China’s Taiwan Affairs Office on June 21 issued “judicial guidelines on imposing criminal punishments” for “die-hard” supporters of Taiwanese independence, in collaboration with its Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security and Ministry of Justice. It is based on its “Anti-Secession” Law, the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC.
The “guidelines” set out strict conviction and sentencing standards for “Taiwan independence” behavior. This new law is not only another step in China’s expansion, but also shows its extreme stance on the Taiwan issue.
The “guidelines” show that China is intensifying its legal warfare and is trying to suppress Taiwan’s independent voice through “extraterritorial application of domestic criminal jurisdiction.” This move is clearly to weaponize its criminal jurisdiction, aimed at political repression through the legal system.
China has expanded the definition of “the crime of secession” to include initiating and establishing Taiwan independence organizations, planning or formulating relevant action plans, and promoting a referendum or trying to change the legal status of “Taiwan being a part of China.”
In the “guidelines,” China stipulates punishments such as life imprisonment, fixed-term imprisonment of more than 10 years and even the death penalty for people who play major roles in Taiwanese independence activities or those who are heavily involved.
This approach is undoubtedly a blatant challenge to the basic principles of international criminal law, especially the power to arrest, issue arrest warrants and trial in absentia for “persons outside its jurisdiction.”
The definition of “Taiwan independence” in the “guidelines” is very vague — any attempt to create “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan” in the international community, any behavior that “distorts or falsifies the fact that Taiwan is part of China” in any field through their job in education, culture, history or media is considered a crime.
Such a vague legal definition not only provides a legal basis for China’s suppression of Taiwan, but also facilitates the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) attempt to further suppress freedom of speech and political dissent.
However, these behaviors are protected by international human rights laws such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, international law expert Song Cheng-en (宋承恩) said. China’s “guidelines” clearly violate international human rights treaties.
In particular, the prosecution involves Taiwan’s external relations and international cooperation, and might affect foreign nationals. This shows that China intends to further isolate Taiwan through legal means and crack down on any international forces that support Taiwanese independence.
The international community should severely condemn and boycott China’s legal bullying. This kind of legal suppression is a means for the CCP to satisfy the nationalist sentiments within its borders and provides a legal cover for its subsequent military or political actions.
In particular, the CCP’s “trial in absentia,” despite the limited practicality of its implementation, is a high-profile avowal and is intended to deter supporters of Taiwanese independence.
The government should strongly respond to China’s legal provocation, adhere to the basic principles of international law and strengthen cooperation with the international community to form a joint force to resist China’s legal bullying. In particular, the government should emphasize the illegality of the “guidelines” and seek support from international judicial institutions to ensure that the basic rights of Taiwanese are not infringed upon.
The “guidelines,” which are undoubtedly part of China’s policy toward Taiwan all along, aims to further suppress Taiwan’s independent voice through legal means. This legal warfare tactic not only threatens the basic rights of Taiwanese, but also poses a serious obstacle to the peaceful development of cross-strait relations.
The CCP already has general and vague domestic legislation such as the National Security Law and the Counterespionage Law, and now there are “guidelines” against Taiwan. This would not only aggravate tensions between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, but might also put the safety of Taiwanese and visitors in China under threat.
In particular, the vagueness and ambiguity of these laws provide China a convenient excuse to arbitrarily cook up charges and suppress dissent.
China’s newly promulgated “judicial guidelines on imposing criminal punishments” is undoubtedly legal bullying of Taiwan and its people. These “guidelines” not only violate the basic principles of international law, but also pose a serious threat to the basic rights of Taiwanese. The government should respond sternly and strengthen cooperation with the international community to jointly resist China’s legal bullying and safeguard Taiwan’s democracy, freedom and international status.
Gong Lin-dong is a research fellow who focuses on the Chinese Communist Party.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS