What justification does FAPA have for saying that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign nation?

Question

On the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) http://www.fapa.org/ website there is much info about Taiwan's plans to join the United Nations. Such plans are based on the (supposed) fact that ROC/Taiwan is already an independent sovereign nation. Is this true??

Taiwan had been ceded to Japan in 1895. In order for Taiwan to join the UN, three criteria appear most relevant. First, the officials in Taiwan must be able to produce an international treaty reference which clearly shows that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan has been awarded to the ROC government. Second, clear evidence must be produced that Taiwan has been incorporated into the territory of the ROC via the procedures the ROC Constitution, Article 4. Third, there must have been a law passed by the Legislative Yuan authorizing the mass naturalization of native Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens.

Without these three criteria being met, how can ROC/Taiwan be considered an independent sovereign nation?

Answer 1

Exactly. Taiwan does not meet the Montevideo Convention criteria for statehood. This is an undeniable fact. A summary of this information is provided as follows:

(1) The ROC on Taiwan has no population -- There is currently no law in the ROC which serves as the legal basis for recognizing local Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens. In fact, the recognition of such supposed "citizenship" rests on a Jan. 1946 military order that was issued during a period of belligerent occupation and is hence illegal under international law.

(2) The ROC has no defined territory -- there are no international treaties which confirm that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan has ever been transferred to the ROC, nor has the ROC incorporated Taiwan into its own territory via the provisions of Article 4 of the ROC Constitution. Moreover, the ROC's Council of Grand Justices has previously ruled on this territorial issue, and held that Taiwan does not have a defined territory. The Council of Grand Justices' interpretation (Nov. 11, 1993) that the ROC has no defined territory is based on the rationale that the boundaries of the national territory of the ROC is a political question, and not independently subject to judicial interpretation. (Again, this goes back to the fact that there there are no international treaties which confirm that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan has ever been transferred to the ROC. Hence, without such a treaty reference, the Council of Grand Justices is unable to render a decision on this matter.)

(3) The ROC on Taiwan has no legitimate government -- Without any treaty reference which can establish that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan (i.e "Formosa and the Pescadores) has been awarded to the the ROC, it is impossible to legally affirm that the ROC is the internationally recognized "legal government of Taiwan." In fact, as the former legal goverment of China, the ROC on Taiwan is merely a government in exile (beginning Dec. 1949).

(4) Under the ROC Constitution, the ROC's capacity to conduct foreign relations is highly questionable -- When other countries "recognize" the ROC, what does that mean? That they recogize the ROC as having control over all "ROC territory" as specified in the ROC Constitution, including mainland China?? It seems obvious that when other countries "recognize" the ROC, they are indeed not agreeing to such a premise. Hence, their "recognition" is effectively meaningless. Additionally, it must also be pointed out that legally speaking "Taiwan" is not equal to the "Republic of China." Clearly, "Taiwan" has no capacity to enter into relations with other states . . . . and in this regard it is notable that the ROC's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) does not have one document establishing that "Taiwan" has entered into any relations with other states, rather only the ROC has. (Importantly, all of the PRC exchange of diplomatic notes establishing diplomatic relations are online. None of Taiwan's are.)

Hence, considering that the ROC on Taiwan has already been refused admittance to the United Nations for fourteen years in a row (as of the Fall of 2006), the analysis that the ROC on Taiwan is not an independent sovereign nation is therefore fully confirmed.

Answer 2

You have made good points there should be an alternative criteria. Since the poeple of Taiwan choose not to be part of mainland China they should notbe forced to. I think this would be a good alternative for statehood and it ceratinly makes more sense than saying a treaty makes a country. How about the people of a country make a country.

Answer 3

People of Taiwan should be able to make their decisions. If they want to be an independant, then it's all based on the people. They're already very established--they have a president, their own flag, they don't pay taxes to China...Taiwan is a multiparty democracy and more prosperous than China (per area). I think of comparing Taiwan as Scotland. It's very likely that Taiwan will be joining UN soon.

Answer 4

No, and Obama did not misinform the yank human beings the two. We had justification for our intervention in Libya. Qaddafi has been an enemy of the USA of a for a protracted time plus all of us comprehend that Qaddafi supplies sanctuary to members of Al Qaeda. we would desire to stand idly with the aid of and permit Libya grow to be yet another Rwanda bloodbath. for sure, the USA of a may well be safer with Qaddafi long previous besides the shown fact that it would be even greater beneficial if the middle East might desire to grow to be a democracy because of the fact basically with the aid of a center eastern democracy is international peace attainable. This on my own makes a peace loving, anti-warfare Liberal like myself say the intervention became justified.

Answer 5

Don't know