Who has the right to formally declare Taiwan as a new independent nation?


#1

Who has the right to formally declare Taiwan as a new independent nation?

I’m not asking about who is insane enough to do it or the consequences of such actions. That’s been discussed to death. :slight_smile:

What I mean is who has the ultimate legal authority to do something like that? The president? Or the members of the legislative yuan? Or the people, via a binding referendum.

Come to think of it, if more than 90% of all registered voters in Taiwan vote in favor of creating a new nation and ditch the Republic of China name, what can happen?


#2

That’s the only way, self-determination under UN charter.

China may or may not lob missiles over, depending on international support and circumstances within the PRC.


#3

It gets a bit more complex, China will view it as secession, and therefore an internal affair not subject to international law or UN charter.
There is also the issue of territorial integrity which can take precedence over self-determination.


#4

Charles Hong of Columbus, Ohio.


#5

That’s the only way[/quote]

Not at all. An armed revolution could depose the government and install a new one. Or China could boot Taiwan from the PRC the way Malaysia booted Singapore. Or the legislature could put it in legal stone that the ROC’s territorial boundaries do not extend beyond Taipengjinma. None of these are likely, but all are still, no matter how implausible, firmly in the realm of possibility.


#6

That’s the only way, self-determination under UN charter.[/quote]

But, but, but, wouldn’t the UN be required to abide (sort of like they already do, I guess) by member China’s characterization of Taiwan’s status, irrespective of non-member Taiwan’s claims??
As we well know, UN membership is a key (if not the sole) credential in being regarded as an independent sovereign nation, yeah?
So surely nothing less than the UN pulling a full reversal of their 1971 decision (admitting the PRC on a vote of 76 in favor, 35 opposed, and 17 abstentions, it is said) would allow that to happen, yes?

As a side note, I’ve never seen those actual figures before, the number of opposing nations is rather startling. :noway:


#7

Charles Hong of Columbus, Ohio.[/quote]

God help us all.


#8

What did I miss? Who is this?


#9

which according to China is also a proper cause to invade Taiwan. But frankly, even after an armed revolution, the right thing would be to hold a self-determination referendum.

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]
Or China could boot Taiwan from the PRC the way Malaysia booted Singapore.[/quote]

I thought Malaysia booted Singapore for ethnicism.

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]
Or the legislature could put it in legal stone that the ROC’s territorial boundaries do not extend beyond Taipengjinma. None of these are likely, but all are still, no matter how implausible, firmly in the realm of possibility.[/quote]

It’s a dumb move to specify national territories in the constitution. If Jinmen and Matsu is what needs to be resolved, they should get their own referendum to decide matters.


#10

What did I miss? Who is this?[/quote]

He practically owns the “Letters to the Editor” column in the Taipei Times. His letter published yesterday:

taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 03625756/2

To be fair, John Hsieh of Hayward, California, also deserves honorable mention.

Having removed themselves and their money to the safety of the USA, Charles and John are overseas Taiwanese who constantly scream for Taiwan independence and a war with China. Though they are slim on the details.


#11

The Chinese would argue that would be like asking who in Hawaii has the ultimate legal authority to declare independence.


#12

… People actually read the letters section of Taipei Times? People actually read Taipei Times?

If that’s the case, then nothing needs to be done to make Taiwan an independent nation – a simple policy change would do it. The president or premier just has to announce “Taiwan has absolutely no claim to territories beyond Taipengjinma + Taiping, and views China as a separate state.” It would not however be a “new” nation as posited in the thread title.


#13

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]
If that’s the case, then nothing needs to be done to make Taiwan an independent nation – a simple policy change would do it. The president or premier just has to announce “Taiwan has absolutely no claim to territories beyond Taipengjinma + Taiping, and views China as a separate state.” It would not however be a “new” nation as posited in the thread title.[/quote]

I think what you describe is just status quo, at least status quo after 1996 until Ma took office.


#14

Then… why bother declaring independence at all?

Actually, the constitution does have that pesky clause about “historic territory” and changes being made by the National Assembly.


#15

[quote=“Hokwongwei”]Then… why bother declaring independence at all?

Actually, the constitution does have that pesky clause about “historic territory” and changes being made by the National Assembly.[/quote]

ok… what if they ditched the current constitution and pass a new one? perhaps one that has a new country name and even clearly advocates a regime change for the People’s Republic?


#16

But again… why? Why scrap the constitution instead of amending it?


#17

Because the 5 branches of power thing is a broken piece of crap, and as long as the current constitution is still in place, there will always be authoritarians abusing the Control Yuan in the name of constitutional originalism.


#18

So fix the government. I’m not in favor of a new constitution. The one we have today is problematic, but not unfixable. If you throw it out with the promise of a new constitution drawn up from scratch, there is no guarantee that it will be functional or democratic. Issues like the useless Examination Yuan and politically controlled Control Yuan can be resolved through amendments and other laws.


#19

We’ve actually been through this discussion before. The 2005 amendments made sure it’s impossible to admen the current constitution.

In the last amendment, the KMT used the trick they used to cripple the referendum act to nullify the possibility of new amendments.

Currently,

  1. over a quarter of legislators is required to sponsor a new amendment
  2. over 3 quarters of legislators must attend the vote
  3. out of those who attended, the amendment must receive more than 75% of the vote.

As if that doesn’t already guarantee for new amendments to be impossible, they added the 4th requirement:

  1. the amendment is then put to a vote, where more than half of the total eligible voters must vote in favor.

The third requirement means that, as long as the KMT and the pan-blue parties holds more than 29 seats (out of 113), all the KMT has to do to stop an amendment would be to give its legislators a day off.

The fourth requirement is the same as the one in the referendum act. As long as those people who oppose the amendment don’t actually go to vote, the amendment won’t pass even if it receives 100% of the vote. At the present that means it must receive 9,043,228 votes.


#20

We’ve actually been through this discussion before. The 2005 amendments made by Ma (he was the chairman of the KMT) made sure it’s impossible to admen the current constitution.

[/quote]

Didn’t DPP agree to these amendments. They were made in cooperation between KMT and DPP, as far as I remember.