The British navy frigate HMS Richmond on Friday last week transited the Taiwan Strait, prompting criticism from Chinese Senior Colonel Shi Yi (施毅) — a spokesman for the Chinese military’s Eastern Theater Command — who labeled the move as “disturbance and provocation.” In response, the British Ministry of Defence emphasized that the Richmond’s navigation was in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and constituted a routine passage in full compliance with international law and norms.
According to the UNCLOS, the breadth of a state’s territorial sea may not exceed 12 nautical miles (22.2km) from its baseline. As the narrowest part of the Taiwan Strait is approximately 130km wide, the territorial seas of China and Taiwan do not overlap — this leaves a substantial area of international waters around the median line of the strait.
Furthermore, articles 37 and 28 of the UNCLOS explicitly state that all ships and aircraft enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage through “straits which are used for international navigation between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone.” The Taiwan Strait connects the East China Sea and the South China Sea, and serves as a major global shipping route, thus meeting the requirements for freedom of navigation and overflight.
However, China has long asserted “sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction” over the Taiwan Strait, maintaining that foreign warships may only conduct “innocent” passage and must notify it beforehand. This stance effectively treats the Taiwan Strait as part of China’s internal waters. From Beijing’s perspective, any transit by foreign naval vessels is regarded as a challenge to its sovereignty — but for most other countries, such transits are necessary actions to uphold freedom of navigation and resist China’s excessive maritime claims.
The Richmond’s transit was not only lawful, but a strategic signal. It aligns with recent actions by allies such as the US, Canada and Australia, demonstrating Western countries’ determination to maintain a rules-based international order in the Indo-Pacific region.
For Taiwan, the incident highlights that relying solely on the idea that international law is self-evident would be insufficient to secure the Taiwan Strait’s status. Taiwan should develop a strategy combining law and diplomacy.
First, it should continue to assert the Taiwan Strait’s status as international waters on the global stage and seek support from other like-minded nations. Second, it should employ think tanks and academic researchers to accumulate robust international legal discourse and form consistent state practice. Third, Taiwan should promote a freedom of navigation initiative that would allow coordinated transit through the Taiwan Strait by multiple countries, rather than by individual countries alone.
This approach would not only shift the international focus away from its narrow view of “Taiwan versus China,” but also highlight Taiwan’s position in cooperating with the international community.
The status of the Taiwan Strait is already clearly defined under international law. The issue lies not in the law, but in politics. Only by combining legal strategy with diplomatic action can Taiwan make the status of the Taiwan Strait as international waters a consensus among the international community. In doing so, Taiwan could play a more active role in maintaining regional security and a rules-based international order.
Jao Juei-cheng is an associate professor at National Taiwan Ocean University’s Institute of the Law of the Sea and is secretary-general of the Taiwan Maritime Law Association.
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