Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Topics related to Taiwan and Taiwan/China issues can be discussed here. Threads dealing with Taiwan's history belong in the Culture & History thread. Please do not post articles - use links instead. Quoted sources should be limited to one paragraph in length, or less. If you see a post that you feel is against the rules, please send a report to the moderators so we can look into it

Moderator: TheGingerMan

Forum rules
Threads dealing with Taiwan's history belong in the Culture & History thread. Please do not post articles - use links instead. Quoted sources should be limited to one paragraph in length, or less. If you see a post that you feel is against the rules, you can send a report to the moderators so we can look into it

Re: Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby cfimages » 27 Jul 2011, 12:01

From ludahai's link

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the
Pescadores


If this is the basis for Taiwan being undetermined it doesn't really hold, does it? Upon Japan renouncing rights and not specifying who it goes to, Taiwan either has to be considered to a) belong to the then-current administrators (the ROC), b) be abandoned in which case it goes to the ROC under the same principle as squatters rights or c) be returned to the former owners (Qing which was succeeded by the ROC). I don't get how anyone can say the status was and still is undetermined, especially almost 60 years after the treaty when a functioning government has been in place for the entire time. It makes about as much sense as the claim that it belongs to the PRC.
Forumosan avatar
cfimages
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8947
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 15:39
Location: Across from the other side of the road
243 Recommends(s)
223 Recognized(s)



Re: Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby Mucha Man » 27 Jul 2011, 12:45

cfimages wrote:From ludahai's link

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the
Pescadores


If this is the basis for Taiwan being undetermined it doesn't really hold, does it? Upon Japan renouncing rights and not specifying who it goes to, Taiwan either has to be considered to a) belong to the then-current administrators (the ROC), b) be abandoned in which case it goes to the ROC under the same principle as squatters rights or c) be returned to the former owners (Qing which was succeeded by the ROC). I don't get how anyone can say the status was and still is undetermined, especially almost 60 years after the treaty when a functioning government has been in place for the entire time. It makes about as much sense as the claim that it belongs to the PRC.


Ever heard of property being held in trust until final ownership is decided? Ever hear of someone managing a property but not having ownership? Not much difference here.

The problem would be so much simpler if the KMT would allow the constitution to be changed so that the ROC only referred to Taiwan. Or if they simply acted as it it did as was policy from Lee Teng Hui through CSB.
“Everywhere else in the world is also really old” said Prof. Liu, a renowned historian at Beijing University. “We always learn that China has 5000 years of cultural heritage, and that therefore we are very special. It appears that other places also have some of this heritage stuff. And are also old. Like, really old.”

http://hikingintaiwan.blogspot.com/
Forumosan avatar
Mucha Man
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 19003
Joined: 01 Nov 2001, 17:01
Location: Mucha, of course
887 Recognized(s)



Re: Re: Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby cfimages » 27 Jul 2011, 14:42

Muzha Man wrote:
cfimages wrote:From ludahai's link

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the
Pescadores


If this is the basis for Taiwan being undetermined it doesn't really hold, does it? Upon Japan renouncing rights and not specifying who it goes to, Taiwan either has to be considered to a) belong to the then-current administrators (the ROC), b) be abandoned in which case it goes to the ROC under the same principle as squatters rights or c) be returned to the former owners (Qing which was succeeded by the ROC). I don't get how anyone can say the status was and still is undetermined, especially almost 60 years after the treaty when a functioning government has been in place for the entire time. It makes about as much sense as the claim that it belongs to the PRC.


Ever heard of property being held in trust until final ownership is decided? Ever hear of someone managing a property but not having ownership? Not much difference here.

The problem would be so much simpler if the KMT would allow the constitution to be changed so that the ROC only referred to Taiwan. Or if they simply acted as it it did as was policy from Lee Teng Hui through CSB.


I'd have thought legally trust or management would need an official legal agreement stating that and declaring who the management party was, which doesn't exist. But then I'm not an international lawyer so I don't really know.

It'd be great if they would change the constitution but I think that would provoke a very bad response from china, which is in nobodys interest. Keeping the status quo is the best option now IMHO.
Forumosan avatar
cfimages
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8947
Joined: 30 Oct 2005, 15:39
Location: Across from the other side of the road
243 Recommends(s)
223 Recognized(s)



Re: Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby ludahai » 27 Jul 2011, 14:44

bohica wrote:
ludahai wrote:I never claimed that it would. If you had read my explanation of the topic, it should confirm the right of Taiwan's people to self-determination and then the people of Taiwan should make the determination for themselves.


Once again, you obviously did not read my explanation of the situation. The ICJ can issue a ruling interpretating the peace treaty that a legal transfer never was made to the ROC and that China does not have a legal claim to the island.


On what basis?




The ICJ is not going to confirm Taiwan's self-determination. Politics aside, there's no legal basis for it. Taiwan not having been transferred does not equate self-determination. And even if I assume for the sake of argument that ICJ accepts the case and rule in your favor, it changes nothing, because (and perhaps you're overlooking this) Taiwan ALREADY HAS self-determination. 8 years of DPP presidency is proof enough of this. Even if the ICJ is to essentially rule that Taiwan has the right to hold elections, all this does is bring us back to the status quo, as Taiwan is already holding elections.

So you'd be asking for something you already have and something that has no legal basis. It's hard to imagine the ICJ taking this case seriously.


This is where you are wrong and obviously you are not familiar with similiar instances where prior sovereigns left territories without designating a successor state.

And yes, the ICJ would almost certainly take the case so long as it is filed properly.
I have a dream, a dream where a democratic China lives side by side with Taiwan, Tibet, and Turkestan, all free and democratic.
ludahai
Combat Zone Mama-san (zhànqū māma sāng)
Combat Zone Mama-san (zhànqū māma sāng)
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: 25 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: 臺灣國臺中市
1 Recognized(s)



Re: Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby ludahai » 27 Jul 2011, 14:47

cfimages wrote:From ludahai's link

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the
Pescadores


If this is the basis for Taiwan being undetermined it doesn't really hold, does it? Upon Japan renouncing rights and not specifying who it goes to, Taiwan either has to be considered to a) belong to the then-current administrators (the ROC), b) be abandoned in which case it goes to the ROC under the same principle as squatters rights or c) be returned to the former owners (Qing which was succeeded by the ROC). I don't get how anyone can say the status was and still is undetermined, especially almost 60 years after the treaty when a functioning government has been in place for the entire time. It makes about as much sense as the claim that it belongs to the PRC.


Not true. Western Sahara did NOT to back to its previous owners nor did East Timor when both were abandoned by the Spanish and Portuguese respectively. If you knew anything about international law, you would know your statement makes no sense and has no basis in law. You need to find a previous example in which there was a similar situation. However, history supports my claims far more than yours. 1. Treaties are required to transfer territory from one state to another. 2. squatters rights only refer to territory that was not previously a part of a recognized state and 3. Taiwan's status is clearly undetermined with Japan's abandonment of the territory and as such, the Taiwanese have the right to self-determination under modern international law. China (ROC or PRC) may not derive any rights from the abandonment of the territory.
I have a dream, a dream where a democratic China lives side by side with Taiwan, Tibet, and Turkestan, all free and democratic.
ludahai
Combat Zone Mama-san (zhànqū māma sāng)
Combat Zone Mama-san (zhànqū māma sāng)
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: 25 Jul 2003, 17:57
Location: 臺灣國臺中市
1 Recognized(s)



Re: Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby Mawvellous » 27 Jul 2011, 16:06

ludahai wrote:
Not true. Western Sahara did NOT to back to its previous owners nor did East Timor when both were abandoned by the Spanish and Portuguese respectively. If you knew anything about international law, you would know your statement makes no sense and has no basis in law. You need to find a previous example in which there was a similar situation. However, history supports my claims far more than yours. 1. Treaties are required to transfer territory from one state to another. 2. squatters rights only refer to territory that was not previously a part of a recognized state and 3. Taiwan's status is clearly undetermined with Japan's abandonment of the territory and as such, the Taiwanese have the right to self-determination under modern international law. China (ROC or PRC) may not derive any rights from the abandonment of the territory.


You have ignored the fact that the ICJ has no compulsory jurisdiction unless both parties have agreed to submit to its decision. It could of course issue an advisory decision, as it did with the Western Sahara in 1975, but this would not be binding. However, for political reasons, it is very unlikely to get involved even this far.
Mawvellous
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 10:59
2 Recommends(s)
8 Recognized(s)



Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby Mucha Man » 27 Jul 2011, 17:14

I'm in complete agreement with Marvelous on this. Taiwan's status is a political issue and not a legal one. China would never agree that the ICJ has jurisdiction over what it considers an internal matter.

It's a non-starter.
“Everywhere else in the world is also really old” said Prof. Liu, a renowned historian at Beijing University. “We always learn that China has 5000 years of cultural heritage, and that therefore we are very special. It appears that other places also have some of this heritage stuff. And are also old. Like, really old.”

http://hikingintaiwan.blogspot.com/
Forumosan avatar
Mucha Man
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 19003
Joined: 01 Nov 2001, 17:01
Location: Mucha, of course
887 Recognized(s)



Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby Taffy » 27 Jul 2011, 17:30

Muzha Man wrote:I'm in complete agreement with Marvelous on this.

Is this a portent of the End of Days? :lol:
Image
Taffy
Lost Winning Lotto Ticket (zhòngjiǎng cǎiquàn nòngdiū le)
Lost Winning Lotto Ticket (zhòngjiǎng cǎiquàn nòngdiū le)
 
Posts: 2917
Joined: 20 Oct 2005, 15:11
Location: South Central Xinbei
104 Recommends(s)
49 Recognized(s)



Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby Mucha Man » 27 Jul 2011, 17:32

Taffy wrote:
Muzha Man wrote:I'm in complete agreement with Marvelous on this.

Is this a portent of the End of Days? :lol:


He he. Apparently not as even when M agrees with me he will argue for 4 pages otherwise. :lol:
“Everywhere else in the world is also really old” said Prof. Liu, a renowned historian at Beijing University. “We always learn that China has 5000 years of cultural heritage, and that therefore we are very special. It appears that other places also have some of this heritage stuff. And are also old. Like, really old.”

http://hikingintaiwan.blogspot.com/
Forumosan avatar
Mucha Man
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 19003
Joined: 01 Nov 2001, 17:01
Location: Mucha, of course
887 Recognized(s)



Re: Gilley's 'Finlandization' model - valid or off the mark?

Postby Mawvellous » 27 Jul 2011, 17:42

Muzha Man wrote:
Taffy wrote:
Muzha Man wrote:I'm in complete agreement with Marvelous on this.

Is this a portent of the End of Days? :lol:


He he. Apparently not as even when M agrees with me he will argue for 4 pages otherwise. :lol:


I agree with Muzha Man on more things than you think.
We actually agreed 4 pages ago that the Taiwan issue is a political issue, which is why we don't attach any importance to the legal arguments of Hartzell and Ludahai.


But just for fun. From an international law perspective, which one of them is right? Is Taiwan occupied territory under the United States Military Government as Hartzell claims, or its status undetermined as Ludahai claims?
Mawvellous
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
Gravel Truck Driver (suìshí chē sījī)
 
Posts: 1395
Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 10:59
2 Recommends(s)
8 Recognized(s)



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
PreviousNext




Proceed to Taiwan Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 2 visitors

Remember you must die whether you sit about moping all day long or whether on feast days you stretch out in a green field, happy with a bottle of Falernian from your innermost cellar -- HORACE