When Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou of the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, KMT) succeeded former President Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in Taiwan’s democratic regime change in May 2008, it signaled some deep and profound shifts in Taiwan’s cross-Strait relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Ma’s proclamation, in his first inaugural address, of “no unification, no independence, and no use of military force” under the “framework of the Republic of China Constitution” represented a departure from the cross-Strait policy of two former presidents, Lee Teng-hui (1988-2000) and Chen Shui-bian (2000-2008). Both former presidents’ politically charged and fiery rhetoric, and pursuit of elements of de jure statehood status for Taiwan, exacerbated China’s fear of Taiwan’s creeping but eventual split from the “Chinese motherland.” The Ma administration’s policies have helped increase cross-Strait exchanges in areas with low political tension, such as business transactions, tourism, and cultural visits.
However, the terrain of high politics remains full of sensitivity and controversy, and neither Taiwan nor China has healed as easily or in the same ways as in those arenas of low politics. For example, since 2008 President Ma has sought to take advantage of improved relations with China to expand Taiwan’s participation in inter-governmental organizations (IGOs). Although China has accepted the diplomatic truce for the time being, its unyielding adherence to its self-defined “one China” principle has continued to be an insurmountable barrier for Taiwan’s IGO participation.
Consequently, an active push for enthusiastic engagement in international activities through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has surged as an alternative approach to the expansion of Taiwan’s international space. NGOs have long been cherished as an avenue through which Taiwan can navigate the turbulence of globalization, the rapid revolution of information technology, and the high degrees of complexity and interdependence in numerous transnational and interconnected issue areas across which various powers and interests compound and compete. By complementing the role and function of states, NGOs are an international venue for the representation and articulation of Taiwan’s public interest in areas such as the promotion of human rights, environmental sustainability, local community infrastructure construction, public health advancement, agricultural assistance, and humanitarian reliefs. They also represent an important forum in which Taiwan can share its experiences, learn from the experiences of others, and develop networks of connections.
The proliferation of Taiwanese NGOs stems from Taiwan’s democratization in late 1980s, the dwindling number of Taiwan’s IGO memberships, an increase of domestic social wealth, a desire to return favors to the international community for its previous good deeds to Taiwan, and human altruism. According to governmental registration records, currently there are more than 40,000 NGOs in Taiwan, and more than 2,000 of them have conducted cross-national activities or are affiliated with international NGOs (INGOs). Firm commitment, specific missions, impartiality and independence in political stands, and budgetary efficiency have given some of Taiwan’s NGOs access to issue areas in which China has prevented Taiwan’s government from participating. Therefore, in order to help these cross-national NGOs’ work, and to augment Taiwan’s international participation and visibility without being bogged down by the political obstacles of Taiwan’s statehood status, Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) set up a NGO Affairs Committee in October 2000.
Features of Taiwan’s Transnational NGOs
Taiwan’s NGOs exhibit several distinctive characteristics in their external endeavors.
A supplementary role for Taiwan’s diplomacy
While NGOs are usually autonomous and self-reliant in agenda setting and implementation, the government is eager to partner with NGOs by offering needed financial assistance and logistical support to NGOs to host international conferences in Taiwan or attend activities abroad. The government also authorizes specific NGOs to work in certain issue areas that are better tackled through unofficial channels. MOFA allocated US$ 12.7 million for NGO activities in 2008 with approximately three quarters of the budget slated for several major government-sponsored NGOs such as the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD) for parliamentary diplomacy, academic exchanges, and collaboration with foreign think thanks; and the Confederation of Asia-Pacific Chambers of Commerce and Industry (CACCI) for matters related to external business and trade.
Thus, as an unofficial connection with other advanced democracies, the TFD actively participates in the World Forum for Democratization in Asia and the World Movement for Democracy, a global network initiated by the Washington, DC-based National Endowment for Democracy. The same applies to CACCI, which serves as a link to other national chambers of commerce in 27 Asian and Western Pacific countries and holds an NGO consultative status in the UN.
The rest of the MOFA budget for NGOs in 2008, more than US$ 3 million, helped facilitate cross-national engagement by other socially organized domestic and international NGOs. In addition to hosting workshops and seminars for future NGO talents to learn more about the intricacies and operations of international NGOs in global affairs, MOFA has launched an annual program to sponsor several domestic NGO administrators for two-month self-sought internships at reputable international NGOs such as Mercy Corps and the American Council for Voluntary International Action (InterAction). The purpose is not only to acquire knowledge and gain experience, but also to broaden access to NGO transnational advocacy networks. The government-organized and -funded International Cooperation and Development Fund (TaiwanICDF) hosts workshops for both transnational and Taiwanese NGOs for multilateral exchanges of experiences and expertise. TaiwanICDF also works with domestic NGOs on a wide range of overseas development projects.
Naturally, encouragement and subsidies from public coffers raise concerns about NGOs’ independence and functional impartiality. Amazingly, in light of Taiwan’s lively and noisy media coverage and critical legislative scrutiny, there has been no report of serious governmental interference or impropriety in NGOs’ agenda setting or operational autonomy. Rather than directing and monitoring NGOs’ processes and behaviors, the government cares more about the diplomatic outcomes these NGOs could generate—enhanced status, image, and visibility in the international community of a compassionate, democratic, and pro-active Taiwan.
NGOs’ supplementary role in diplomacy is best illustrated by the campaign to end Taiwan’s exclusion from the global public health network through the World Health Organization. Taiwan’s inability to receive urgent international consultation and assistance during the 2003 SARS public health scare, a situation condemned by Taiwanese officials as “medical apartheid,” led public health NGOs such as the Foundation of Medical Professionals Alliance in Taiwan and the Taiwan International Medical Alliance (TIMA) to lobby consistently for years for Taiwan’s participation in the global health network. Along with the government, these health NGOs exerted pressure and highlighted the danger of excluding Taiwan from a globalized society in which transnational epidemic crises may occur. Taiwan was finally granted annual observer status in the World Health Assembly after Ma Ying-jeou’s election. Another example is in the area of climate change, an issue about which Taiwan’s government is deeply concerned. Government agencies were excluded from participation in the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in Brazil in June 2012, so Taipei had to rely on domestic environmental NGOs, one of them nicknamed “Taiwan Action NGO” (TANGO), to represent Taiwan in the People’s Summit alongside the UN Conference.
A substantial majority of Taiwan’s socially-organized NGOs has focused on development assistance, poverty reduction, voluntary medical service, and humanitarian relief. Some well-known NGOs include: World Vision Taiwan, which operates a Child Sponsorship Program in 40 countries and 78 Area Development Programs in a number of countries, designed to raise standards of living over the long term; the Tzu Chi (Ciji) Foundation, for its extraordinary relief efforts in 70 countries; the Buddha’s Light International Association, which has a global reach and conducts relief work; the Taiwan Root Medical Peace Corps, with voluntary missions in numerous countries; and the Field Relief Agency of Taiwan, for aid specifically in Cambodia. Many began by addressing local and regional humanitarian needs due to geographic proximity, historical linkage, cultural affinity, and financial affordability have broadened their scope of service. Through the years, their large-scale systematic disaster relief operations have been well noted, as in the severe earthquake in China’s Sichuan province (2008), the combination of earthquake and tsunami disasters in Japan (2011), and the similar disaster in the Indian Ocean (2004). Following the Indian Ocean tsunami, when Taiwan’s official pledge of US$ 50 million (higher than the amount of either New Zealand or India) encountered difficulties in timely transport of relief goods because of recipient countries’ concerns over possible Chinese diplomatic protests, NGOs like Tzu Chi became a convenient, expedient channel of relief delivery. In this case, NGOs perform as “the nexus of the global and the local,” free from international political constraints. They serve as a societal response to Taiwan’s ambiguous non-nation/non-state status in the international community by expanding their global reach. “Time for Taiwan to feed back its love to the world,” a slogan of the Taiwan Root Medical Peace Corps, best captures these NGOs’ humanitarian missions and altruistic efforts. These NGOs’ altruistic activities have won widespread recognition and admiration.
NGOs as stealth cross-Strait peacemakers
With their presumptive neutrality in political orientation, some of Taiwan’s NGOs reach across the Taiwan Strait to conduct cultural exchanges, business advancement, and relief efforts. Despite the rise of a Taiwanese indigenous identity in recent decades, which has engendered occasional domestic criticisms against these Taiwanese “do-good” organizations for their non-governmental works in China, Taiwanese NGOs remain committed to their humanitarian efforts in China. At the same time, government-organized NGOs, such as the Prospect Foundation, have offered a non-governmental platform for political entrepreneurs and policy analysts from both sides to dialogue, explore the feasibility and impact of new ideas, converge mutual differences subtly, and minimize the possibilities of miscommunication. These government-organized NGOs also inform, explain, examine, and explore various issues of cross-Strait relations to other countries with interests and concerns.
The continuing challenge of nomenclature
Although the issue of statehood is less relevant to NGOs’ mission and functionality than it is for Taiwan’s participation in IGOs, China’s “one China” principle still constrains Taiwan NGOs from a full range of international participation. After the People’s Republic of China (PRC) replaced the Republic of China (ROC) in the UN, in 1973 Beijing requested that UNESCO notify all of its 319 affiliated NGOs to terminate any institutional linkage with Taiwan. By July 1975, only 20 of the 37 International NGOs with institutional associations with Taiwan had replied, and an overwhelming majority of them flatly rejected the demand by arguing that political considerations should not interfere in the self-governing principle of non-political NGOs. Surely, China’s adamant stance on its one China principle had become an obstacle to Taiwan’s international participation. However, the Taiwan government’s self-claimed representation of the whole of China during the two Chiangs’ era (Presidents Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo) might have inhibited its chance for flexible diplomacy to better serve Taipei’s foreign policy interests then.
Even so, Taiwan has been pressured to accommodate to the new international reality. Taiwan boycotted the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid, New York in protest of a decision by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that it could compete only under the name “Chinese Taipei”; in 1981 Taiwan accepted this name and has participated ever since. Another compromise was China’s adoption of “The China Association for Science and Technology, Beijing” and Taiwan’s acceptance of “The Academy of Sciences Located in Taipei, China” for both governments to participate in the International Council of Scientific Unions in 1982. In 1993, China further tightened its policy by permitting Taiwan’s international participation only under the name “Taipei, China” or “Taiwan, China,” both of which imply that Taiwan is a mere sub-unit within China’s political domain. Since then, the choice of proper nomenclature for Taiwan’s international participation has become a perennial cross-Strait issue; China sees this as an opportunity to block what it sees as attempts at “Taiwan independence,” and Taiwan refuses to be considered as a subjugated entity under China’s authority.
Stated differently, despite the fact that NGOs are usually less controversial than IGOs in international participation, China also imposes harsh restrictions on name representation and participation for Taiwan’s transnational NGOs. Even as recently as March 2012, Taiwan’s NGO delegates with Taiwan IDs were prohibited from attending the session hosted by the UN Commission on the Status of Women until they improvised by showing foreign IDs to join the session. In the 2010 Tokyo International Film Festival, a Chinese representative’s insistence that Taiwan’s delegation be placed under “Taiwan, China” quickly provoked a media sensation and public debates about China’s unreasonable demands in international non-political settings. Similar kinds of naming controversies have continued to occur in recent years.
Implications and Suggestions
NGOs offer Taiwan visibility and a voice for diplomatic sustainability as well as a sense of dignity, respect, and self-worth for an associational life in the global community. Participation in them is an important part of Taiwan’s “huolu waijiao” (活路外交) or “flexible diplomacy.” They do represent a bit of a detour, as they are used in part to accomplish what the government is blocked from accomplishing in the world of IGOs. Active NGO participation is a bottom-up, gradualist, slow, and supplementary approach that can be accomplished without railing about sovereignty in a noisy manner. Conversely, international society can benefit from the expertise, compassion, and resources that Taiwan’s NGOs bring to the table. Also, frankly, engaging Taiwan in the NGO arena is a low-cost way for the international community to alleviate some criticisms about a democratic deficit and fairness deficit in global governance that result in part from the exclusion of Taiwan from so many international issue areas.
Of course, in a world of power hierarchy and status asymmetry, Taiwan is unlikely to achieve a great leap forward in international participation by relying on its NGOs’ altruistic acts. Since President Ma’s calls for a diplomatic truce and expansion of Taiwan’s international space in 2008, by October 2011 Taiwan had become either a full member or an observer in five international organizations and four NGOs. The record shows a slight improvement in the quantity of Taiwan’s international participation, but as noted above the naming controversy remains. More seriously, China continues to refuse to loosen its restrictions on Taiwan’s participation, even for NGOs; surely, one should not expect that China will make any concessions other than for self-interest and apparently Beijing does not yet perceive a reason to allow Taiwan to represent itself. Even in Taiwan, however, national identity remains a politically contested issue, and society has not reached consensus on a list of non-objectionable names for Taiwan’s IGO and NGO participation.
Even when NGOs operate in areas which are frequently the domain of states, they are not an effective substitute for the crucial role of state authority in multilateral diplomacy because states remain the legitimate authorities to arbitrate and resolve dispute.  However, NGOs’ positive impacts depend on the acceptance and appreciation of their “recipients.” The presumable political neutrality of NGO activities usually implies that the act is a goodwill gesture without political strings attached, and that there is no expectation of favors in return. This naturally undercuts the value of NGOs’ political influence in the overall achievement of Taiwan’s diplomacy. Any political rewards for Taiwan’s offers of developmental assistance and humanitarian aid can only be rendered by recipients who have the will, capability, and autonomy to reciprocate in concrete political terms.
A survey of Taiwan’s past NGO practices shows some interesting implications for Taiwan to explore every available and favorable political opportunity in the future.
Continue NGO diplomacy
Regardless of the challenges, Taiwan should continue NGO diplomacy with its multilateral partners. In short, NGOs in themselves provide important public goods as they help identify and solve new global issues and strengthen the global public engagement apart from the system of states; they also provide a crucial link for Taiwan’s local civil society with its international counterparts on a wide range of global issue areas related to Taiwan’s future sustainability and growth. China’s usual assertion that Taiwanese people’s interests and welfare have been incorporated into China’s representation and articulation in the international society neglects the fact that Taiwan remains out of China’s governance, and thus China is unable to meet domestic needs in Taiwan. Nevertheless, China’s staunch subscription to its “one China” principle has rendered Taiwan’s IGO membership efforts a difficult challenge. Consequently, NGOs are a viable option for Taiwan to reach out for the supply and demand of global public goods. Conversely, the connection with transnational networks offers leverage to Taiwanese NGOs to be government watchdogs for policy improvement and to deepen Taiwan’s civil society and democracy.
Strengthen government’s NGO policy
With the multiplicity of NGOs in numbers, function, and operation, it has been a daunting task for Taiwan to realize full diplomatic benefits of the rise of NGOs at home and abroad. There is no “one-size-fits-all” formula for governmental NGO policy. It is also difficult to assess the impact of Taiwanese governmental assistance to domestic NGOs. As noted above, MOFA helps facilitate NGO administrator internships in international NGOs and supports workshops for NGO knowledge exchange and experience sharing. Whatever policy is adopted, the primary goal of any government NGO policy should be to help Taiwan NGOs navigate the dense webs of networks, interactions, and interrelations in an increasingly tight-knit global society well beyond the confines of sovereign states.
Expand cross-Strait NGO engagement
Taiwan should advocate for and expand the interaction of its government-organized NGOs and socially organized NGOs with their Chinese counterparts for further exchanges and collaboration in non-political areas. Although NGOs operating within China must avoid sensitive issues like human rights, they can serve as stealth agents for the diffusion of Taiwan’s democratic ideas, social values, and good governance in China. As predicted by functionalist integration theory, repeated bilateral interactions reinforce political commitments among elites across the Strait, cultivate shared principled values, and recalibrate mutual interests for spillover effects from low-politics issues to high-politics areas. Over time, quantitative changes in cross-Strait interactions may bring up some subtle qualitative transformation in perspectives and reciprocal relations. At a minimum, one wishes that NGO movements can quietly de-territorialize political barriers for the emergence of an institutional framework of stable peace across the Taiwan Strait, as envisioned by scholars like Kacowicz, Boulding and Deutsch.
China must compromise
China can and should do more to minimize diplomatic discord over Taiwan’s international NGO participation and nomenclature. Following Taiwan’s active drive for an independent identity prior to 2008, Ma’s moves for peaceful reconciliation since 2008 and his explicit reconfirmation of “one ‘Republic of China,’ two areas” in his 2012 inaugural speech are significant steps in Taiwanese politics, which has been tormented by national identity division for decades, and fall within the spirit of the 1992 Consensus which China seems to hold as a baseline for reconciliation. China could consolidate Ma’s proclamations with positive reinforcements by actively accommodating Taiwan’s requests for more international space through IGO and NGO participation. In fact, Taiwan’s NGO approach is a risk-free opportunity for China. With its steadily increasing global prominence, China effectively holds quasi-veto power over any diplomatic attempt by Taiwan for sovereign recognition. As long as the representative title of Taiwanese NGOs does not seriously deviate from the apparent 1992 Consensus, China should take this golden opportunity to conceptualize, contextualize, and construct the broadly and loosely defined “one China” concept. China’s conciliatory move to loosen up the confines of “one China” in naming would help “self-educate” and socialize each side’s domestic constituencies and international audiences. Unnecessary disputes and disruption on the nomenclature issue will only add fuel to the fire of Taiwan’s domestic politics, and will simultaneously strengthen the uncompromising stand of Chinese nationalists and promote the continued suppression of Taiwanese NGOs in transnational forums. Moreover, China’s firm stand, its foreign ministry’s rigid interpretation and application of the “one China” principle, and the consequent denial of Taiwanese public aspirations for international participation do not help China win the hearts and minds of Taiwan’s citizens. Rather, China’s failure to adjust its “one China” principle simply perpetuates the tensions between the two sides.
If meaningful participation is the objective, both sides should reach a tacit understanding on a list of non-objectionable names for Taiwan’s international participation. In an asymmetric relationship, a feasible deal usually requires the strong party (i.e., China) to give extra latitude for a better chance to convince the weak party (i.e., Taiwan) to reach a solid institutional commitment because the strong party has abundant resources to spare and the weak party often harbors overwhelming fear of future losses in any institutional deal. The strong party’s concession signals a powerful commitment to be bound by an arrangement which may not be beneficial for the short term, but fruitful in the long run. China’s concessions in the recent Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) provide a useful example. A similar approach to Taiwan’s NGOs activities―and later IGO participation―can be quite appealing and may defuse anti-China opponents’ rhetorical power and sentiment in Taiwan and help Beijing win the hearts and minds of the Taiwanese people. China could also improve its global image as a benevolent power and pragmatic actor in regional and international affairs, which would in turn boost its constant aspiration for a “peaceful rise” in the world arena.
Fight the good fight
Finally, a successful NGO campaign requires acknowledgement and appreciation from international society. The restrictions placed on Taiwan’s international NGO participation literally deny Taiwan a salient societal voice and undercut the democratic mission of international institutions. The United States, other major powers, and INGOs could assist Taiwanese NGOs’ endeavors without affecting the implementation of their “one China” policies. While Taiwan’s NGOs have shown unwavering conviction, effort, and competence in humanitarian reliefs, it is about the time for the world to reciprocate the same to Taiwanese NGOs by giving them due recognition and a proper role to contribute to the international community without political obstacles.
 Shen Zewei, “Taiwan NGO kunjing zhong tui zhan waijiao”(Taiwan’s NGO efforts to expand diplomacy amid difficult circumstances), Nov. 8, 2010. <www.zaobao.com/special/china/Taiwan/pages13/taiwan101108.shtml>. As for the complexity of NGO categories, please see Bob Reinalda, “Private in Form, Public in Purpose: NGOs in International Relations Theory.” In Bas Arts, Math Noortmann, and Bob Reinalda, ed., Non-State Actors in International Relations, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2001, 11-40. This study focuses primarily on Taiwanese NGOs with cross-national activities.
 Wu Jianguo, “Jiji fudao Taiwan NGO kuozhan guoji kongjian” (Actively Assist Taiwanese NGOs to Expand International Space), Xin shiji zhiku luntan (New Century Foundation Forum), no. 48, Dec. 30, 2009, 51-52. <www.taiwanncf.org.tw/ttforum/48/48-11.pdf>.
 Shen Zewei, “Taiwan NGO kunjing zhong tui zhan waijiao” (Taiwan’s NGO efforts to expand diplomacy amid difficult circumstances), Nov. 8, 2010. <www.zaobao.com/special/china/Taiwan/pages13/taiwan101108.shtml>; Wu Rongquan, “Woguo feizhengfu zuzhi guoji canyu zhi xiankuang yu zhanwang” (The current status and prospect of Taiwan’s NGOs’ international participation), March 19, 2012. <www.taiwanngo.tw/files/15-1000-16913,c104-1.php?Lang=zh-t>.
 “Taiwan TANGO tuan qianjin lianheguo yongxu fenghui” (Taiwanese TANGO team advances to UN Conference on Sustainable Development”, May 24, 2012. <www.taiwanngo.tw/files/15-1000-17407,c167-1.php?Lang=zh-tw>.
 Rhoda Margesson, “Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami: Humanitarian Assistance and Relief Operations,” CRS Report for Congress, February 10, 2005, Order Code RL32715, CRS-3; “Indonesia: Tzu Chi Helps Tsunami Victims Fleeing Aceh to Medan,” December 31, 2004 <reliefweb.int/node/161588>. Other reports of Tzu Chi’s relief works in recent years can be found in <reliefweb.int/organization/tzu-chi>.
 C. Julia Huang, “Genealogies of NGO-ness: The Cultural Politics of a Global Buddhist Movement in Contemporary Taiwan.” Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique, 17(2), Fall 2009, 366.
 UNESCO, “Resolutions and Decisions Adopted by the Executive Board at Its 93rd Session, Paris, 12 September-11 October 1973,” UNESCO Executive Board, 93 EX/Decisions, Paris, November 9, 1973, 40; UNESCO, “Report of the Director-General on the Application of 93 EX/Decision 6.9,” UNESCO Executive Board, 94 EX/33, Paris, February 20, 1974. Also see “Volume 1, Resolutions,” Records of the General Conference, Eighteenth Session, UNESCO, Paris, October 17 to November 23, 1974, p. 84.
 UNESCO, “The Question of International Non-Governmental Organizations Maintaining Relations with UNESCO and in Which Bodies or Elements Linked with Chiang Kai-shek Still Participate, Having Illegally Usurped the Name of China,” UNESCO Executive Board, 98 EX/20, Paris, August 29, 1975. NGOs’ refusal to follow UNESCO’s request also appeared in the 1976 UNESCO Director-General’s report to the Executive Board. Please see 100 EX/25 Paris, August 26, 1976.
 Semantic differences of nomenclatures signify various identity perspectives and political implications. For example, “Taiwan, China” and “Taipei, China” imply that Taiwan is part of China (the PRC). “Chinese Taipei” will be a better choice because the word “Chinese” carries a broader implication beyond politics, should Taiwan’s official title, “Republic of China,” be unattainable. Still, the translation of “Chinese Taipei” in Chinese should be “Zhonghua Taipei” (中華台北), not “Zhongguo Taipei” (中國台北), because the Chinese translation of “Zhongguo Taipei” still implies China’s authority over Taiwan. See David W. F. Huang, “Shitan liangan hejiexia Taiwan canyu guoji zuzhi zhi fali jichu” (Exploring the Legal Bases of Taiwan’s Participation in International Organizations in the Contest of 2008 Cross-Strait Rapprochement), Taiwan guojifa jikan (Taiwan International Law Quarterly), 5(4), 2008, 81-83.
 “Tai minjindang : zhonggong daya yi cong guanfang yanshen dao feizhengfu zuzi” (Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party: China’s suppression has extended from governmental organizations to NGOs), Radio Free Asia (Chinese), March 28, 2012. <www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/mjg-03282012095152.html>.
 For instance, according to Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there were 85 cases reported in 2010 for mislisting Taiwan’s NGO as China’s regional member in transnational NGO websites under Chinese NGO’s demand. <www.taiwanngo.tw/files/15-1000-6330,c88-1.php>.
 For a discussion of “fairness deficit,” please see Susan Marks, “Democracy and International Governance.” In The Legitimacy of International Organizations, ed. Jean-Marc Coicaud and Veijo Heiskanen, Tokyo and New York: United Nations University Press 2001, 47-68.
 According to Bonnie Glaser and Brittany Billingsley, Taiwan joined 6 additional international organizations by October 2011, though the website of Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2012 shows only five after 2008. See Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, <www.mofa.gov.tw/Official/Home/RelatedLink/?opno=be23c3a0-2e22-4fe3-b37c-3599074880f4> and Bonnie Glaser and Brittany Billingsley, Taiwan’s 2012 Presidential Elections and Cross-Strait Relations: Implications for the United States. A Report of the CSIS Freeman Chair in China Studies, Washington, DC; Center for Strategic and International Studies, November 2011, 3.
 Joel M. Podolny and Karen L. Page, “Network Forms of Organization.” Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1998, 59.
 Alexander Cooley and James Ron, “The NGO Scramble: Organizational Insecurity and the Political Economy of Transnational Action.” International Security, 27 (1), 2002, 5-39.
 John Ruggie, “Reconstituting the Global Public Domain: Issues, Actors, and Practices.” European Journal of International Relations, 10, 2004, 499-531.
 Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.
 Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1985, 188-189; Arie M. Kacowicz and Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, “Stable Peace: A Conceptual Framework,” in Arie Marcelo Kacowicz, Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, Ole Elgstrom, and Magnus Herneck, ed., Stable Peace Among Nations. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000, 11; Kenneth E. Boulding, Stable Peace. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1978; Karl W. Deutsch, Political Community at the International Level. Salt Lake City, UT: ECKO House Publishing, 2006, first published in 1954.