Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Westphalia and the Taiwan Conundrum: A Case against the Exclusionist Construction of Sovereignty and Identity

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Chinese Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is often argued that at the root of the Taiwan question are the myriad differences in politics, ideology, identity, and economy between mainland China and Taiwan. Any prospect for its peaceful resolution, it seems, hinges on bridging those differences through economic and/or political integration. Although the Taiwan conundrum has much to do with wide-ranging cross-strait divergence, this article argues that it cannot be disconnected from one important commonality between Beijing and Taipei, namely, a cross-strait normative convergence on the Westphalian notion of state sovereignty. Encompassing an exclusionary understanding of final authority, territory, and identity, Westphalian sovereignty provides both Beijing and Taipei with a common meaning that Taiwan is an issue of sovereignty, central to their respective national identity and political survival and hence not subject to compromise. As a consequence, it argues that this common meaning is paradoxically responsible for much of the mistrust, tension, and deadlock in cross-strait relations. In order to find a long-term solution to the Taiwan impasse, we need to pay attention to this particular normative convergence as well as to the many differences across the Taiwan Strait.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Also, Zhao ([36], 15) notes that in understanding the Taiwan issue, there was not even a word for ethnicity in Beijing’s discourse.

  2. Obviously the term “Westphalian sovereignty” used here is a much broader concept than what is implied in the Treaty of Westphalia. In fact, Krasner ([76], 17) argues that “the Peace of Westphalia itself had almost nothing to do with what has come to be termed the Westphalian system.”

  3. Lee Teng-hui’s inaugural address, see Kan ([77], 54).

  4. For example, in response to a survey question “Do you think that Taiwan’s future can properly be decided only by the people on the island, or that the mainland Chinese should also be able to participate in the decision?” more than 80 percent of the respondents answered that they as Taiwanese had a sole right to decide the island’s future, a clear sign of Taiwan’s rising awareness of popular sovereignty and national self-determination. See Y.H. Jiang ([68], 159–60).

  5. Referring specifically to the two superpowers during the Cold War, Aron ([78], 250) wrote that “The idea that the two great powers of an international system are brothers at the same time as being enemies should be acknowledged as being banal rather than paradoxical.”

  6. The same can be said of national identity. For example, without the insight of social constructivism, one cannot explain why, as Chalmers Johnson ([82], 21) noted, “the Japanese were more nationalistic in 1930 than in 1830, since at both times they spoke the same language, held roughly the same religious views, and painted the same kinds of pictures.”

  7. For some useful discussions on alternative ways of breaking the sovereignty deadlock, see He [23], Wang Yingjin [79], and Yung Wei [80].

References

  1. Hardt, M., and A. Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Copper, J.F. 1999. The origins of conflict across the Taiwan Strait: The problem of differences in perceptions. In Across the Taiwan Strait: Mainland China, Taiwan, and the 1995–1996 crisis, ed. S. Zhao. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rigger, S. 1999. Competing conceptions of Taiwan’s identity: The irresolvable conflict in cross-strait relations. In Across the Taiwan Strait: Mainland China, Taiwan, and the 1995–1996 crisis, ed. S. Zhao. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kang, D. 2003. Hierarchy and stability in Asian international relations. In International relations theory and the Asia-Pacific, ed. G.J. Ikenberry and M. Mastanduno. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tu, W. 1996. Cultural identity and the politics of recognition in contemporary Taiwan. China Quarterly 148: 1115–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kang, D. 2007. China rising: Peace, power, and order in East Asia. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bolt, P.J. 2001. Taiwan-Mainland China economic cooperation: Ties that bind? In The United States and cross-strait relations: China, Taiwan and the U.S. entering a new century, ed. K. Klinkner. Urbana-Champain: Center for East Asian and Pacific Studies, University of Illinois.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hsiung, J.C. 2009. The age of geoeconomics, China’s global role, and prospects of cross-strait integration. Journal of Chinese Political Science 14(1): 113–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. He, B. 2006. The three paradigms for the Taiwan question. In Sources of conflict and cooperation in the Taiwan Strait, ed. Y. Zheng and R.R. Wu. Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Analects, the. 13:23.

  11. Ashley, R.K. 1988. Untying the sovereign state: A double reading of the anarchy problematique. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17(2): 227–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bickerton, C.J., P. Cunliffe, and A. Gourevitch (eds.). 2007. Politics without sovereignty: A critique of contemporary international relations. London: UCL.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Krasner, S.D. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Linklater, A. 1998. The transformation of political community: Ethical foundations of the post-Westphalian era. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lyons, G.M., and M. Mastanduno (eds.). 1995. Beyond Westphalia? State sovereignty and international intervention. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Moon, C., and C. Chun, 2003. Sovereignty: Dominance of the Westphalian concept and implications for regional security. In Asian security order: Instrumental and normative features, ed. Muthiah Alagappa, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Walker, R.B.J. 1993. Inside/outside: International relations as political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Zaum, D. 2007. The sovereignty paradox: The norms and politics of international statebuilding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Krasner, S.D. 2001. Problematic sovereignty. In Problematic sovereignty: Contested rules and political possibilities, ed. S.D. Krasner. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jiashu, Huang, and Wang Yingjin. 2002. Zhuquan goucheng yanjiu jiqi zai Taiwan wenti shang de yingyong (A study of the composition of sovereignty and its application to the Taiwan question). Taiwan yanjiu jikan (Taiwan Research Quarterly) 2: 28-36.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Madsen, R. 2001. The struggle for sovereignty between China and Taiwan. In Problematic sovereignty: Contested rules and political possibilities, ed. S.D. Krasner. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Oksenberg, M. 2001. The issue of sovereignty in the Asian historical context. In Problematic sovereignty: Contested rules and political possibilities, ed. S.D. Krasner. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. He, B. 2001. The question of sovereignty in the Taiwan Strait? Reexamining Peking’s policy of opposition to Taiwan’s bid for UN membership. China Perspectives 34: 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Paltiel, J.T. 2001. Dire straits: Rescuing the Taiwan problem from the zero-sum game of international sovereignty. China Perspectives 34: 19–34.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Falk, R. 2002. Revisiting Westphalia, discovering post-Westphalia. The Journal of Ethics 6(4): 311–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Runciman, W.G. (ed) and E. Matthews (trans). 1978. Max Weber: Selections in translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  27. Brown, C. 2002. Sovereignty, rights and justice: International political theory today. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Spruyt, H. 1994. The sovereign state and its competitors: An analysis of systems change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Van Creveld, M. 1999. The rise and decline of the state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Tilly, C. 1975. Reflections on the history of European state-making. In The formation of national states in Western Europe, ed. C. Tilly. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (rev. ed). London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Devetak, R. 2007. The modern state and its origins. In An introduction to international relations: Australian perspectives, ed. R. Devetak, A. Burke, and J. George. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hughes, C. 2000. Post-nationalist Taiwan. In Asian nationalism, ed. M. Leifer. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Johnston, A.I. 1998. International structures and Chinese foreign policy. In China and the World: Chinese foreign policy faces the new millennium, 4th ed, ed. S.S. Kim. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Liang Qichao. 1936. Lun jinshi guomin jingzheng zhi dashi ji Zhongguo zhi qiantu (On the general trend of competition among nations and the future of China). In Yinbing shi heqi (Collected works of the Ice-Drinker’s Studio), Vol. 4. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.

  36. Zhao, S. 1999. Introduction: Making sense of the 1995–96 crisis in the Taiwan Strait. In Across the Taiwan Strait: Mainland China, Taiwan, and the 1995–1996 crisis, ed. S. Zhao. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Taiwan Affairs Office and the Information Office of the State Council. 2000. The One-China principle and the Taiwan issue, Beijing: Taiwan Affairs Office and the Information Office of the State Council, February 21. <http://www.china.org.cn/english/7956.htm>

  38. Carlson, A. 2005. Unifying China, integrating with the world: securing Chinese sovereignty in the reform era. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council. 1993. Taiwan wenti yu Zhongguo tongyi baipishu (The white paper on the Taiwan question and China’s reunification), September 1. <http://www.gwytb.gov.cn/bps/bps_zgty.htm>

  40. Ji, You. 2006. China’s Anti-Secession Law and the risk of war in the Taiwan Strait. Contemporary Security Policy 27(2): 237-257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhao, S. 2004. A nation-state by construction: Dynamics of modern Chinese nationalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Baum, R. 2006. The Taiwan-China tangle: divided sovereignty in the age of globalization. In No more states? Globalization, national self-determination, and terrorism, ed. R.N. Rosecrance and A.A. Stein. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Carpenter, T.G. 2005. America’s coming war with China: A collision course over Taiwan. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  44. TaipeiTimes. 2005. Chen updates cross-strait “Guidelines.” August 7. <http://taiwansecurity.org/TT/2005/TT-070805.htm>

  45. National Security Council. 2006. 2006 national security report. May 20. <http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/download/2006nsreport.pdf>

  46. Bush, R.C. 2005. Lee Teng-hui and “separatism. In Dangerous strait: The U.S.-Taiwan-China crisis, ed. N.B. Tucker. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lee Teng-hui. 1999. The road to democracy: Taiwan’s pursuit of identity. Tokyo: PHP Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Corcuff, S. 2002. The symbolic dimension of democratization and the transition of national identity under Lee Teng-hui. In Memories of the future: National identity issues and the search for a new Taiwan, ed. S. Corcuff. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Cook, M. 2005. Taiwan’s identity challenge. SAIS Review 15(2): 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Chang, H.C., and R. Holt. 2009. Taiwan and ROC: A critical analysis of president Chen Shui-bien’s construction of Taiwan identity in national speeches. National Identities 11(3): 301–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ying-jeou, Ma. 2008. Taiwan’s renaissance: Inauguration speech. May 20. <http://www.president.gov.tw/en/20080520_PRESIDENT_INAUGURAL/e_speech.html>

  52. Iok-sin, Loa. 2008. Ma repeats “region-to-region” comments. Taipei Times.

  53. Ross, R.S. 2009. Chinese security policy: Structure, power and politics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Klineberg, O. 1964. The human dimension in international relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Nandy, A. 1983. The intimate enemy: Loss and recovery of self under colonialism. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Taylor, C. 1985. Philosophy and the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Howard, M. 1979. War and the nation-state. Daedalus 108(4): 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Mansbach, R.W., and F. Wilmer. 2001. War, violence, and the Westphalian state system as a moral community. In Identities, borders, orders: Rethinking international relations theory, ed. M. Albert, D. Jacobson, and Y. Lapid. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Strange, S. 1999. The westfailure system. Review of International Studies 25(3): 345–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Campbell, D. 1998. National deconstruction: Violence, identity, and justice in Bosnia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Agnew, J. 2005. Sovereignty regimes: Territoriality and state authority in contemporary world politics. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95(2): 437–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Hobbes, T. 1968. In Leviathan, ed. C.B. Macpherson. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Burke, A. 2007. Beyond security, ethics and violence. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Zemin, Jiang. 1997. Asian Affairs Interview with Jiang Zemin. Asian Affairs, February. <http://www.asian-affairs.com/China/jiang.html>

  65. Mainland Affairs Council. 1994. Taihai liang’an guanxi shuomingshu (An explanation on the relations across the Taiwan Strait). <http://www.mac.gov.tw/gb/gb/mlpolicy/mlp2_3.htm>

  66. Kim, S.S., and L. Dittmer. 1993. Whither China’s quest for national identity? In China’s quest for national identity, ed. L. Dittmer and S.S. Kim. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Friedman, T. 1999. The lexus and the olive tree. London: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Jiang, Y.H. 2006. Is Taiwan a nation? On the current debate over Taiwanese national identity and national recognition. In The dignity of nations: Equality, competition, and honor in East Asian nationalism, ed. S.Y.S. Chien and J. Fitzgerald. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Roy, D. 2000. Tension in the Taiwan Strait. Survival 42(1): 76–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Jenne, E. 2006. National self-determination: A deadly mobilizing device. In Negotiating self-determination, ed. H. Hannum and E.F. Babbitt. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Taipei Times. 2003. Referendums a right, Chen says. June 23. <http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2003/06/23/2003056387>

  72. Xinhua. 2008. Jia Qinglin: Liang’an shangtan yao xianyihounan xian jingji hou zhengzhi (Jia Qinglin: Cross-strait talks should deal with easy issues before the difficult ones and put economy before politics). <http://news.xinhuanet.com/newscenter/2008-06/03/content_8307423.htm>

  73. Smith, J.M. 2001. One sovereign, two legal systems: China and the problem of commitment in Hong Kong. In Problematic sovereignty: Contested rules and political possibilities, ed. S.D. Krasner. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Biersteker, T.J., and C. Weber (eds.). 1996. State sovereignty as social construct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Wendt, A. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization 46(2): 391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Krasner, S.D. 2001. Rethinking the sovereign state model. Review of International Studies 27: 17–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Kan, S.A. 2009. China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” policy—Key statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei. Washington: Congressional Research Service (CRS).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Aron, R. 1973. Peace and war: A theory of international relations (an abridged version). New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Wang Yingjin. 2008. Guojia tongyi moshi yanjiu (A study of national unification models). Beijing: Jiuzhou chubanshe.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Wei, Yung. 2004. From functional integration to structural readjustment: Taipei-Beijing relations and the role of the United States. Journal of Contemporary China 13(40): 427–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Bush, R.C. 2004. At cross purposes: U.S.-Taiwan relations since, 1942. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Johnson, C.A. 1962. Peasant nationalism and communist power: The emergence of revolutionary China 1937–1945. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Jean-Marc Blanchard, Baogang Guo, Baogang He, Dennis Hickey, and Damien Kingsbury for their valuable comments and help. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the International Relations Seminar Series at Deakin University in April 2009 and the International Symposium on “Peaceful Development and Deepening Integration in the Greater China Region” at National Chengchi University, Taipei, 11–12 June 2009. I thank the participants for their helpful feedback. I also gratefully acknowledge the research assistance of Xuemei Bai as well as the financial support of the Research Development Fund, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of International & Political Studies, Faculty of Arts & Education, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3217, Australia

    Chengxin Pan

Authors
  1. Chengxin Pan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chengxin Pan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pan, C. Westphalia and the Taiwan Conundrum: A Case against the Exclusionist Construction of Sovereignty and Identity. J OF CHIN POLIT SCI 15, 371–389 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-010-9117-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-010-9117-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation