||The recognition policy of the United States toward Taiwan has been rather consistent in its ambivalence. That is, the United States has chosen a foreign policy route of non-recognition while at the same time discouraging the government of Taiwan not to disturb the stable, but sometimes volatile waters of the Taiwan Strait by declaring independence. This policy of course, engendered by the United States apprehension that such a political declaration would provoke Taiwan’s economic and military power adjoining neighbor; the People’s Republic of China.|
This dissertation looks at the inconsistent recognition policies of the United States toward the Republic of China and dispenses with the cause of these inconsistencies, the political process and analysis, and analyzes what is the recognition policies of the United States based on the laws of the United States at the state and federal judicial levels.
In this research I also examine international laws concerning recognition absent the political process and determine if they, too, correspond with the laws of the United States of if they are in fact totally different and based on a different sort of legal criteria. Absent a strong and coherent legal standard in the international realm, I will also look at how other international institutions and organizations like INGOs either reinforce or weaken the rule of law when it comes to their interaction with states and the issue of recognizing nation-states.
Finally, in addition to whether international law and INGOs adhere to or are guided by the rule of law, I propose that if one is not willing to use a legal standard to bestow recognition, then perhaps an intermediary position is the answer. Using as a starting point the agreed upon definition of what is a state is by the Montevideo Conference, I propose a rather simple criteria to determine if recognition should be granted by nation-states by using a non-political and a non-legal means.