The discussion and debate that ensued after Taiwan's recent failed "dual strategy" bid to enter the UN did not put forth new strategies to achieve the dream of UN representation. This bid was Taiwan's 13th consecutive effort to accomplish that aim. This failure is particularly poignant since many world leaders voiced their concern about the plight of Taiwan in their short addresses at the UN General Assembly in New York.
But their efforts had no effect upon the problem of representation. Whatever considerations may have been behind the UN General Committee's decision not to put the item on the General Assembly's 60th session agenda, it undoubtedly continues the grave injustice perpetuated upon the 23 million people of Taiwan.
The immediate cause behind the committee's decision the People's Republic of China's (PRC) fierce opposition.
Questions such as "Who owns the title to Taiwan in international law" need to be decided on merit since the Republic of China, or Taiwan, is a de facto state that has been independently carrying out all the usual government functions -- including foreign relations -- for more than half a century.
The international legal doctrine of effective occupation will surely fortify Taiwan's claim, since this doctrine is held in high esteem and given weighty consideration by international courts and tribunals.
The question can also be solved by negotiations between Taiwan and the PRC, with or without mediators. That would be in the best interest of both parties.
But before that, the UN, a globally respected organization, cannot arbitrarily be sidelined by the PRC. That would clearly run counter to international law. That is totally unbecoming of an international society based upon the rule of law.
To every impartial observer, there is a crisis in the Taiwan Strait which has the potential of erupting into a major war with catastrophic consequences, affecting not only the region but the entire world.
Such a situation surely engages the UN Security Council to fulfill its primary responsibility under Article 24(1) of the UN Charter: to maintain international peace and security.
Even non-member states have certain obligations when the council steps in to maintain the peace. The presence of a party involved in the dispute (PRC) at the Security Council cannot and shall not be valid grounds to shirk the critical responsibility entrusted in the organization by its charter.
The council shoulders the primary responsibility of maintaining global peace and security, as mandated by the UN Charter, although the word "primary" does not mean "sole," as expounded by the International Court of Justice in the celebrated "Nicaragua Case." Naturally, that means other agencies and regional mechanisms can play a legitimate role in this situation.
Unfortunately, this has not happened so far with the Taiwan issue, so the Security Council is bound to deal with this issue.
Taiwan can also bring this matter to the attention of the council under Article 35(2) of the Charter which says, "a State which is not a Member of the UN may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purpose of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter."
Taiwan can request that the Security Council, in accordance with Article 36(1) of the UN Charter, investigate the Taiwan question, the merits of the complaint and recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.
The Hawaiian Kingdom filed a similar complaint against the US with the council in 2001[7] concerning the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since the Spanish-American War of 1898.
Taiwan, of course, has a right to be heard before the council under Article 32.
Though it's possible the complaint may be rejected by Beijing's veto, such a strategy will bring many advantages to Taiwan.
The cause of Taiwan will be highlighted and the appeal to the international community will be more powerful than its past 13 failed attempts to enter the UN through the General Assembly.
Such a maneuver would bring the Taiwan issue and the dilemma of its 23 million people to the attention of the world.
The international community needs to swear that no one state will be allowed to decide questions of right by might.
Manesh SV is a legal researcher in India.
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