Last week, two US military vessels transited the Taiwan Strait for the first time since US President Donald Trump took office last month.
US Navy Commander Matthew Comer, a spokesman at the US Indo-Pacific Command, said that “the transit occurred through a corridor in the Taiwan Strait that is beyond any coastal state’s territorial seas,” and that “within this corridor, all nations enjoy high-seas freedom of navigation, overflight and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms.”
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) uses terms such as “internal waters,” “territorial sea,” “contiguous zone” and “exclusive economic zone,” but the term “internal sea” is nowhere to be found.
On June 12, 2022, former Chinese minister of national defense Wei Fenghe (魏鳳和) said at the Shangri-La Dialogue, a major Asian security forum in Singapore, that “the Taiwan Strait is China’s internal sea.” His use of the term “internal sea” — which is not recognized by international law — evidently caused confusion and could mislead the audience.
An April 24, 2023, entry on the blog of political commentator HoonTing (雲程) said that the Taiwan Strait has long been declared a free passageway for all nations, unrelated to UNCLOS. The post refers to a decision by the Japanese Cabinet on July 16, 1895, which stated that the Strait is to be considered international waters.
The decision was made following the Triple Intervention of 1895, in which the Japanese Imperial Government —in balancing the demands of Russia, Germany and France — issued a declaration stating: “The Imperial Government examined the requests of the three governments and considered the interests of international commerce and hereby declare as follows: the Imperial Government recognizes that all portions of the Taiwan Strait should be a public channel, which does not pertain to Japan and does not fall under the jurisdiction of Japan. The Japanese Imperial Government also agrees that Japan should seek no cession of Taiwan and the Pescadores to other countries.”
The Treaty of Shimonoseki, the Treaty of San Francisco and the Treaty of Taipei (also known as the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty) — signed in 1895, 1951 and 1952 respectively — all demonstrate that the Taiwan Strait has maintained its unchanging legal status as international waters.
Where did this unfounded phrase “internal sea” come from? Comer’s recent acknowledgement that the Taiwan Strait is “beyond any coastal state’s territorial seas” is a widely recognized fact supported by the historical record of the Japanese government’s 130-year-old declaration that the Strait is a public channel.
Chen Yi-nan is an arbitrator.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS