Former legislative speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) on Sunday proposed a new cross-strait narrative, saying: “The two sides of the Taiwan Strait are not subordinate to each other in terms of governance, but share sovereignty without division (兩岸治權互不隸屬,主權同而不分).”
Jurisdiction is one of the necessary conditions included in the definition of sovereignty. According to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the sufficient and necessary condition for sovereignty is that the local government has full and substantial independent authority to govern its region in terms of politics, economy, national security, public affairs and even foreign relations — free from external interference. Therefore, without jurisdiction, there is no sovereignty — period. Jurisdiction is merely a necessary sub-element of sovereignty. How can the two be separated? This is International Relations 101 — a foundational concept taught in introductory political science courses. Are there any Taiwanese academics who can honestly deny this common knowledge?
The Treaty of Westphalia provides a simple formula — first, sovereignty necessarily entails jurisdiction and second, without jurisdiction, there can be no sovereignty.
How can there be two governments claiming sovereignty over the same regions — China and Taiwan? Can even the principle of the indivisibility of sovereignty be distorted?
China has neither sovereignty nor jurisdiction over Taiwan.
Under this principle, the Republic of China holds sovereignty and jurisdiction over Taiwan, while it has no jurisdiction over China and, therefore, no sovereignty over it. Conversely, the People’s Republic of China, both de facto and de jure, holds neither sovereignty nor jurisdiction over Taiwan.
In contrast, Belarus — even though it exercises jurisdiction over its territory — does not have true sovereignty because its foreign affairs are completely controlled by Russia.
This deliberate distortion of such a simple concept explains why domestic and international political and academic circles find other Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) propositions — including the so-called “1992 consensus” — confusing and murky.
Wang must reconsider before advocating for the distortion of this fundamental concept again.
Simon Tang is an adjunct professor at California State University, Fullerton, who lectures on international relations.
Source: Taipei Times - Editorials 2024/12/12
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
