Chinese Journal of International Law Advance Access originally published online on June 25, 2009
Chinese Journal of International Law 2009 8(2):455-492; doi:10.1093/chinesejil/jmp014
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved
DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORY |
The Legal Status of Taiwan and the Legality of the Use of Force in a Cross-Taiwan Strait Conflict
Correspondence: * LLB, University of Hong Kong; LLM, University of Durham; PhD candidate, National University of Singapore (email: philchan{at}dunelm.org.uk)
The legal status of Taiwan remains one of the most important concerns in international relations, as the continual political tensions have the potential of generating armed conflicts, not only across the Taiwan Strait but also between the People's Republic of China government and the United States, and of destabilizing the security in the Asia-Pacific region and the international community. This article examines on the basis of international law whether Taiwan has a valid claim to statehood. The implications of relevant peace treaties, the issue of foreign recognition of States and governments, the nature and extent of the right to self-determination, and the permissibility of the use of force under the right of self-defense and the notion of humanitarian intervention in relation to the Taiwan question are discussed.
I am indebted to Simon Chesterman, Richard Gardiner and Paul Serfaty for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article; Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, Cambridge; Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy, ANU; Faculty of Law, Ottawa; Asian Institute, Toronto; Institut für Öffentliches Recht, Freiburg; Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt; and School of International Relations, St Andrews, for their visiting fellowships and invitations for academic visits between July 2006 and June 2008 during which this article was written; and the participants for their critical comments in my guest lectures and seminars at Otago, Auckland, Cambridge, Toronto, Ottawa, Dalhousie, Berkeley, Copenhagen, SOAS, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Queen's, Vanderbilt, St Andrews, Westminster, Stirling and Kent. Views expressed, and any error or omission that remains, in this article, current as at 15 February 2009, are mine alone.