Will China invade Taiwan? Some argue that China was not seen as an immediate threat to Taiwan until the U.S. perception of China changed. However, when we look at the big picture, we find confirmation that China`s growing territorial ambitions are real. The recent experience of the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan and especially India has confirmed the claim that China under Xi Jinping is the most territorially aggressive it has been in recent decades. Nevertheless, because of their statehood, these states enjoy a certain degree of legal protection against Chinese incursions. We must ask ourselves a painful but essential question: can Taiwan`s global legal system guarantee de facto independent status? Taiwan was ceded to Japan before the end of the Qing Dynasty. From the Chinese point of view, it was an “unequal treaty”. From the point of view of international law, however, this is a legal transfer of territory. At the same time, the recognition of the legality of the territorial transfer does not eliminate the possibility of legally returning that territory. The legal difficulties stem from uncertainties about Taiwan`s legal status. But when countries like Australia contemplate war with a nuclear-armed China, the public deserves to know whether the war would be legal — not just the product of political sympathy for Taiwan`s democracy or Western strategic preferences to contain China. The crisis of legitimacy provoked by the illegal war in Iraq in 2003 is a salutary lesson in ensuring that the legal arguments in favour of war accumulate. 3.
respect for international law and the settlement of disputes by peaceful means; When incident 228 occurred on the 28th. In February 1947, the U.S. Consulate General in Taipei prepared a report calling for immediate intervention on behalf of the United States or the United Nations. Based on the argument that Japanese surrender did not mean a formal transfer of sovereignty, Taiwan was still legally part of Japan and was occupied by the United States (with administrative power for occupation delegated to Chinese nationalists), and direct intervention was appropriate for an area with such status. However, this proposal to intervene was rejected by the US State Department. In a report on the aftermath of the 228 incident, it was reported that some Taiwanese residents had talked about asking the UN to place the island under international mandate, as China`s possession of Taiwan had not yet been formalized by international treaties at the time, and therefore the island was still under warlike occupation. [6] Later, they demanded that a treaty role be represented at the upcoming peace conference on Japan, hoping to call for a referendum to determine the island`s political future. [7] Nevertheless, the United States has long lobbied for the status quo and for Taiwan`s future to be determined by peaceful means. Any offensive military action or provocative Taiwan independence initiative would risk triggering a Chinese attack based on allegations of Taiwanese insurgency.
This explains why the White House retracted on October 21 a seemingly spontaneous statement by Biden on Taiwan`s defense, and why it reiterated the longstanding U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity over whether the U.S. would intervene militarily if Taiwan were attacked. In the International Registration of Marks case (Germany), the Court`s judgment also clarified that “[i]n relations with other States which do not recognize it as a subject of international law, such an entity cannot be a party to a treaty”. 5 In the event of non-recognition, it is therefore difficult for Taiwan to conclude agreements with other States. Nevertheless, Taiwan is still able to accede to some agreements with functional objectives. For example, Taiwan acceded to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization within the framework of the WTO and became a member of the WTO in January 2002 as the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei).6 This raises questions such as whether Taiwan belongs to China, to which it belongs, whether “two Chinas” are the equivalent of “one China”. PRI GEN INT. SYDNEY FGN8 TAIWANESE AMBIGUITY Explainer: The complex question of Taiwanese independence By Ben Saul, Challis Chair of International Law, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney Sydney, August 18 (The Conversation) Strategic ambiguity The policies that have underpinned the West`s defense of Taiwan for half a century or more are based on another ambiguity: Taiwan`s status in international law. And this status is important because it could help us answer three questions: Does China have the legal right to re-establish control of its own territory by force? Do Taiwan and its allies have the legal right to oppose such an attack? Could Taiwan even have the right to declare independence? The islands we know as Taiwan have been inhabited for 30,000 years, including successive waves of mainland Chinese peoples. Taiwan was partially colonized by the Dutch and Spanish from the early 17th century, partially controlled by the remnants of the Ming Dynasty on the mainland from 1661, and colonized by the Qing Dynasty on the mainland from 1683. The main island was incorporated as a Chinese province in 1887.
After the First Sino-Japanese War of 189495, Taiwan was ceded to Japan by treaty.