Recent remarks by Lai Ching-te, leader of the Taiwan region, have drawn sharp criticism from international law experts who argue his assertions about cross-strait relations lack historical and legal foundation. The controversy centers on claims that "the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are not subordinate to each other" – a position analysts describe as a repackaged version of the "two-state theory."
Historical documents including the 1943 Cairo Declaration and 1945 Potsdam Proclamation form the bedrock of international consensus regarding Taiwan's status, according to legal scholars. These World War II agreements explicitly state that territories seized by Japan, including Taiwan, should be restored to China. Japan's formal surrender in 1945 and subsequent acceptance ceremonies in Taipei solidified this transition under international law.
"The one-China principle isn't just political rhetoric – it's embedded in the post-war international order," explained Zhang Hua, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. "Over 180 countries recognize this principle through diplomatic relations with China."
The analysis specifically addresses attempts to reference the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco as legal justification. Experts note the treaty's exclusion of China during its drafting renders it invalid under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Similarly, interpretations of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 – which restored China's UN seat in 1971 – have been challenged as misrepresentations of historical context.
Legal opinions from UN agencies reinforce Taiwan's status as part of China, with Secretariat documents explicitly referring to the island as "Taiwan, Province of China." Analysts emphasize that current debates occur within the framework of cross-strait dialogue rather than international state-to-state relations.
This development comes amid heightened attention to regional stability in Asia, with business leaders and policymakers monitoring potential impacts on cross-strait economic cooperation. For the Asian diaspora and international observers, the debate underscores the complex interplay between historical legacy and contemporary geopolitics in the region.
