With China passing its "Anti-Secession" Law on March 14, and the recent dispute with Japan over the Diaoyutais (釣魚台), some people are suggesting we broach our situation to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). So what exactly does the court do?
The ICJ is actually one of the six major organs of the UN, the other five being the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council and the Secretariat. The court itself is the UN's primary judicial organ, mandated to ensure the peaceful solution of international disputes. It plays a vital role in the UN's collective security organization.
It is the highest international court, but as it is located in the Hague in the Netherlands, and not in New York, where the UN's headquarters can be found, it has often been mistakenly believed to operate independently of the UN.
The court has 15 judges of different nationalities, elected in separate sittings by the General Assembly and the Security Council. The judges, in addition to having the necessary moral atttributes, must also have the qualifications required in their own countries for the highest judicial offices, or be of recognized competence in international law. The court should also reflect the traditions and principal legal systems of the world.
The judges have a tenure of nine years, with re-elections for a third of these held every three years. It is possible for a judge to be elected for subsequent terms. During their service in the ICJ, they are given diplomatic privileges, including immunity.
The court has dual functions.
The first is in deciding on court cases brought before it. Only nations can act as plaintiff, and they can only bring cases against other nations. Any organization other than a nation, any group or individual cannot bring a case before the court. Also, the jurisdiction of the court must be either expressly or tacitly recognized by the defendant nation in controversial cases.
All member states of the UN qualify to act as plaintiffs. Non-member states, and this includes Taiwan, can be made a special case, but this is contingent on the recommendation of the UN General Assembly, having gone by the Security Council. These decisions are made on a individual basis.
The second function the court performs is advisory. The UN General Assembly and Security Council may seek the opinion of the international court for any legal questions that arise. Any legal queries concerning the specific areas of other UN organs, or other specialist bodies, can also be referred to the court, having secured the approval of the General Assembly. Such referrals must be presented clearly.
Should Taiwan decide to take any case to the ICJ, or seek a consultation on any issue, it will face one procedural obstacle after another. First, it will have to get past the General Assembly and the Security Council, and China is sure to put up barriers from within against such an action.
Chen Lung-chu is chairman of the New Century Foundation and professor of law at the New York Law School.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS