Does Taiwan have any right to self determination under the United Nations Charter?

Question

In lectures at our local university I have met many Taiwan independence advocates. Whenever anyone gives a speech on Taiwanese or Chinese topics, these people always stress that Taiwan is not a part of China and that Taiwan has the right to self-determination under the United Nations Charter.

However, recently some of the audience have questioned this view. Some have asked "If Taiwan has the right to self-determination under the United Nations Charter, then why has Taiwan's application to join the UN been continually rejected?"

To this, the Taiwan independence advocates have no concrete answers, although they hint at the fact that Taiwan's failure to be accepted by the United Nations is due to "pressure" from the People's Republic of China.

Many also stress that Taiwan meets the Montevideo Convention's criteria for statehood, however when asked to prove that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan was ever awarded to the Rep. of China they have no answer and no proof.

Answer 1

Actually, the term "Taiwan" is only a geographic term, there is no country in the world today called "Taiwan." Currently, the government in Taiwan is called the Republic of China.

ROC President Chen Shui-bian had an interview with the Financial Times in October 2006. A transcript of the interview was posted on the internet by the Government Information Office (GIO).

Examining this interview, several comments of President Chen are particularly notable. These include the following --

(1) Very clearly, the national moniker according to the Constitution of the Republic of China is the "Republic of China," which was founded in 1912. Taiwan, however, came under Japanese colonial rule in 1895, and the ROC did not include Taiwan when it was born.

(2) Similarly, the precursor of the ROC Constitution -- the Five-Five Draft Constitution formulated in 1936 -- did not include Taiwan within the existing national boundaries, as Taiwan was still under Japanese colonial rule at the time.

(3) Therefore, up until the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty [with Japan at the end of World War II], as many people have said very clearly, Taiwan was not turned over to China, and the view that Taiwan's international status is undetermined is quite well-known to many of us.

(4) It is therefore quite clear that "the existing national boundaries" of the ROC do not encompass Taiwan.

- * - * - * - * - * - * -

To expand on President Chen's comments, Article 4 of the current ROC Constitution specifies that "The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly." In regard to the alleged incorporation of Taiwan into Chinese territory, there is no resolution of the National Assembly on record.

From an international law standpoint, there are no international treaties or other documents which clearly state that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan has ever been transferred to the ROC. This is very important. International law specifies that "military occupation does not transfer sovereignty." Under international law, the date of Oct. 25, 1945 only marks the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan.

Importantly, the proclamation of "Taiwan Retrocession Day" on Oct. 25, 1945, thus indicating a clear intention and objective to annex Taiwan territory, is a war crime. As a result, the ROC currently exercises "effective territorial control" over Taiwan, but under the laws of war this is not equivalent to sovereignty.

Some would offer a rebuttal by saying that "The ROC is the sole entitity that exercises effective sovereignty over Taiwan, so it is a de facto state as per normal interpretations of the critera for statehood." However, such an interpretation is totally incorrect. The ROC in Taiwan is a subordinate occupying power (under the United States Military Government) and a government in exile. Without clear legal references for the obtaining of the "title" to Taiwan territory, the ROC in Taiwan's status as a defacto state can never be upgraded to that of a dejure state.

In summary, the ROC on Taiwan does not meet the internationally accepted criteria for statehood. The ROC on Taiwan thus has no right to to self determination under the United Nations Charter.

As an added note, it should be pointed out that if Taiwan wants to be independent, it should petition the members of the US Congress to grant its independence.

Answer 2

Unfortunately, when Japan surrendered to the allies in 1945, key policy-makers in the U.S. State Department insisted that good U.S-China relations far surpassed in importance the Taiwanese right to self-determination

The right of all peoples to self-determination is stated explicitly in the Charter of the United Nations and many subsequent UN resolutions.

Advocates of Taiwan self-determination, on the island and overseas, respond that Taiwan’s future is very much a matter of international concern.

But the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué, signed by President Nixon, represented a drastic change in attitude toward Taiwan. It "acknowledged" the PRC -- and indirectly, the KMT-- view that "All Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China," It did not acknowledge the Taiwanese view. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the U.S. statement in the 1972 communiqué was carefully worded to avoid using the term "recognize’" favoring instead "acknowledge." While this still does not preclude Taiwanese self-determination, the U.S. also pledged that it would not challenge the Chinese view, leading to much apprehension in Taiwan.

So far, policy change has not occurred although recent U.S. support for self-determination in the Baltic states has encouraged many Taiwanese. As the United States had a great deal to do whit creating the dilemmas currently facing Taiwan, it has some obligation to help in resolving them.

Answer 3

It's complicated.

Who has a "right to self-determination"? In a perfect world, everyone would. In reality, it's whoever the world decides.

China claims Taiwan. So, the rest of the world just sort of plays along. (Short of permitting China to actually take control of Taiwan.) It's not a matter of actually controlling the territory. Taiwan isn't recognized as a state because no one wants to make China mad.

But for most purposes, Taiwan is independent. It's not a member of the UN, but it can become a signatory to treaties (not as a state, but in a special category). It has diplomatic relations with other countries, though here in the US we refer to it as a "Foundation" instead of a diplomatic mission in order to make China happy. It's separate, but pretty much exactly the same as other missions.

It's only a matter of time. I think most Taiwanese would agree that it's not worth an armed conflict to gain admittance into the UN. Eventually, I predict, China will go through some political turmoil and end up a true democracy. As soon as that happens, they'll have some discussion and concede Taiwan is a separate country. I bet they sign a free trade agreement.

Answer 4

1. The original application on file did not require a signature, which seems to indicate, or at least gives the perception, that the application for NGO status was merely a formality. 2. The registration papers filed with the UN contained no statements that conflict with our Christian beliefs. 3. NGO status was necessary to gain access to some facilities, documents, and publications. 4. NGOs are informed that "association of NGOs with the DPI does not constitute their incorporation into the UN system, nor does it entitle associated organizations or their staff to any kind of privileges, immunities or special status." 5. There was a changed relationship between the UN and NGOs. The applications, forms, and brochures of the UN also changed to reflect that fact. 6. When the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society realized that the revised document had language that said NGOs would support the UN, etc., they immediately withdrew membership. There is no cover-up. The truth is that opposers are misrepresenting the facts of the matter.

Answer 5

Morally of course it has. Only a morally negligent and anti-democratic nation like China would continue to assert their claims against the wishes of the vast majority of the Taiwanese population. Taiwan has been a de-facto independent nation for getting on 70 years. Legally, who the heck knows. What will happen to Taiwan will happen through circumstance and legality will have absolutely nothing to do with it.

Answer 6

Going back in history, Taiwan was indeed a province of China. So China have the sovereign right over Taiwan. In fact, the United Nations does not include Taiwan among its member nations in recognition of this fact. Taiwan is no different in its treatment than Hongkong, which was officially returned to China's sovereignty in 1997 after being a British colony since 1842. So Taiwan officially remain a Chinese province unless it is granted a formal independence by China.

To relate your question using another example. If for example in the future, the state of Hawaii wanted self-determination, will the U.S. allow that?.

Answer 7

I believe you are mixing up the right to self determination with statehood and UN membership.

The United Nations Charter does not in fact grant nations the right of self-determination, although it does include "based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" in its Purposes of UN section. Taiwan, as well as everyone else, does not enjoy rights to self-determination under the UN Charter; rather, their claim to self-determination is respected.

However, Article 1.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) states that "[a]ll peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".

Under that particular UN treaty, therefore, (the people of) Taiwan does indeed have the right to self-determination. This is technically recognised by most nations in the world, including the governing authorities on Taiwan. China doesn't, though.

Now about UN membership. Taiwan has not in fact formally applied to the United Nations for membership; so far all attempts have been in the form of Taiwan's allies asking for a reconsideration of the issue of Taiwan's representation at the UN (since China has laid claims to Taiwan, Taiwan's residents have been treated by the UN as if they are represented by China).

Because China sits on the Security Council as a permanent member, it has been able to block the motion from entering into discussion in the General Assembly. Taiwan's right to self-determination grants the Taiwanese people the right to decide their political status; it does not guarauntee Taiwan a place in the United Nations. The United Nations, as an international organisation, is free to decide who to accept as a member.

Finally, on statehood. Legal sovereignty over Taiwan has never been transfered to the Republic of China. However, this is not required; because the ROC is the sole entitity that exerices effective sovereignty over Taiwan, it is a de facto state as per normal interpretations of the critera for statehood. Self-determination allows the people of Taiwan to set up a state of their own; it does not automatically create one for them.

Answer 8

Yes, it does, but the influence of the money of China is stronger than the will of the Taiwanese people.

Answer 9

If a people have the right to ask "Why?" then they also have the right to self-determination.

Answer 10

you realise joining UN isnt as easy as you think? If it is so easy, then have you ever wondered why not all countries are in the UN?