The succession of states is a situation under international law in which one state is replaced by another in its rights over the administration and governance of a territory, but above all, when the “successor” state assumes the responsibilities of the “predecessor” state with regard to its international relations and its obligations with other states.
The Vienna Convention on the Succession of States — which was concluded in 1978, but did not enter into force until Nov. 6, 1996 — regulates the responsibilities assumed by a successor state toward the rest of the world and international treaties concluded by its predecessor.
Based on non-retroactivity, as this instrument regulating the succession of states only came into force in 1996, no country may claim to argue facts prior to the entry into force of such a treaty, regarding matters within the jurisdiction of national states when there is a dispute of the interpretation.
Given this situation, the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) argument that UN General Assembly Resolution No. 2758 — passed on Oct. 26, 1971, to address the representation of China in the global body — settles its claims over Taiwan does not hold water. The resolution does not mention Taiwan as a legal person, as it is already an established entity that had all the legal elements required under international law to be considered an international legal person.
Taiwan meets the four qualifications for statehood established in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
The PRC was founded on Oct. 1, 1949. In 1952, following the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco between Japan and the 48 nations allied on behalf of the UN, the Treaty of Taipei was signed at the Taipei Guest House, formally ending the state of war between the Republic of China (ROC, Taiwan) and Japan. Article 2 of the Treaty of Taipei recognized that under the Treaty of San Francisco, Japan had renounced all rights, title and claims to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) and the Paracel Islands (Xisha Islands, 西沙群島).
In other words, the jurisdiction and possession of these territories were received by the ROC.
All this clearly leads to the following conclusions:
First, Taiwan was never under the sovereignty of the PRC, as the PRC was founded in 1949, well after Taiwan was under the jurisdiction of the ROC.
Second, UN Resolution 2758 makes no mention of the sovereignty of Taiwan, and it is not possible to argue historical facts prior to the Treaty of San Francisco, as there was no international treaty regulating the matter.
Third, the ROC complies with all the requirements established by the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.
Fourth, since 1996, when Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), the first Taiwan-born head of the nation, became the first president elected by popular vote, Taiwan has grown into one of the most dynamic democracies in Asia, where full freedom and the exercise of the rule of law prevails.
Under the criterion of the universality of rights, Taiwanese cannot be deprived of the rights enshrined in all international human rights agreements.
There is no doubt that history judges and gives reason on the basis of legal arguments, not facts based on force, hence the legal saying that international law must be governed by the force of law, not by the law of force.
Carlos Jose Fleitas Rodriguez is the Paraguayan ambassador to the Republic of China (Taiwan).
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS