favor of the referendum must still exceed the number of votes against it, and the number of votes in favor must exceed one-quarter of all votes cast for the referendum to be adopted.
Based on the total number of eligible voters in the most recent presidential election in 2016, 4,700,000 people must vote in favor of the referendum for it to pass.
Should the proposal be adopted on Nov. 24, Article 30 of the act would apply, as the referendum is an initiative for a major policy.
The article stipulates that “For a proposal of referendum of an important policy, the president or the authority shall take necessary disposition to realize the content of the proposal of referendum.”
Although such a provision obliges the administrative authorities to implement the decision, the so-called “necessary disposition” is an undefined legal concept, which allows arbitrary interpretation by the authorities.
As the referendum drive concerns the name that would be used by the nation’s athletes at the Tokyo Olympics, this issue can only be proposed by the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee.
Although a clause about the committee was added when the National Sports Act (國民體育法) was amended last year, the committee remains a private legal person, and the Sports Administration can only try to persuade it through administrative advice, and it will certainly become involved in disputes over legal supervision and autonomy.
Even if there was consensus that the committee should propose the name change to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), there is still the risk that the request would receive unfavorable treatment, and perhaps even result in the committee’s expulsion from the IOC.
According to Article 30 of the Olympic Charter, the name of a national Olympic committee must reflect the territorial extent and tradition of the country, and it is subject to approval by the IOC executive board.
Proposing a name change that conforms to the “status quo,” then, is the natural right of a national Olympic committee.
Therefore, even if the IOC does not approve a change of name to “Taiwan,” the nation can continue to participate in the Olympic Games using the name “Chinese Taipei.”
However, international sports-related laws and regulations often lack stability, which makes it difficult to obtain neutral, objective third-party arbitration.
Dispute resolution works better using political power than legal means. If the name change proposal is unsuccessful, it will not lead to punishment or sanctions against Taiwan, according to the Olympic Charter, although China would certainly increase its efforts to suppress Taiwan’s participation in international sports events. Finding a response must be a priority for Taiwan.
Wu Ching-chin is an associate professor of Aletheia University’s Department of Law.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS