Search

The state-centeredness of intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) reinforces the prevailing Westphalian international system. International organizations privilege cooperation among nation-states so as to ameliorate anarchy. However, events like the establishment of international human rights regimes and the advancement of globalization since the second half of the twentieth century have called into question whether this hegemonic form still represents the best route to global governance. When national governments lack accountability, serious inadequacies may develop. What happens when governments, through which the rights bestowed on individuals by international human rights covenants, are themselves violators of human rights, especially against those of ethnopolitical minorities? What happens when governments, which are entrusted to provide the best care to the well-being of their people, hide information and obstruct international assistance? These glaring gaps are in plain view in the way China initially responded to the crisis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) of 2003. The World Health Organization (WHO) and China both went through a learning curve.In the era of globalization, the traditional state-centered approach is further inadequate when disputes over sovereignty hinder the rights to which a significant population is entitled under international law. A well-known anomaly in conventional international law and organization is the contest over Taiwan?s (or formally, Republic of China?s) international legal status and its consequent impact on the rights of the people of Taiwan and the benefits that the international community might have enjoyed with the participation of a significant player in global trade, technology, and democracy.This paper seeks to break some new ground in this theoretical and policy lacuna by presenting a sui generis model for Taiwan?s IGO participation that might simultaneously assure China?s concerns, enable Taiwan to play a part commensurate with its global importance, and permit the international society to benefit from the contribution of a key player and improved cross-strait relations. This model is grounded on the recognition that global governance in the era of globalization mandates the inclusion of all functional competent entities and will require adjustments in mindsets and practices. Its key elements are: (1) decoupling the issues of Taiwan?s IGO membership and diplomatic recognition; (2) amending charters or constitutions of those IGOs that allegedly only admit sovereign states so that they can also admit a functionally competent entity (for a particular issue area); (3) stating on Taiwan?s accession documents that admission into a given IGO does not have any impact on that body?s position on China representation or imply sovereignty for Taiwan; and (4) stipulating that Taiwan will automatically lose membership if it declares independence after its entry into the IGOs. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]