1950年代，國際奧林匹克委員會(International Olympic Committee, IOC)對台海兩岸之國家奧委會(National Olympic Committee, NOC)會籍採取「兩個中國」的雙重承認政策，但兩岸基於「天無二日、地無二王」和「漢賊不兩立」的文化價值觀，一向堅決反對國際奧委會採取「兩個中國」或「一中一台」的模糊路線。因此，兩岸在國際奧委會的戰火，不但未因雙雙加盟國際奧委會而稍見和緩，反而於1958年造成大陸退出國際奧委會、董守義辭去國際奧委會委員的後果。 1959年，蘇俄以會員加盟及委員聘請均須經國際奧委會年會通過為由，主張中華人民共和國之退會與董守義之辭職不是IOC主席布倫達治一人可以單獨決定，必須由國際奧委會年會通過，始能生效，在未經年會通過之前，仍應保持原有地位。1960年前後，英國和以蘇俄為首的共產集團，為安排中共重返國際奧委會，強烈質疑國際奧委會的政策路線與中華民國代表中國的合法性問題。此舉，終於引發國際奧林匹克委員會重新檢討它在海峽兩岸爭奪IOC中國代表權時所應扮演的角色。 國際奧林匹克委員會，在英國和以蘇俄為首之共產集團的壓力下，鑒於「中國奧林匹克委員會」(Chinese National Olympic Committee, COC)雖能有效統轄中華民國轄下之台澎金馬地區的體育組織，但卻不能實際管轄中華人民共和國轄下之大陸地區的體育組織，因此決定釐清中國代表權問題，並加以正名。國際奧委會為了解決這個問題，其間共召開四次會議。慕尼黑會議提出「實際控制體育領域」原則作為解決標準，決定將各國家奧委會的會名與其實際控制的領域掛鉤，而「台灣奧委會」就是它的預擬構想。巴黎會議則確立了各國家奧委會雖可自定會名，但國際奧委會保有根據其實際控制的體育領域指定其奧運代表隊名稱的權力。舊金山會議除了重申台灣的奧委會必須改名外，也決議台灣地區的選手可參加羅馬奧運會。羅馬會議則承認「中華民國奧林匹克委員會」(Republic of China Olympic Committee, ROCOC)的會籍，但也指定其奧運選手應在實際控制之體育領域的名稱── 「台灣」的名義之下，參加比賽。 中華民國在保衛「中國奧林匹克委員會」的會籍名稱不成之後，迅即主動更改會名為「中華民國奧林匹克委員會」，並要求承認，以維護在國際上「唯一合法」的正統地位。然而，國際奧委會採取事實上(de facto)的現狀認定政策，遂以中華民國之「實際控制的體育領域」僅止於台灣為由，強迫「中國奧林匹克委員會」改名為「台灣奧林匹克委員會」，以求名實相符。中華民國政府在「名分秩序論」的觀念下，認為「中國奧林匹克委員會」代表包含海峽兩岸在內，是獨一無二且名實合一的中國席位代表權；而「中華民國奧林匹克委員會」雖只代表涵蓋台澎金馬等實際控制之體育領域，但在法理上(de jure)它仍代表正統且唯一合法的中國。在「漢賊不兩立」的文化價值觀下，它也發揮了「阻匪返會」的防患未然效果；至於改名為「台灣奧林匹克委員會」，因可能造成兩岸不對等，且有遭片面降格並矮化為地方政府之虞，乃嚴詞拒絕。結果，在雙方展開一段劇烈的攻防之後，國際奧委會斟酌形勢，略讓一步，允許位於台灣的奧委會使用「中華民國奧林匹克委員會」的會籍名稱，但是在出席奧運會開幕典禮及參賽的制服、名牌以及文件，一律以其所實際控制的體育領域「台灣」為名。國際奧委會採西方式「名實一致」的作法，不能滿足中華民國東方式「名分秩序論」思維的要求，終於引爆中華民國奧運代表團在1960年羅馬奧運開幕儀式時，拉布條表示抗議的激烈行動。從「名分秩序論」的觀點來看，會籍名稱的問題一日不能獲得恰如其分的適切解決，將會愈演愈烈。

　　　　　During the 1950s, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) adopted the "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan" dual recognition policy toward the two sides of the Taiwan Straits in terms of their formal names. But due to the cultural value insisting on indivisible claims to legitimacy as shown in the idiom "the sky has only one sun and the earth only one ruler," both sides were firmly against the ambiguity of the IOC's policy. Therefore, with the accession of both sides to the IOC a tug of war inevitably erupted, resulting in the PRC's withdrawal from the IOC in August 1958. In 1959, the Soviet Union argued that both the accession of members and IOC member recruitment needed to be approved by the IOC's annual meeting, thus challenging IOC President Brundage's right to decide the question alone. About 1960, the United Kingdom and the Communist group led by the Soviet Union strongly challenged the IOC policy and the legitimacy of the R. O. C. to represent China in the IOC; consequently, the IOC was forced to review the question of China's representation. The IOC decided to clarify the problem of China's representation through an attempt to identify the status of the parties. It convened four meetings to tackle this problem: 1. The Munich meeting proposed the principle of "de facto control of athletic areas" for deciding the named of National Olympic Committees, which resulted in the creation of the "Taiwan Olympic Committee." 2. The Paris meeting confirmed that even though each country could name its own national committee, the IOC reserved the right to assign names to Olympic delegations according to the de facto control of athletic areas. 3. The San Francisco meeting reconfirmed that the committee in Taiwan must change its title, but also resolved that athletes from Taiwan might participate in the Rome Olympic Games. 4. The Rome meeting recognized the membership of the "R. O. C. Olympic Committee" but also indicated that its athletes should participate in the games under the rubric of its de facto controlled athletic area, "Taiwan." The R. O. C. firmly opposed the suggested title of "Taiwan Olympic Committee," holding that this not only gave the impression of its being downgraded in status or relegated to the level of a local government, but also maintaining that its "sole legitimate" status in the international arena must be upheld. After fierce bilateral struggle, the IOC reconsidered the situation and made some concessions. It allowed the Olympic committee in Taiwan to use the name "Republic of China Olympic Committee" to attend Olympic Games, but all uniforms, badges, and documents were to use "Taiwan," as the de facto controlled athletic area. This provoked a fierce response from the R. O. C.; its Olympic delegation marched with an "under protest" banner in the opening ceremonies. From the viewpoint of propriety (or the match between title and role), the problem of membership has persisted to the present-day and may become fiercer if no settlement satisfies both sides of the Taiwan Straits.