Juridical Admissibility of a Solution to the China Problem
109
‑Another line for a China回policyat the present stage‑
K. E. Shaw
I. Meaning of the China Problem， scope of discussion
誼idmethod
The China Problem bas come to the critrcal point. Many a solutroils were offered, but all have been consistently and uncom‑
promisingly refused by the two existing Chinese entities判 .Though changing circumstances objectively require a way out of the dead‑ lock, with the natural tendency of disregarding to some extent the stern attitudes of the two Chinese entities, at this very moment it must be frankly admitted that there remams no probability of overcommg the China Dilemma.
* Due to space, discussions about the actual practicability and political
desirability of a possible solution admitted in law a目 leftfor future demonstrations in a more complete form
The word juridical is used in the present article as the antithetic term against the pahtical The word pohtical， when used with quotation marks, will have a broader sense as to include economic, social, mihtary, and psychologic, etc. aspects of the China Problem which are mixed in considerations of strategy and tactics m the process of policy‑making by third States toward China And this is to be understood on purely conceptual dimension and in a metaphorical sense‑ that the economic, social, etc streams differing in origin meet at the estuary of the "political nver as against the juridical bank m the making of a foreign pohcy.
紳 In this paper, the Chinese State is signified by the word "Chma without modi五cation,while the two existing Chinese entities are refer‑ red to as the Nationahst Side" and the Communist Sideヘwithout
quotation marks.
In the scholarly circle, solut10ns, amazmg as they are both m quantity and in quality, lead one to associate the China Problem with puzzle, with gibbering, and with mystery. This phenomenon comes less from the fact that this Problem 1s unique as well as unprecedented, than from the fact that such solutions so sug‑ gested are necessary conclusions of ideological preoccupations of respective researchers who made them. And the etiological cause 1s that the term China Problem 1s deemed as something self‑ evident, hence it 1s kept ambiguous at the very beginmng intentionally or unconsciously
Besides the ever‑advanc,ng factor of Time, there are two inter related factors m all international problems, viz., Space and Relat10n Indeed, problems, of whatever nature they may be, are all subject to Time as one kind of force majeure, because they are destined to be resolved sooner or later through one way or the other. The Chma Problem cannot be the only exception to this truth; and doubtlessly the best and the most certain means to solve the China Problem is time itself. But facing the highly tens10nal world‑situat10n of today one cannot a百ordawa1tmg the mercy of the Supreme Category, at the expense of a possible solution which may bring forth secular, though relative, sat1sfac‑ t10ns to most of all.
If this 1s so, then Time is taken as the potential and v1S1onal gmde for long‑range policy, but is excluded from cons1derat10n m our discussion process through which to search for another line of a China‑policy at the present stage wh比hmay in turn cast l!ght on the road leading to a solut10n, imperfect as it may be, admis‑ sible in international law as objective existence, m contrad1stin・
ct10n to political judgements which are largely subject to Time as the historical controller.
In e旺ect,there remain two factors Space and Relation. In the China Problem, they bear distinct implications, thus provide the Problem with sped百cmeanmg. every State is at her own peculiar
Jurid1団lAdmissibility of a Solution to the China Problem" 111 stand vis‑a‑vis Chma with reference to her non‑human contiguity with Chma (e.g., geopolitical, tactical considerations) and to their human (mutual) attractiveness (e g., historic cultural, ethn'c, com‑
mercial considerations).
With the above at the background, as material the disposal of wh'ch is the ob]ective〔notnecessarily aim") of a foreign policy, the China Problem takes many forms before many States. It fol‑ lows that 1f we have a Chma Problem for USA and another for USSR, we also have a China Problem for Japan, and even one for each of the two existing Chinese entities, mstead of having the China Problem as a generalized abstraction. Accordmgly, the content of the Chma Problem is also different from State to State, in that some of its ISsues・ may to some States be so important that compromise is beyond question as it may endanger their national survival, while to other States such 1s‑ sues, and even the Chma Problem as a whole, may not be the least detrimental to their nat10nal interests. Such specific meaning is substantially decisive of the measure of desirability of a solution for di百erentStates Desirability of a certa;n solution 副首ersfrom one State to another, hence the China pohcy of a State 1s bound to di百erfrom that of another. It stands to reason that desirability IS matter of degree. And 1f these are correct, then, on the one hand, analogy of a States position 〔actionor maction〕as confronted by the ιhina Problem (or some issues thereof) with another States, IS a cancer for understanding of the Problem, as such analogy is, m nearly all cases, mistaken, on the other hand, a more desirable solution to the Problem should take as its barometer the greatest common measure of attitudes of most States, includmg China herself (note that some States may not be in need of de自ningthe China situation, but nevertheless are in a position to decide on theロ1atterof recognition and hold votes in the Umted Nations General Assembly which determines the Chmese representation rnsue)' . This is the frst di伍cultyfor a
