[quote=“ludahai”][quote=“bohica”][quote=“ludahai”]No. Who is the other party? According to the Statute of the ICJ, any party can ask for an interpretation of a treaty or matter of international law. China, thus, would NOT be a party that could object.
If you really read my blog post, you would understand that this is part of the ICJ Statute.[/quote]
You keep on saying you want the ICJ for an interpretation, so let me ask you again. What is there to interpret? What kind of ruling are you looking for that will change the status quo? Taiwan not having been officially transferred just mean Taiwan’s status is undetermined. If I’m to go way out on a limb and say the ICJ also says Taiwan ought to have self-determination, all it does is confirm the status quo. This won’t change anything. Taiwan doesn’t need anyone to say it has the right to hold elections, it’s already holding elections.[/quote]
In the political game, you need as many bullets as possible. Some bullets are bigger than others. A ruling from the ICJ confirming that Taiwan’s status is yet to be determined would be a pretty big bullet in the political game, one that has proven decisive in the case of East Timor and one that has helped the SADR turn the diplomatic tide vis a vis Morocco. There are many states around the world that take decisions of the ICJ seriously – as does the Secretariat of the United Nations…[/quote]
Apples and oranges. East Timor is a nothing like Taiwan. East Timor was invaded by Indonesia and occupied, and was only able to achieve independence in 1999 because Indonesia was on the verge of falling apart. If Soharto hadn’t fallen, the independence referendum would never have happened. Taiwan wasn’t invaded by anyone. Taiwan is already a fully functioning independent and democratic nation and that’s extremely unlikely to change in the near future. The only thing missing is official UN recognition. Unofficially, everyone knows Taiwan is independent, even China.
Jesus, there’s no need to talk like that. We are having a good discussion and in case you are too frickin dense to see it, I am on your side regarding Taiwan’s right to self-determination. No sense alienating people who agree with your cause now is there?
You can get a little heated, even jab a bit and taunt as I do with Mawvellous, but no need to get defensive. :no-no:[/quote]
I just don’t like people putting words in my mouth. i love a good, drag em out debate, but I endeavor not to put words in peoples mouths… however, as I have said, I don’t believe an ICJ decision is the end all and be all, it will merely give Taiwan a rather large bullet in its six-shooter though…[/quote]
It sounds good in theory but will the ICJ accept the case? You seem to know more about this than the rest of us so can you explain that? According to the ICJ website they can only deal with UN members.
[quote]Only States are eligible to appear before the Court in contentious cases. At present, this basically means the 192 United Nations Member States.
The Court has no jurisdiction to deal with applications from individuals, non-governmental organizations, corporations or any other private entity. It cannot provide them with legal counselling or help them in their dealings with the authorities of any State whatever.
However, a State may take up the case of one of its nationals and invoke against another State the wrongs which its national claims to have suffered at the hands of the latter; the dispute then becomes one between States. [/quote]
It can also and give “advisory opinions on legal matters referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.”
With China’s power in the UN the case could never be brought forward. Or are we missing something?
So, Ludahai, let’s take a closer look at how this case is even going to get accepted. First, you said you want one of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies who’s also a signatory to the SPFT to submit the case, but why on earth would they want to do that? Taiwan doesn’t belong to any of those countries, so whatever happens to Taiwan doesn’t concern them. They’ve got no interest in this case whatsoever so why do you think any of them will try to submit the case on Taiwan’s behalf. Second, can they even do that? This is what the relevant part of the ICJ statue says
So who’s the other state here? Clearly not China according to you.
And third, what is the legal issue you want the court to interpret? What exactly is the dispute? You can’t seem to answer this basic question after saying many times you want the ICJ to get involved.
So we don’t know who the partIES(plural) are, and we don’t know what the issue is to put before the court. This sounds to me like there’s no case.
Not apples and oranges. The legal standing of all three was identical and for the same reason. The ICJ issued rulings in both the Western Sahara and East Timor situations that pointed to their right to self-determination. In the case of East Timor, there had been decades of pressure from governments (though sadly, not the US) and NGOs around the world. Eventually, once the East Asia financial crisis resulted in a more open government in Indonesia, the Indonesian government was forced to acceed to international law on the East Timor question.
And it could be that Taiwan was invaded by the ROC.
[quote=“bohica”]So, Ludahai, let’s take a closer look at how this case is even going to get accepted. First, you said you want one of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies who’s also a signatory to the SPFT to submit the case, but why on earth would they want to do that? Taiwan doesn’t belong to any of those countries, so whatever happens to Taiwan doesn’t concern them. They’ve got no interest in this case whatsoever so why do you think any of them will try to submit the case on Taiwan’s behalf. Second, can they even do that? This is what the relevant part of the ICJ statue says
So who’s the other state here? Clearly not China according to you.
And third, what is the legal issue you want the court to interpret? What exactly is the dispute? You can’t seem to answer this basic question after saying many times you want the ICJ to get involved.
So we don’t know who the partIES(plural) are, and we don’t know what the issue is to put before the court. This sounds to me like there’s no case.[/quote]
There doesn’t have to be another country. Any signatory is permitted to ask the ICJ for an opinion on matters of international law and interpretation of treaties. In such cases, there does not have to be another party. Not all cases before the ICJ are adversarial in nature.
With China’s power in the UN the case could never be brought forward. Or are we missing something?[/quote]
China’s veto power in the Security Council could prevent Taiwan from bringing a case directly, but it wouldn’t give them the power to block a signatory to the ICJ and the SFPT from brining a request for an intepretation of relevant clauses of the treaty to the ICJ, which would then rule on it on the basis of international law.
With China’s power in the UN the case could never be brought forward. Or are we missing something?[/quote]
China’s veto power in the Security Council could prevent Taiwan from bringing a case directly, but it wouldn’t give them the power to block a signatory to the ICJ and the SFPT from brining a request for an intepretation of relevant clauses of the treaty to the ICJ, which would then rule on it on the basis of international law.[/quote]
Well, this is where we disagree. China can stop the US from selling weapons to Taiwan, they can force others to make Taiwan go by ridiculous names in international events 9Even cultural events like Cannes), so I am perfectly sure they can stop any country from bringing a case for a ruling on Taiwan’s sovereignty should they wish. Frankly, I think the notion that they can’t is delusional.
Not apples and oranges. The legal standing of all three was identical and for the same reason. The ICJ issued rulings in both the Western Sahara and East Timor situations that pointed to their right to self-determination. In the case of East Timor, there had been decades of pressure from governments (though sadly, not the US) and NGOs around the world. Eventually, once the East Asia financial crisis resulted in a more open government in Indonesia, the Indonesian government was forced to acceed to international law on the East Timor question.
And it could be that Taiwan was invaded by the ROC.[/quote]
Both East Timor and Western Sahara were invaded / occupied by other parties after the colonial governments withdrew. Neither had any democratic rights at all (and WS is still occupied by a third party). Neither were able to choose who their leaders were.
Taiwan on the other hand wasn’t / hasn’t been invaded. Citizens have full democratic rights and have done for almost two decades. People in Taiwan are free to elect their own leaders.
The two situations aren’t even close.
Your point might be valid in China annexed / invaded Taiwan but it hasn’t and isn’t likely to.
What’s the legal issue you want to interpret? You simply haven’t answered this basic question. You don’t go to the ICJ or any other court in the world and just say “I want you to interpret this.” Interpret what? What are you unclear about that you want the court to interpret. Answer the question.
What’s the legal issue you want to interpret? You simply haven’t answered this basic question. You don’t go to the ICJ or any other court in the world and just say “I want you to interpret this.” Interpret what? What are you unclear about that you want the court to interpret. Answer the question.[/quote]
Be nice, or piss off. It’s pretty clear what he wants is an interpretation of the Treaty of San Francisco regarding Taiwan’s status. That’s not a difficult concept to grasp is it? Taiwan was not ceded to any country after Japan so where does its sovereignty lie? I tend to agree with the DPP position that after a change in power and direct presidential elections then the ROC and Taiwan became synonymous. I find the KMT position childish in its absurdity since Ma, as president, was voted in only by the people of Taiwan who clearly do not believe that the ROC has sovereignty over China.
What’s the legal issue you want to interpret? You simply haven’t answered this basic question. You don’t go to the ICJ or any other court in the world and just say “I want you to interpret this.” Interpret what? What are you unclear about that you want the court to interpret. Answer the question.[/quote]
This questions has been answered. The ICJ could be asked to interpret relevant clauses of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, something that is supported by the Statute of the ICJ.
With China’s power in the UN the case could never be brought forward. Or are we missing something?[/quote]
China’s veto power in the Security Council could prevent Taiwan from bringing a case directly, but it wouldn’t give them the power to block a signatory to the ICJ and the SFPT from brining a request for an intepretation of relevant clauses of the treaty to the ICJ, which would then rule on it on the basis of international law.[/quote]
Well, this is where we disagree. China can stop the US from selling weapons to Taiwan, they can force others to make Taiwan go by ridiculous names in international events 9Even cultural events like Cannes), so I am perfectly sure they can stop any country from bringing a case for a ruling on Taiwan’s sovereignty should they wish. Frankly, I think the notion that they can’t is delusional.[/quote]
That is only because they ALLOW China to. Only ONE of the countries involved has to have enough balls to file the interpretative request and the Chinese can do nothing about it.
[quote=“cfimages”]Both East Timor and Western Sahara were invaded / occupied by other parties after the colonial governments withdrew. Neither had any democratic rights at all (and WS is still occupied by a third party). Neither were able to choose who their leaders were.
Taiwan on the other hand wasn’t / hasn’t been invaded. Citizens have full democratic rights and have done for almost two decades. People in Taiwan are free to elect their own leaders.
The two situations aren’t even close.
Your point might be valid in China annexed / invaded Taiwan but it hasn’t and isn’t likely to.[/quote]
And Taiwan was NOT occupied following Hapan’s withdrawal? Taiwanese could choose their own leaders for more than four decades? Excuse me… did you miss some history here?
With China’s power in the UN the case could never be brought forward. Or are we missing something?[/quote]
China’s veto power in the Security Council could prevent Taiwan from bringing a case directly, but it wouldn’t give them the power to block a signatory to the ICJ and the SFPT from brining a request for an intepretation of relevant clauses of the treaty to the ICJ, which would then rule on it on the basis of international law.[/quote]
Well, this is where we disagree. China can stop the US from selling weapons to Taiwan, they can force others to make Taiwan go by ridiculous names in international events 9Even cultural events like Cannes), so I am perfectly sure they can stop any country from bringing a case for a ruling on Taiwan’s sovereignty should they wish. Frankly, I think the notion that they can’t is delusional.[/quote]
That is only because they ALLOW China to. Only ONE of the countries involved has to have enough balls to file the interpretative request and the Chinese can do nothing about it.[/quote]
I understand that. Once again, the problem with Taiwan’s international status is political and not legal. No one is going to stand up to China to bring that status up for debate at the ICJ. I wish someone would but the past decade has shown that western powers will capitulate to China on every issue the Chinese wish them too. There is too much need for China’s cooperation in anti-terrorism, the environment, the economy, and so on. China understands its leverage very well.
[quote=“ludahai”][quote=“cfimages”]Both East Timor and Western Sahara were invaded / occupied by other parties after the colonial governments withdrew. Neither had any democratic rights at all (and WS is still occupied by a third party). Neither were able to choose who their leaders were.
Taiwan on the other hand wasn’t / hasn’t been invaded. Citizens have full democratic rights and have done for almost two decades. People in Taiwan are free to elect their own leaders.
The two situations aren’t even close.
Your point might be valid in China annexed / invaded Taiwan but it hasn’t and isn’t likely to.[/quote]
And Taiwan was NOT occupied following Hapan’s withdrawal? Taiwanese could choose their own leaders for more than four decades? Excuse me… did you miss some history here?
And the LEGAL situations ARE analogous…[/quote]
No one invaded Taiwan. No one occupied Taiwan. It was given to the previous sovereign (their successor) upon Japan’s surrender and retrocession to the ROC. What happened after may be debatable in a scholarly historical context but it makes no difference at all in a real world context. As with most things political and legal.
And I said almost 2 decades of elections. Not 4. Once again you’re trying to “put words in my keyboard” as you yourself describe it. I’ll say it again. Almost 2 decades. 1996 - 2012 so far. The upcoming election will be the 5th, and there’ve been two transfers of power. Chances are there’ll be another either after next January or in 2016.
What relevant clauses? What are the actual clauses you want to interpret? What part of the SFPT are you unclear about that you want the court to interpret? Don’t sidestep the question by saying “relevant clauses”. You can’t go to a court uttering those two words without saying exactly what part of the treaty you want to interpret. So what are the relevant clauses you’re talking about?
[quote]. . . the United States, [color=#000080]the Republic of China[/color], the United Kingdom and the British Empire, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. . . .
10.All Japanese and Japanese-controlled military and civil authorities shall aid and assist the [color=#000080]occupation[/color] of Japan and [color=#000080]Japanese-controlled areas by forces of the Allied Powers[/color].
11.The Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and appropriate Japanese officials shall be prepared on instructions from [color=#000080]Allied occupation commanders [/color]to collect and deliver all arms in the possession of the Japanese civilian population.[/quote]–General Order No. 1, August 17, 1945 bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~knagai/GH … 467_2.html
[quote]The Japanese Imperial Government will place at the disposal of the [color=#000080]occupation forces [/color]all local resources required for their use.
• The Japanese Imperial Government will provide labor in quantities and with the training and skills and the time and place designated by the Supreme Commander or the Commanders of the [color=#000080]Occupation Forces [/color]within their respective areas.
• The Japanese Imperial Government will be prepared to furnish to the [color=#000080]Occupation Forces [/color]all buildings suitable for and required by these forces.[/quote] --SCAPIN 2 (Supreme Commander Allied Powers Instruction No. 2), September 3, 1945 lpthe.jussieu.fr/~roehner/ocj2.pdf
Subject: [quote]Funds for [color=#000080]Occupation Forces [/color][/quote]–title of SCAPIN 7, September 4, 1945 lpthe.jussieu.fr/~roehner/ocj2.pdf
CJ - In the context of the discussion, occupied refers to the forceful takeover (ala Indonesia in East Timor) not a handover from the previous government.
It is true that the large Western powers regularly cave to China, but the small states that are Taiwan’s diplomatic allies have far less to lose in alienating Beijing –
What relevant clauses? What are the actual clauses you want to interpret? What part of the SFPT are you unclear about that you want the court to interpret? Don’t sidestep the question by saying “relevant clauses”. You can’t go to a court uttering those two words without saying exactly what part of the treaty you want to interpret. So what are the relevant clauses you’re talking about?[/quote]
Read the post linked earlier in this thread… the details are there… your questions have all been answered already
It’s pretty clear what he wants is an interpretation of the Treaty of San Francisco regarding Taiwan’s status. That’s not a difficult concept to grasp is it? Taiwan was not ceded to any country after Japan so where does its sovereignty lie? I tend to agree with the DPP position that after a change in power and direct presidential elections then the ROC and Taiwan became synonymous. I find the KMT position childish in its absurdity since Ma, as president, was voted in only by the people of Taiwan who clearly do not believe that the ROC has sovereignty over China.