Following President William Lai (賴清德) taking office, there has been renewed public discussion on whether it would be in Taiwan’s interests to apply for membership of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Advocates say that this would align Taiwan more with the global community and international law, and serve as another factor to deter Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) from deciding to invade the nation.
The ICC, inaugurated in 2002, is based on the Rome Statute, adopted in 1998 by 120 countries to create an independent, international mechanism for prosecuting individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression.
The question is whether Taiwan, given its unique status in the international community, would be able to secure membership. The short answer is yes. The process does not require UN membership, and it is at the discretion of the court itself and could be initiated by a letter from Lai.
The ICC would gain as much from Taiwan’s membership as Taipei would, as the court would be increasing its membership in Asia — where ICC membership is underrepresented — and bringing a state of 23 million people under its jurisdiction.
On the issue of statehood, Taiwan easily fulfills the criteria laid out in Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, namely a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
Taiwan’s obstacle to achieving diplomatic recognition is a purely political issue, brought about by pressure from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and not something that the ICC need concern itself with.
Should Lai decide to bring Taiwan under the court’s jurisdiction, the resistance would come from within the nation, not the ICC.
One of the ICC rulings of note over the past few years is its decision to issue an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin over war crimes committed in Ukraine. Russia withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2016, but Putin could still be charged because Ukraine accepted ICC jurisdiction in 2014. Putin rejects the warrant’s legitimacy, and yet it has curtailed his ability to travel overseas and cements his status as an international persona non grata.
Article 28 of the Rome Statute says that superiors are criminally responsible if they knew or consciously disregarded information clearly indicating that subordinates were committing crimes.
Article 29 says that crimes under the court’s jurisdiction “shall not be subject to any statute of limitations.”
China is not a signatory of the Rome Statute, but just as Putin is liable to arrest under the “territorial” jurisdiction of the court, Taiwan’s membership would allow investigation of Xi if he were to order an act of war against the nation. Xi would be under investigation for all crimes committed by subordinates in the course of carrying out his orders.
It is clear that due to the “great state autism” of Xi and the CCP, Beijing would reject any ICC ruling — just as it rejected the findings of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 regarding the South China Sea — but that does not mean Xi can ignore the implications.
Compared with Putin’s approach, Xi has prioritized more political and economic engagement with the West.
The risk of arrest under an ICC ruling might not be the foremost consideration in Xi’s risk assessment of invasion, but it would be another complicating factor.
For that reason alone, Lai should give the idea of ICC membership serious thought.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS