21

Sort of a follow-up question to one of my previous questions.

The idea is that the UK does not recognize the Islamic State as a country, therefore they cannot just revoke Shamina Begum's citizenship by saying she's a citizen of IS. From the UK's perspective, IS isn't a country, it isn't legally allowed to any territory, any legal documents it issues are worthless, and IS "citizens" have no right to travel to the UK.

If this is the case, then presumably what applies to IS ought to also apply to Taiwan. Since the UK does not recognize Taiwan, how is it still possible for Taiwanese people to travel to the UK? The same question goes for any of several non-recognized countries in the world, such as Kosovo.

There is some detail on this question on the Wikipedia page on Taiwan passport and Kosovan passport, but it doesn't answer the question. For example it says it is possible to travel to e.g. China on a Kosovan passport even though China does not recognize Kosovo, but it doesn't explain how that is possible. How come these travelers aren't stopped at the border?

Allure
  • 34,557
  • 16
  • 102
  • 190
  • 4
    Although the reasoning behind these kinds of decisions is definitely politics (and comes down to a duality between passports as identification of a person versus identification of a state/nationality), the details of mechanisms involved might be more suited for the Travel stack exchange site. In the case of the UK, most of the necessary information can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-are-acceptable-travel-documents-for-entry-clearance-ecb08 – origimbo Apr 06 '21 at 05:12
  • 2
    Outside of a vague and unhelpful answer like "realpolitik" I suspect that the actual legal basis for this is going to vary a lot from country to country. – GeoffAtkins Apr 06 '21 at 06:35
  • 41
    You are trying for a false equivalency where real equivalency doesnt exist - the UK does not have to be consistent in its recognition of travel documents, it can merrily accept Taiwanese passports while denying passports issued by other entities it does not recognise. –  Apr 06 '21 at 06:58
  • 4
    @moo please extend that to an answer rather than a comment. – James K Apr 06 '21 at 08:06
  • 11
    The UK government claims that she is a Bangladeshi citizen (though this is disputed); her status as an IS "citizen" is irrelevant. – Steve Melnikoff Apr 06 '21 at 08:10
  • 1
    @Moo: Also consider that, recognized or not (realpolitik, again), Taiwan is a civilized country which is at peace with the UK, and which enjoys mutually beneficial trade relations &c. The IS is an entity which is, as a fundamental tenet of its existence, at war with the UK (and the rest of the non-Islamic world). Consider whether the UK would have accepted travellers from Germany during WWII. – jamesqf Apr 06 '21 at 18:32
  • @jamesqf the UK recognised Taiwanese travel documents even before July 1987... And no, Im not comparing them to IS, Im adding more evidence for the “doesnt have to be consistent” stance. –  Apr 06 '21 at 20:17
  • @Moo: What's special about July 1987? The two countries had those mutually beneficial relationships before that date, and they continued. – jamesqf Apr 06 '21 at 21:27
  • @jamesqf Taiwan stopped being a military dictatorship and became a democratic society. People forget that Taiwan had a bad past... –  Apr 06 '21 at 21:53
  • 1
    Also, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness is not the only impediment to revocation of citizenship, nor would I want to live in and contribute to a state where it is. – Simon Richter Apr 07 '21 at 09:04
  • Taiwan (ROC) and Kosovo are countries with limited recognition, while IS (as far as I know) is not recognized. – Codes with Hammer Apr 07 '21 at 13:49
  • @Moo: Err... What exactly is wrong with being a military dictatorship? As for "bad past", mainland China's bad past (and present!) certainly dwarfs Taiwan's, yet realpolitik and economics make it mostly irrelevant. – jamesqf Apr 07 '21 at 15:46
  • @jamesqf are you being serious? And Im not debating you, because for one, Im not getting into a childish “buuuuut China is worse...... wahhhh!” back and forth, and secondly because my point earlier covers this - a country doesnt have to be consistent in its foreign policy. For example, see America backing a genocidal mass murderer purely because the alternative is backing a country that defeated it in a war only a few years earlier. –  Apr 07 '21 at 19:30
  • @Moo: Yes, I am being perfectly serious. If you don't like the comparison to mainland China, there are plenty of other countries in the post-WWII era that had decent relations with the West despite having military dictatorships: Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Turkey come immediately to mind. You brought up "bad past" as a reason for not having relations with Taiwan (not that I can think of anything particularly bad in Taiwanese history), so it seems perfectly reasonable to cite a comparable country that does have a bad past. Finally, I'm afraid your US illusion completely escapes me. – jamesqf Apr 07 '21 at 23:56
  • @jamesqf my issue isnt with the comparison with China, its with the pointlessness of it entirely given the nature of my original comment. And when has there ever been a decent military dictatorship? That was my issue. I brought up Taiwans nasty past because it points out that the countries situation has utterly no bearing on another country accepting or rejecting its travel documents or even being consistent in any area of foreign policy (which is where my US example comes in - they are happy to support a genocidal dictatorship when the opposition is a country they dont like). –  Apr 08 '21 at 00:02
  • @jamesqf I think you are trying to make issues where none exist, so Im going to stop responding to you now. –  Apr 08 '21 at 00:02
  • @Moo: Seems to me that you were the one trying to create issues, specifically the allegation of Taiwan's "nasty past", which you refuse to support. – jamesqf Apr 08 '21 at 16:05
  • acutually, an interesting thought experiment. Suppose Ms Begum had Taiwanese parents, and would be recognised by the RoC as a citizen of China (and had no connection to Bangladesh). Would she also be considered Chinese by the PRC? Would the UK government have been able to strip her of UK citizenship based on this...its just speculation... – James K Apr 08 '21 at 21:09

2 Answers2

55

It is up to any sovereign state to decide who it allows to admit and with what documentation (*). So it is free to accept Taiwanese travel documents but not IS documents. It is free to grant free movement over the Irish border without any form of documentation but require that Indian citizens have a visa, even for air-side transit.

There is no requirement for the government to be logical, reasonable or consistent. Indeed, individual border staff have wide remit to deny entry or cancel a visa (though they are expected to be reasonable, there is very little that you can do if they deny entry).

The admission of an individual does not imply recognition of the entity that issued the travel documents. It just means that that the UK (represented by border staff) believe that the person entering will comply with the conditions of entry.

So, how is it possible for people from Taiwan to travel to the UK? They use RoC issued passports which the UK government chooses to accept

In the case of Ms Begum, the UK government is claiming that she has Bangladeshi citizenship, and it is on these grounds that they have removed her UK citizenship. This is disputed.

(*) Of course I'm writing about the admission of foreign nationals. International law (ie multilateral agreements between countries) has a couple of requirements: that countries admit (and don't deport) their own citizens, and that people are not returned to danger, even if they entered without permission (ie refugees). The UK government doesn't want Begum to return, which is why they have claimed to have stripped her of UK citizenship. The "legality" of this is disputed, it is argued that the UK is in breach of various human rights treaties in depriving Begum of her UK citizenship. But this case is not simple, and I don't make any specific comment on the legality, as I'm not an international lawyer.

James K
  • 120,320
  • 22
  • 366
  • 478
  • "It is up to any sovereign state to decide who it allows to admit and with what documentation." Yes, within reason. But it is not allowed for a state to deport citizens and then revoke their citizenship to prevent them from reentering their home country. States must repatriate their own nationals. So the question is whether Begum is a Bangladeshi or British national. If it is the latter, the British government is violating international law. – Stand with Gaza Apr 09 '21 at 21:44
  • That is true, and I shall clarify, though the question is not actually about Begum, she's only raised as an example of a particular issue. – James K Apr 09 '21 at 22:55
5

Taiwan is quite a special case. It is not exactly "a country".

Both Taipei and Beijing support the idea of "single China" - they just somewhat differ at the point who is the legitimate government of this single China.

Most other countries are OK-ish with their dispute as long as Beijing and Taipei don't export it too vigorously. To please them both (at least to some extent), most countries recognize the "single China" idea and don't officially mess in their "internal" affairs.

They treat (officially) both kinds of passports as if they are issued by different provinces of a single country.

Glorfindel
  • 3,212
  • 3
  • 24
  • 42
fraxinus
  • 6,100
  • 11
  • 31
  • 2
    "They treat (officially) both kinds of passports as if they are issued by different provinces of a single country." Is that really an accurate summary? Citizens of Taiwan can visit the UK - and even study where the course is less than 6 months - without a visa. Citizens of (PR) China need a visa even to make an airside transit (i.e. remaining in the airport, never passing immigration) in the UK. I find it hard to reconcile that with the idea they're treated as just different provinces of the same country. – Chris H Apr 08 '21 at 06:44
  • 6
    @ChrisH I don't (necessarily) agree with the assertion about UK treating ROC passport as from a province of a single country. However, your example doesn't necessarily follow. There's no serious dispute that Hong Kong and Macau are both legally territory of and effectively administered by the PRC despite a high degree of autonomy. Nonetheless holders of Hong Kong and Macau passports (issued under PRC authority) are treated differently than mainland passport holders. – xngtng Apr 08 '21 at 11:05
  • @ChrisH To add to the key example given by zhantongz, PR China and the UK both treat different parts of their territory quite differently for immigration purposes. China does not have internal freedom of movement: Mainland citizens cannot travel to Hong Kong by right and vice versa. Foreigners require special permits to travel to Tibet; Mainlanders used to need them to enter Shenzhen. The UK has different immigration rules for travelers to England and Scotland. It's perhaps also worth noting that from 1949 to 1972 the UK had two consulates in Taiwan, accredited to the Provincial Government. – Matthew Apr 08 '21 at 12:11
  • 1
    @zhantongz that's certainly a fair point with the Macau/HK passports. – Chris H Apr 08 '21 at 12:45
  • 1
    @zhantongz There is no dispute that PRC claims Hong Kong and Taiwan and Tibet and the South China Sea and Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia and piles of territory and engages in Genocide and other violence to attack people who dispute those claims. PRC has repeatedly violated the terms of its deal with the UK in the return of HK. Taiwan has functioned as an independent state for decades, and its people have no desire to be part of the PRC as it currently exists. Under the principle of Self-Determination, huge chunks of "China" are not legitimately part of it. It is just imperialism, PRC style. – Yakk Apr 08 '21 at 14:34
  • 2
    @Yakk I don't think that's really relevant to the present discussion. Disputes about the human rights situation in PRC-controlled areas, so far, don't affect the international recognition of PRC government or its effective territories. There is no serious dispute that PRC is the effective government in HK and there is no serious political bodies, including UK, disputing that HK is under PRC sovereignty; no other alternative govt even pretends to exist. The situation is very different for Taiwan/ROC where a govt with effective control and certain degree of intl recognition exists. – xngtng Apr 08 '21 at 14:51