The Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan, commonly known as the Treaty of Taipei, was signed and came into effect in 1952. In considering the legal aspects of this treaty, it is essential to distinguish between the questions of jurisdiction over the territory of Taiwan and the legal status of the Republic of China (ROC).
While the former concerns a territorial dispute under international law, the latter is a matter of the nature of states and governments. The issues are quite different.
The Treaty of Taipei confirmed the terms of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. It could not lay down terms exceeding those in that treaty. In both treaties, Japan renounced its claim to the territories in question. The Treaty of Taipei does not mention to whom those territories would be transferred.
President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) opinion that the treaty confirmed the transfer of sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu (the Pescadores) to the ROC simply does not comply with the facts.
From a legal point of view, the main point of the Treaty of Taipei was to deal with the question of which government had the right to represent China. According to the wording of the treaty, Japan signed it with “the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores),” as opposed to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government in Beijing.
By this wording, Japan made clear that the Chinese government it recognized was the one that then represented China in the UN — the ROC.
The situation now is quite different. The world largely accepts the principle of “one China” championed by the PRC government in Beijing. Those who claim that Taiwan belongs to the ROC reduce the Taiwan question to one resulting from the division of China through civil war.
These days there is no longer any question of two Chinas existing side by side, and the PRC is widely recognized as the successor state to the ROC.
That being the case, those who equate Taiwan with the ROC are actually providing the government in Beijing with justification for claiming the right to inherit ownership of Taiwan.
Another school of thought holds that Taiwan’s sovereignty remains undetermined — an argument that has some legal validity. However, no other country lays claim to sovereignty over Taiwan. The ROC has exercised effective and stable rule over Taiwan for many decades. On these grounds, the ROC may claim ownership of Taiwan based on the principles of prescription and effective rule in international law.
If that be the case, and given that, as already mentioned, the PRC is successor to the ROC, then the former would have legal grounds for taking over Taiwan.
Both theories on Taiwan’s sovereignty — that it is undetermined and that it has been returned to China — treat Taiwan in the same way as when dealing with changes of territorial demarcation between international legal entities (states or international organizations).
In fact, Taiwan is not the object of a territorial dispute between China and any country.
The question is one of establishing Taiwan as a country in itself. It is not necessary for the inhabitants of Taiwan to first prove that Taiwan does not belong to China or that its legal status is undetermined as a precondition for declaring independence.
Just as with the US long ago, the inhabitants of Taiwan only need to clearly and unambiguously state their desire to establish a new state. Such a declaration would have a firm basis and justification in international law.
Let us be quite clear: Taiwanese people have the right to establish a country of their own.
Lin Chia-lung is a former Government Information Office minister.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS