Editing Political status of Taiwan (section)

=== Other viewpoints ===

{{Original research|section|date=May 2009}}
{{Self-published|section|date=October 2023}}
{{more citations needed|section|date=October 2023}}

==== Chinese sovereignty ====

'''Arguments common to both the PRC and the ROC'''

The ROC and PRC both officially support the One China policy and thus share common arguments. In the arguments below, "Chinese" is an ambiguous term that could mean the PRC and/or ROC as legal government(s) of China.

# The waging of aggressive war by Japan against China in 1937 and beyond violates the peace that was brokered in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. In 1941, with the declaration of war against Japan, the Chinese government declared this treaty void ''ab initio'' (never happened in the first place). Therefore, some{{Who|date=April 2025}} argue that, with no valid transfer of sovereignty taking place, the sovereignty of Taiwan naturally belongs to China.<ref>{{cite web |title=The True Legal Status of Taiwan |url=http://www.taiwanbasic.com/un/truelegal.htm |publisher=Taiwan Civil Government |website=taiwanbasic.com |access-date=22 May 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140522070049/http://www.taiwanbasic.com/un/truelegal.htm |archive-date=22 May 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
# The Cairo Declaration of 1 December 1943 was accepted by Japan in its surrender. This document states that Taiwan was to be restored to the Republic of China at the end of World War II. Likewise, the [[Potsdam Declaration]] of 26 July 1945, also accepted by Japan, implies that it will no longer have sovereignty over Taiwan by stating that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands".
# The exclusion of Chinese governments (both ROC and PRC) in the negotiation process of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) nullified any legally binding power of the SFPT on China, including any act of renouncing or disposing of sovereignty. In addition, the fact that neither ROC nor PRC government ever ratified SFPT terms prescribes that the SFPT is irrelevant to any discussion of Chinese sovereignty.
# SFPT's validity has come into question as some of the countries participating in the San Francisco conference, such as the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and North and South Korea, refused to sign the treaty.<ref name="The Strait Journal">{{Citation |script-title=zh:兩岸關係與台灣主權 |trans-title=Cross-strait relations and Taiwan's sovereignty |language=zh-tw |url= http://www.haixiainfo.com.tw/FF/214-7301.html |archive-url= https://archive.today/20130419133235/http://www.haixiainfo.com.tw/FF/214-7301.html |url-status= dead |archive-date= 2013-04-19 |publisher= The Strait Journal |date= October 2008 |author8= 李壽林 (Lee, Shou-lin) }}</ref>
# Assuming SFPT is valid in determining the sovereignty over Taiwan, Japan, in article 2 of the SFPT, renounced all rights, without assigning a recipient, regarding Taiwan. Japan, in the same article, also renounced, without assigning a recipient, areas that are now internationally recognized as territories of Russia as well as other countries. Given that the sovereignty of these countries over renounced areas is undisputed, the Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan must also be undisputed.<ref name="The Strait Journal"/>

'''ROC sovereignty'''

# The ROC fulfills all requirements for a state according to the [[Convention of Montevideo]], which means it has a territory, a people, and a government.
# The ROC continues to exist since its establishment in 1911, only on a reduced territory after 1949.
# The creation and continuity of a state is only a factual issue, not a legal question. Declarations and recognition by other states cannot have any impact on their existence. According to the declaratory theory of recognition, the recognition of third states is not a requirement for being a state. Most of the cited declarations by American or British politicians are not legal statements but solely political intents.
# The PRC has never exercised control over Taiwan.
# The Treaty of Taipei formalized the peace between Japan and the ROC. In it, Japan reaffirmed Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration and voided all treaties conducted between China and Japan (including the Treaty of Shimonoseki).
# Article 4 of the ROC Constitution clearly states that "The territory of the Republic of China" is defined "according to its existing national boundaries..." Taiwan was historically part of China and is, therefore, naturally included therein. Also, as Treaty of Shimonoseki is void ''ab initio'', China has never legally dispossessed of the sovereignty of the territory. There is, accordingly, no need to have a National Assembly resolution to include the territory.
# The [[Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty|ROC – USA Mutual Defense Treaty of 1955]] states that "the terms "territorial" and "territories" shall mean in respect of the Republic of China, Taiwan, and the Pescadores" and thus can be read as implicitly recognizing the ROC sovereignty over Taiwan. However, the treaty was terminated in 1980.

'''PRC sovereignty'''

# The PRC does not recognize the validity of any of the unequal treaties the Qing signed in the "century of humiliation," as it considers them all unjust and illegal, as is the position during [[transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong]] from the United Kingdom to the PRC. As such, the cession of Taiwan in the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki actually never took place in a ''de jure'' fashion. The PRC, as the successor to the Qing and ROC in that order, therefore inherited the sovereignty of Taiwan.
# The return of the sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC was confirmed on 25 October 1945 on the basis of the Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Proclamation, Japanese Instrument of Surrender, and the invalidity of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, the PRC became the successor government to the ROC in representing China, and as such, the PRC should hold the sovereignty of Taiwan.
# In the [[Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China]] to the end of the Treaty of Taipei, the document signifying the commencement of the PRC and Japan's formal relations, Japan in article 3 stated that it fully understands and respects the position of the Government of the People's Republic of China that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. Japan also firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration, which says, "the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out". The Cairo Declaration says, "All territories Japan has stolen from China, including Manchuria, Taiwan, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China". The PRC argues that it is a successor state of the ROC and is therefore entitled to all of the ROC's holdings and benefits.<ref>{{Citation |url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/tai_gang_ao/2005-10/24/content_3677774.htm |publisher=Xinhua News Agency |date=2008-05-08 |script-title=zh:有关台湾光复的国际法文件 |trans-title=Documents regarding the retrocession of Taiwan |language=zh |access-date=22 May 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151007195429/http://news.xinhuanet.com/tai_gang_ao/2005-10/24/content_3677774.htm |archive-date=7 October 2015 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

==== Taiwanese independence ====

'''Taiwan already is sovereign and independent'''
# The peace that was brokered in the Treaty of Shimonoseki was breached by the [[Boxer Rebellion]], which led to the conclusion of the Boxer Protocol of 1901 (Peace Agreement between the [[Historical powers|Great Powers]] and China),<ref>{{Citation
|url=http://www.china1900.info/ereignisse/boxerprotokoll.htm
|title=Boxer Protocol, Peking 7. September 1901; Peace Agreement between the Great Powers
|publisher=China um 1900; in Den Ugen Der Zeit
|access-date=2007-10-06
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080210014645/http://www.china1900.info/ereignisse/boxerprotokoll.htm
|archive-date=10 February 2008
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> and China, not by the [[Second Sino-Japanese War]]. The Treaty of Shimonoseki was a [[dispositive treaty]]. Therefore, it is not voidable or nullifiable (this doctrine being that treaties specifying particular actions which can be ''completed,'' once the action ''gets completed,'' ''cannot'' be voided or reversed without a new treaty specifically reversing that clause). Hence, the ''[[unequal treaty doctrine]]'' cannot be applied to this treaty. By way of comparison, as 200,000,000 Kuping [[tael]]s were not returned to China from Japan, and Korea had not become a Chinese-dependent country again, the cession in the treaty was executed and cannot be nullified. The disposition of Formosa and the Pescadores in this treaty was a legitimate cession by conquest, confirmed by treaty, and thus is not a theft, as described as "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese" in Cairo Declaration.
# It should also be noted that the Qing court exercised effective sovereignty over primarily the west coast of Taiwan only, and even then did not regard the area as an integral part of national Chinese territory.
# The "Cairo Declaration" was merely an unsigned press communiqué which does not carry a '''legal status''', while the Potsdam Proclamation and Instrument of Surrender are simply [[modus vivendi]] and [[armistice]] that function as temporary records and do not bear legally binding power to transfer sovereignty. Good faith of interpretation only takes place at the level of treaties.
# The "retrocession" proclaimed by ROC in 1945 was legally null and impossible since Taiwan was still ''de jure'' part of Japan before the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect on 28 April 1952. Consequently, the announcement of the mass-naturalization of native Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens in January 1946 is unjust and void ''[[Ab initio]]''. After the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect, the sovereignty of Taiwan naturally belonged to the Taiwanese people.
# Some of Taiwan independence supporters once used arguments not in favor of Chinese sovereignty to dispute to legitimacy of the Kuomintang-controlled government that ruled over Taiwan; they have dropped these arguments due to the democratization of Taiwan. This has allowed the more moderate supporters of independence to stress the [[popular sovereignty]] theory in order to accept the legitimacy of the ROC government in Taiwan; they hold that the island of Taiwan is ''already'' an independent state which is formally called the Republic of China. President [[Lai Ching-te]] and former President [[Chen Shui-bian]] (both members of the moderate pro-independence [[Democratic Progressive Party]]) have supported this position, which is known in Taiwanese politics as [[Huadu (Taiwan)|''Huadu'']].
# Sovereignty transfer to the ROC by [[custom (law)|prescription]] does not apply to Taiwan's case since:
## Prescription is the manner of acquiring property by a long, honest, and uninterrupted possession or use during the time required by law. The possession must have been ''possessio longa, continua, et pacifica, nec sit ligitima interruptio'' (long, continued, peaceable, and without lawful interruption). For prescription to apply, the state with title to the territory must acquiesce to the action of the other state. Yet, PRC has never established an occupation on Taiwan and exercised sovereignty;
## Prescription as a rule for acquiring sovereignty itself is not universally accepted. The [[International Court of Justice]] ruled that Belgium retained its sovereignty over territories even by non-assertion of its rights and by acquiescence to acts of sovereign control alleged to have been exercised by the Netherlands over a period of 109 years;<ref>{{Citation
|url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=32&case=38&code=bnl&p3=4
|title=Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Certain Frontier Land 
|date=20 June 1959
|publisher=International Court of Justice
|access-date=2009-04-14
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140522070111/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=32&case=38&code=bnl&p3=4
|archive-date=22 May 2014
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>
## Also by way of comparison, even after 38 years of continuous control, the international community did not recognize sovereignty rights to the [[Gaza Strip]] by Israel, and the Israeli cabinet formally declared an end to military rule there as of 12 September 2005, with a removal of all Israeli settlers and military bases from the Strip;
## A pro-independence group, which formed a ''Provisional Government of Formosa'' in 2000, argued that both the [[228 incident]] of 1947 and the Provisional Government of Formosa have constituted protests against ROC government's claim of retrocession within a reasonable twenty-five-year (or more) acquiescence period;<ref>{{Citation
|url=http://www.taiwannation.com.tw/cairo05.htm
|script-title=zh:中國國務院台辦新聞發佈會實錄
|language=zh
|publisher=taiwannation.com.tw
|access-date=2007-10-06
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140630225437/http://taiwannation.com.tw/cairo05.htm
|archive-date=30 June 2014
|url-status=live
}}</ref>
## Taiwanese residents were unable to make a protest after the [[228 incident]] due to the authoritarian rule under KMT regime which suppressed all pro-independence opinion; and
## Japan was not able to cast a protest as it was under [[military occupation]] at the time; however, it did not renounce its sovereignty over Taiwan until 28 April 1952.<ref>{{Citation
|url=http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sovereignty.htm
|title=Sovereignty
|publisher=Taiwan Documents Project
|access-date=2007-10-06
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061015124645/http://www.taiwandocuments.org/sovereignty.htm
|archive-date=15 October 2006
|url-status=live
}}</ref>