Is Taiwan a Country? Statehood, Resolution 2758 and International Law

Introduction

Is Taiwan a country? Taiwan operates as a self-governing democracy with the principal factual characteristics of a state under international law. It has a permanent population, an identifiable territory, an elected government, independent armed forces, and substantial capacity to conduct international relations. The People's Republic of China (PRC) claims sovereignty over Taiwan but has never exercised governmental control over it. Taiwan's status as a separate sovereign state nevertheless remains internationally contested, and most countries maintain formal diplomatic relations with Beijing rather than Taipei.

Taiwan is governed under the constitutional system of the Republic of China (ROC), whose institutions continued operating after the Chinese Civil War divided the two sides of the Taiwan Strait in 1949. Its effective political independence is established, but effective government does not necessarily settle every question of territorial sovereignty or international legal personality. The historical competition between two governments claiming to represent China makes Taiwan's position particularly difficult to classify under conventional theories of statehood and recognition.

Two legal developments are central to the dispute. The postwar peace settlement with Japan left competing interpretations of Taiwan's territorial title, while United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 transferred China's representation at the United Nations to the PRC in 1971 without expressly determining sovereignty over Taiwan. These instruments must be considered alongside the law of statehood, constitutional continuity, diplomatic recognition, and the competing One China positions adopted by governments.

1. Is Taiwan a Country Under International Law?

International law does not establish a single administrative procedure through which every political entity receives a definitive determination of statehood. States exist within a decentralized legal order in which effective government, territory, independence, historical title, and recognition may all be relevant. International courts can determine questions of legal status within their jurisdiction, but no institution possesses compulsory authority to adjudicate every disputed claim to sovereignty.

The ordinary term country is less precise than the legal concept of a state. A territory may commonly be described as a country without possessing all the attributes of sovereign statehood. Conversely, an existing state does not automatically lose its legal personality because another government refuses recognition or because it does not belong to the United Nations. Statehood concerns the existence of an entity under international law, while recognition concerns how other states respond to that entity's asserted status.

Taiwan presents an unusual combination of circumstances. Its authorities exercise governmental powers independently of Beijing, but the PRC asserts a competing claim to sovereignty, and most governments do not formally recognize Taiwan as a separate state. The legal analysis must account for these circumstances without treating either effective control or diplomatic recognition as independently decisive.

1.1 The Montevideo Criteria Applied to Taiwan

Article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States identifies four qualifications associated with statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. These criteria remain a widely used starting point for assessing statehood. The Convention is a regional treaty, however, and its provisions are not automatically binding treaty law for every state (Convention on Rights and Duties of States, 1933).

Taiwan has a settled population of approximately 23 million people. The ROC government administers Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, and several smaller islands. These territories do not share identical legal histories: Taiwan and Penghu were ceded to Japan in 1895, while Kinmen and Matsu remained outside Japanese administration under that cession. A dispute concerning sovereignty or boundaries does not necessarily prevent an entity from possessing sufficiently identifiable territory.

The governmental criterion provides particularly substantial evidence in Taiwan's case. Its institutions include an executive, legislature, judiciary, public administration, taxation system, electoral authorities, and armed forces. They enact and enforce legislation, regulate economic activity, conduct elections, and maintain public order without direction from the PRC government.

Taiwan also possesses considerable capacity to conduct external relations. It maintains diplomatic relations with a limited number of countries and extensive unofficial relationships with others. Its authorities conclude agreements, operate representative offices, participate in economic institutions, and administer external commercial relations. Restrictions arising from diplomatic pressure do not eliminate these demonstrated capacities.

Satisfaction of the Montevideo criteria nevertheless requires legal interpretation. They are not an exhaustive mechanism capable of resolving every historical dispute concerning sovereign title or the continuity of states. Taiwan's factual characteristics support a substantial argument for statehood, but their presence does not independently establish whether its international legal identity is that of the continuing Republic of China, a separate Taiwanese state, or another contested arrangement.

1.2 Statehood, Recognition, and International Legal Personality

Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention states that a state's political existence is independent of recognition by other states. This provision reflects the declaratory approach to recognition, under which an entity's statehood principally depends on its legally relevant characteristics. Recognition acknowledges an existing status rather than necessarily bringing that status into existence.

The constitutive approach assigns recognition greater significance in establishing an entity's international legal position, particularly in its relations with recognizing states. Neither approach provides a complete account of contemporary practice. Recognition may affect diplomatic privileges, treaty relations, domestic judicial treatment, and the acceptance of governmental acts, while its absence does not invariably establish that an entity lacks international legal personality.

Taiwan's circumstances also involve the distinction between recognizing a state and recognizing its government. During the twentieth century, many countries transferred diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In doing so, they generally accepted the PRC government as the authority entitled to represent China. The consequences for Taiwan's territorial status depend on the terms of the relevant diplomatic arrangements rather than following automatically from the change in recognition.

The ROC's historical identity complicates the issue further. Governments maintaining diplomatic relations with Taipei traditionally recognized authorities claiming to represent China, rather than necessarily recognizing a newly established Taiwanese state separate from China. The distinction is fundamental to understanding state recognition in international law, particularly where rival governments claim continuity with an existing state.

International legal personality is also not confined exclusively to sovereign states. International organizations and certain other entities possess rights and capacities under particular international legal arrangements. Taiwan's participation in economic institutions demonstrates substantial external capacity, although that participation cannot itself establish its sovereign status for every purpose of international law.

2. From the Republic of China to Democratic Taiwan

The Republic of China was established in 1912 following the collapse of the Qing dynasty. Taiwan was not then governed by the ROC. The island had been ceded to Japan in 1895 and remained under Japanese colonial administration until the end of the Second World War. The historical development of the ROC and Taiwan consequently followed different paths before the establishment of ROC administration on the island in 1945.

The Chinese Civil War subsequently transformed the political situation. In October 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China following the Communist Party's military victories on the mainland. The Nationalist government led by Chiang Kai-shek relocated its central institutions to Taiwan, where the ROC continued to operate under its existing constitutional identity.

For decades, both governments claimed to represent China. Beijing exercised authority over mainland China, while Taipei controlled Taiwan and the remaining territories administered by the ROC. This division was initially framed principally as a contest over governmental legitimacy within a continuing Chinese state, rather than as the emergence of an entirely new Taiwanese state through conventional secession.

The political character of Taiwan's government changed substantially during the late twentieth century. Martial law was lifted in 1987, and constitutional reforms gradually replaced authoritarian rule with competitive democratic institutions. The first direct presidential election took place in 1996, establishing an electoral relationship between Taiwan's population and the government's highest executive office.

The Additional Articles of the ROC Constitution reflect this transformation. Article 2 provides for the direct election of the president and vice president by the population of the free area of the Republic of China. Article 11 permits special legislation governing relations between the mainland area and the free area. These provisions preserve constitutional terminology associated with China's historical division while regulating the exercise of governmental authority within Taiwan's contemporary political system (ROC Constitution, Additional Articles).

The constitutional distinction between historical territory and effective jurisdiction remains significant. The ROC's legal order continues to contain provisions shaped by its earlier claim to represent China, although its governmental institutions exercise authority over a substantially smaller territory. Constitutional continuity does not necessarily establish that every historical territorial claim remains legally effective internationally.

Taiwan's democratization also changed the political basis of governmental legitimacy. Its elected authorities derive their mandate from the population participating in the ROC's constitutional institutions rather than from electoral or administrative authority over mainland China. This strengthens the factual basis for Taiwan's independent self-government, while leaving unresolved the separate question of territorial sovereignty under international law.

3. The Peace Treaties and Sovereignty Over Taiwan

Taiwan's sovereignty dispute cannot be understood without examining the treaties and wartime instruments governing the island between 1895 and 1952. Japan acquired Taiwan and the Pescadores through a territorial cession and relinquished its claims after the Second World War. The principal disagreement concerns the legal consequences of the subsequent arrangements and whether they conclusively restored sovereignty to China.

Territorial sovereignty refers to the legal title under which a state possesses authority over territory. Administration, military occupation, and effective control may be relevant evidence, but they do not necessarily determine sovereign title. A government may administer territory under arrangements whose legal significance remains disputed, while a state may retain title despite temporarily losing effective control.

The competing interpretations of Taiwan's postwar status frequently rely on the same documents. Their disagreement concerns the legal effects attributed to wartime declarations, surrender obligations, peace treaties, and the continuity of the Chinese state. The wording and historical circumstances of those instruments must be considered before conclusions can be drawn.

3.1 Japanese Rule and the Restoration of Chinese Administration

The Treaty of Shimonoseki, signed on April 17, 1895, ended the First Sino-Japanese War. Under Article II, Qing China ceded Taiwan and the Pescadores to Japan. Japanese colonial administration subsequently extended over Taiwan, establishing a period of foreign rule lasting approximately fifty years (Treaty of Shimonoseki, 1895).

During the Second World War, the Allied powers addressed the future disposition of territories acquired by Japan. The Cairo Declaration of December 1943 expressed the intention that territories including Formosa and the Pescadores should be restored to the Republic of China. The Potsdam Proclamation of July 1945 subsequently provided that the terms of the Cairo Declaration would be carried out.

Japan accepted the Potsdam terms when it surrendered in 1945. The ROC assumed administration of Taiwan in the immediate postwar period, providing an important factual foundation for the Chinese restoration argument. The transfer of administrative authority was accompanied by the Allied understanding that Taiwan's postwar disposition would follow the commitments expressed during the conflict.

Whether these arrangements also effected a definitive transfer of sovereignty remains disputed. The Cairo Declaration was a wartime statement of Allied intentions rather than a conventional peace treaty containing an express territorial cession. Japan's surrender gave legal significance to the Allied settlement arrangements, but disagreement persists concerning their precise effect on territorial title.

This disagreement does not make the wartime instruments irrelevant. Declarations, surrender undertakings, and subsequent administration can contribute to the legal interpretation of a territorial settlement. The question is whether their combined effect established a transfer of sovereignty and how that conclusion should be reconciled with the later peace treaties.

3.2 The San Francisco Peace Treaty and Treaty of Taipei

The Treaty of Peace with Japan was signed in San Francisco on September 8, 1951, and entered into force on April 28, 1952. Article 2(b) required Japan to renounce all right, title, and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores. The provision did not expressly identify another state as the recipient of sovereignty over those territories (Treaty of Peace with Japan, 1951, Article 2(b)).

Neither the ROC nor the PRC participated in the San Francisco peace conference. The disagreement over which government represented China complicated the diplomatic negotiations. The treaty established Japan's renunciation but did not contain an express territorial conveyance to either Chinese government.

Japan subsequently concluded a separate peace treaty with the Republic of China, signed in Taipei on April 28, 1952, and entering into force on August 5 of that year. Article II acknowledged Japan's renunciation of its claims to Taiwan and Penghu under the San Francisco settlement. It did not expressly provide for the cession of those territories to the ROC (Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China, 1952).

Article IV of the Treaty of Taipei recognized that treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded between China and Japan before December 9, 1941, had become null and void as a consequence of the war. This provision is significant because the earlier Treaty of Shimonoseki had established Japan's territorial acquisition. The declaration concerning the nullity of earlier agreements, however, does not itself specify the precise moment or legal mechanism through which sovereignty over Taiwan was restored or otherwise allocated.

Article X addressed nationality for the purposes of the treaty. It included inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan and Penghu, together with qualifying descendants, within the treaty's treatment of ROC nationals where they possessed Chinese nationality under the relevant ROC laws. Its expressly limited application is important. The provision cannot be read as an unambiguous territorial cession merely because it recognized particular nationality consequences.

The treaty's subsequent legal status also requires attention. Japan normalized diplomatic relations with the PRC through the Joint Communiqué of September 29, 1972. Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs subsequently explained that the Treaty of Taipei had lost the basis for its existence and ceased to be effective following normalization (Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1985).

That development must be distinguished from the treaty's historical effects. The cessation of a treaty's operation does not automatically extinguish legal situations previously established through its implementation. Equally, the continued historical relevance of the 1952 settlement does not mean that the treaty remains an operative bilateral instrument between Japan and the ROC.

3.3 Competing Interpretations of Taiwan's Territorial Title

The PRC maintains that sovereignty over Taiwan was restored to China following Japan's defeat and that Chinese territorial sovereignty continued despite the subsequent change of government on the mainland. Under this interpretation, the establishment of the PRC in 1949 did not create a new Chinese state or extinguish China's existing territorial title. Beijing claims to have replaced the ROC government as the sole lawful government of the continuing Chinese state.

This position relies on the combined significance of the Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Proclamation, Japanese surrender, postwar administration, and subsequent international recognition of the PRC as the government of China. Its central legal argument concerns governmental continuity rather than a new acquisition of territory by the PRC. If sovereignty already belonged to China, a separate post-1949 territorial transfer would not necessarily have been required.

A competing interpretation emphasizes the distinction between Allied intentions and the legal transfer of sovereignty. It argues that the San Francisco Peace Treaty did not expressly identify a recipient of Japan's renounced territorial title and that the Treaty of Taipei did not supply an express conveyance. On this account, the postwar settlement cannot automatically be treated as a conclusive allocation of sovereignty to either Chinese government.

The omission of an express recipient is legally significant, but it does not independently establish Taiwanese independence. A treaty's failure to identify a transferee may leave questions requiring interpretation through other instruments, historical circumstances, and applicable international law. Nor does the subsequent cessation of the Treaty of Taipei retrospectively prove that sovereignty never passed to China.

A further interpretation gives weight to Taiwan's long-standing separate administration and political development. Its effective government, democratic institutions, external relations, and constitutional identity are relevant to arguments concerning independent statehood. These considerations are not identical to the historical question of territorial title in 1945 or 1952, although the two inquiries are closely related.

The postwar instruments consequently do not yield an uncontested conclusion accepted by all the principal parties. No international judicial ruling resolving the competing sovereignty claims of Beijing and Taipei has established a universally accepted territorial title over Taiwan. The absence of such a determination does not imply that international law is silent; it reflects continuing disagreement over the application and legal consequences of the relevant historical instruments.

4. UN Resolution 2758 and the Representation of China

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI), adopted on October 25, 1971, fundamentally changed China's representation within the United Nations. It recognized the representatives of the PRC government as China's lawful representatives and removed the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from their positions in the organization. The decision ended more than two decades of disagreement over which government should exercise China's UN membership rights (UN General Assembly, 1971).

The resolution arose within an institutional dispute concerning representation. China was a founding member of the United Nations and held a permanent seat on the Security Council. The question before the General Assembly concerned which government should represent that existing member, rather than the admission of an additional state through the procedures established under Article 4 of the Charter.

The legal effects of the resolution remain contested in relation to Taiwan. Beijing considers it confirmation of the One China principle, including its sovereignty claim over Taiwan. Taipei rejects that interpretation, while several governments and parliamentary institutions distinguish China's representation from the separate question of Taiwan's territorial status. These disagreements concern both the resolution's original wording

and subsequent institutional practice.

4.1 What Resolution 2758 Actually Decided

The Republic of China was among the original members of the United Nations in 1945. After the establishment of the PRC in 1949, Taipei continued to occupy China's seat in the General Assembly and its permanent seat on the Security Council. As diplomatic recognition increasingly shifted toward Beijing, the legitimacy of this arrangement became a prominent institutional dispute.

Several proposals attempted to address the competing claims. The United States supported arrangements intended to accommodate representation of both governments, but these initiatives encountered substantial opposition. On October 25, 1971, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758 by 76 votes in favor, 35 against, and 17 abstentions, with three members not voting (United Nations, 1971).

The resolution restored the PRC's representation of China and recognized the representatives of its government as China's only lawful representatives at the United Nations. It also expelled the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the places they had occupied in the organization and related institutions. The PRC subsequently exercised China's permanent membership of the Security Council, including the veto power attached to that position.

The decision concerned representation of an existing member, rather than the admission of a new state. Its operative provisions do not expressly mention Taiwan, define China's territorial boundaries, or determine whether Taiwan satisfies the legal criteria for separate statehood. This textual limitation is significant, although the absence of an express sovereignty determination does not establish the validity of every competing claim concerning Taiwan.

4.2 Competing Interpretations of Resolution 2758

The PRC maintains that Resolution 2758 affirmed the One China principle and settled the representation of the whole of China, including Taiwan. Its Ministry of Foreign Affairs reaffirmed this interpretation in a position paper issued on September 30, 2025. Beijing argues that the resolution's recognition of the PRC government as China's sole lawful representative necessarily encompasses Taiwan because Taiwan already belongs to China (PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2025).

Under this reasoning, the absence of an express reference to Taiwan does not undermine the resolution's effects. Beijing regards Taiwan as part of the existing Chinese state, making a separate territorial decision unnecessary when the General Assembly determined which government represented China. The interpretation depends on the underlying proposition that Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan had already been established.

Taiwan's government rejects that conclusion. In a statement issued on September 26, 2026, its Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintained that Resolution 2758 neither determines Taiwan's sovereignty nor authorizes the PRC to represent Taiwan within the UN system. Taipei argues that the ROC and PRC are not subordinate to one another and that Taiwan's democratically elected government alone possesses the authority to represent its population (ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2026).

Other institutions have questioned Beijing's interpretation without recognizing Taiwan as an independent state. On October 24, 2024, the European Parliament adopted a resolution rejecting the assertion that Resolution 2758 determined Taiwan's status. The resolution represents the Parliament's institutional political position rather than a binding judicial determination of sovereignty (European Parliament, 2024).

The United Kingdom's position also requires careful differentiation. The British government recognizes the PRC as China's sole legal government and maintains unofficial relations with Taiwan. The House of Commons Library's November 2024 briefing on Taiwan's international status observes that Resolution 2758 does not mention Taiwan's territorial status. That parliamentary research assessment should not be confused with a judicial ruling or treated as an independent act of British recognition of Taiwanese sovereignty (House of Commons Library, 2024).

The dispute consequently concerns the relationship between the resolution's established institutional effect and broader territorial claims. Its decision on China's representation is clear. Whether Taiwan belongs to the PRC depends on legal arguments extending beyond the resolution's express language, including historical sovereignty, governmental continuity, and subsequent international practice.

4.3 The Resolution's Effect on UN Institutional Practice

The absence of an express determination concerning Taiwan has not prevented United Nations institutions from applying Resolution 2758 to questions involving Taiwanese participation. The Secretariat has treated the resolution as the foundation of the organization's One China policy. Its administrative practice has consequently affected attempts to obtain separate representation or membership for Taiwan.

A significant example occurred in July 2007. An application for Taiwanese membership was conveyed through the permanent representatives of two UN member states. According to the Secretary-General's spokesperson, the Office of Legal Affairs returned the application because it could not be received under the UN's One China policy and its interpretation of Resolution 2758 (United Nations Secretary-General, 2007).

Taiwan's government challenged that position. Its objection concerned the authority of the Secretariat to prevent a membership application from reaching the organs responsible for admission under the UN Charter. The disagreement involved institutional competence and procedure, alongside the substantive dispute concerning Taiwan's status.

The Secretariat's interpretation has practical consequences, but its administrative action is not equivalent to a judgment determining territorial sovereignty. Resolution 2758 remains operative within the UN representation arrangements, while the broader question of Taiwan's international status continues to be disputed. An interpretation adopted for institutional purposes does not necessarily resolve every issue arising under general international law.

This distinction is consistent with the wider law concerning subjects of international law. International legal capacities may differ between institutional regimes, and participation in one organization does not automatically determine an entity's status in every other legal setting. Taiwan's exclusion from the UN system and its participation in other international arrangements must be assessed according to their respective legal foundations.

5. Is Taiwan Part of China? Competing One China Positions

The question of whether Taiwan is part of China concerns territorial sovereignty as well as governmental representation. Beijing maintains that Taiwan forms an inseparable part of China and that the PRC government is the sole lawful authority representing the Chinese state. Taiwan's elected government rejects subordination to the PRC while maintaining the constitutional identity of the Republic of China.

The expression One China does not possess an identical legal meaning in every government's foreign policy. The PRC's One China principle advances a particular position concerning territorial unity and sovereignty. Other countries maintain One China policies through diplomatic communiqués, recognition decisions, and domestic legislation, sometimes acknowledging Beijing's position without expressly adopting every aspect of its territorial claim.

The distinction between acknowledgment and recognition is particularly important. Diplomatic language may record another government's position, express agreement with a proposition, or establish a binding commitment, depending on the wording and circumstances. The meaning of a One China policy must be determined through the relevant instruments rather than presumed from the use of a common political label.

5.1 China's One China Principle and Taiwan's Position

The PRC's One China principle rests on three connected propositions: there is only one China, Taiwan forms part of Chinese territory, and the PRC government alone lawfully represents China internationally. Beijing maintains that the Chinese Civil War produced a prolonged political division without creating two sovereign Chinese states. Its claim to Taiwan is accordingly framed as the preservation of existing territorial integrity rather than the acquisition of foreign territory.

China's constitutional and legislative positions reinforce this interpretation. The PRC Constitution identifies Taiwan as part of China's territory, while the 2005 Anti-Secession Law addresses opposition to Taiwanese independence. Beijing's 2022 white paper on reunification also presents national unification as the completion of a historical process involving the restoration of Chinese territorial integrity (State Council Taiwan Affairs Office and State Council Information Office, 2022).

Taiwan's elected government maintains a different position. Although the ROC retains constitutional institutions historically associated with China, it exercises authority independently of Beijing and rejects the PRC's claim of governmental superiority. In his inaugural address of May 20, 2024, President Lai Ching-te stated that the ROC and PRC were not subordinate to one another, presenting this position as consistent with Taiwan's constitutional sovereignty (ROC Office of the President, 2024).

Taiwan's political debate nevertheless contains competing understandings of its constitutional identity. Some positions emphasize continuation of the Republic of China as an existing sovereign state. Others advocate a more explicitly Taiwanese national identity or constitutional transformation. Maintaining the existing ROC constitutional order and creating a new state formally identified as Taiwan would raise different domestic and international legal questions.

Neither government's constitutional declarations independently determine sovereignty for the international community. Domestic constitutional law defines and organizes governmental authority within the relevant legal system, but disputed international territorial title cannot be conclusively established merely by a unilateral constitutional assertion. Taiwan's effective self-government and Beijing's historical sovereignty claim must be evaluated under the applicable international legal principles.

5.2 The United States' One China Policy

The United States established formal diplomatic relations with the PRC on January 1, 1979, following the normalization agreement announced in December 1978. Washington recognized the PRC government as the sole legal government of China while maintaining cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with Taiwan. This arrangement ended American diplomatic recognition of the ROC government in Taipei (United States and PRC, 1978).

The wording of the bilateral communiqués is central to understanding the policy. In the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué, the United States acknowledged the position that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintained that there was one China and Taiwan was part of it. The normalization communiqué subsequently acknowledged the Chinese position that there was one China and Taiwan formed part of China. These formulations did not expressly constitute American recognition of PRC sovereign title over Taiwan.

The 1982 communiqué addressed American arms sales and the broader relationship between Washington and Beijing. During the same period, the Reagan administration communicated the Six Assurances to Taiwan. The declassified July 10, 1982, cable states that Washington had not agreed to set a termination date for arms sales, undertake prior consultations with Beijing, assume a mediation role, revise the Taiwan Relations Act, or adopt a position concerning sovereignty over Taiwan.

A subsequent cable dated August 17, 1982, used a slightly different formulation concerning sovereignty, stating that Washington had not altered its position on the question. This distinction is significant: the assurances preserved the American position without establishing an affirmative determination that sovereignty belonged to either Beijing or Taipei. They also included an assurance that the United States would not pressure Taiwan to enter negotiations with the PRC (American Institute in Taiwan, 1982).

The Taiwan Relations Act, enacted on April 10, 1979, established the statutory framework for continuing American relations with Taiwan without formal diplomatic recognition. Section 4 preserves the application of American law to Taiwan despite the absence of diplomatic relations, including provisions referring to foreign states or governments. The Act also maintains certain legal capacities and arrangements that existed before normalization (Taiwan Relations Act, 1979, Section 4).

Section 2 identifies peace and stability in the Western Pacific as matters of international concern and establishes policies concerning Taiwan's defense. These include providing defensive arms and maintaining American capacity to resist forms of force or coercion threatening Taiwan's security or social and economic system. The statute does not establish an unconditional obligation to deploy American armed forces automatically in every conflict involving Taiwan.

The Act also does not recognize Taiwan as an independent sovereign state. Its significance lies partly in demonstrating that a government can preserve extensive legal, commercial, and security relations with an entity despite the absence of diplomatic recognition. Those arrangements operate under American legislation and policy rather than constituting a general international determination of statehood.

Other governments employ different diplomatic formulations. In the Japan–PRC Joint Communiqué of September 29, 1972, Japan recognized Beijing as the sole legal government of China and stated that it understood and respected the PRC's position concerning Taiwan. Japan also reaffirmed its position under the Potsdam Proclamation. The precise language is important because it distinguishes Japan's recognition of the PRC government from the formulation used to address Beijing's territorial claim (Japan and PRC, 1972).

The United Kingdom recognized the PRC as the de jure government of China on January 6, 1950, ending its recognition of the ROC government. Full ambassadorial relations followed through the exchange-of-ambassadors communiqué of March 13, 1972. That communiqué acknowledged Beijing's position that Taiwan was a province of China and confirmed the PRC government as China's sole legal government (UK Parliament, 1950; 1972).

The United Kingdom continues to maintain unofficial relations with Taiwan without recognizing it as a separate sovereign state. Its diplomatic history illustrates the distinction between recognizing the government of China, establishing ambassadorial relations, and adopting a position concerning Taiwan's territorial status. The differences between national formulations demonstrate why recognition of Beijing cannot automatically be equated with identical legal conclusions concerning Taiwan's sovereignty.

6. Why Taiwan Is Not a UN Member

Taiwan does not possess separate membership in the United Nations because China's existing membership is represented by the PRC and attempts to obtain Taiwanese representation have encountered substantial institutional and political obstacles. Resolution 2758 established the PRC's representation of China, while subsequent UN practice has treated Taiwan within the organization's One China arrangements. These decisions have practical legal effects, but exclusion from UN membership is not itself a universal test of statehood.

Article 4 of the UN Charter provides that membership is open to peace-loving states willing and able to carry out the Charter's obligations. Admission requires a recommendation from the Security Council followed by a decision of the General Assembly. The admission procedure is legally regulated, although its operation depends on votes within political organs (United Nations Charter, 1945, Article 4).

The International Court of Justice addressed the legal conditions for admission in its 1948 advisory opinion, Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations. The Court held that the requirements specified in Article 4(1) were exhaustive and that a member state could not legally make its consent dependent on additional conditions unrelated to those provisions. The opinion concerned interpretation of the Charter's admission requirements, not Taiwan's eligibility or territorial sovereignty (ICJ, 1948).

In Taiwan's case, the principal institutional obstacle is the PRC's position as a permanent member of the Security Council. Beijing opposes separate Taiwanese membership because it rejects the existence of Taiwan as an independent state. Under the Charter's voting arrangements, a negative vote by a permanent member prevents the Security Council from recommending admission. A favorable recommendation would also require subsequent approval by the General Assembly.

The United Nations distinguishes its membership functions from the recognition of states and governments. Recognition is an act undertaken by individual states, while the organization may admit states to membership or accept the credentials of representatives of governments. The absence of UN membership can restrict international participation without conclusively disproving statehood (United Nations, About UN Membership).

Taiwan maintains extensive international relationships outside the UN membership framework. Its authorities conduct diplomatic activity through formal and unofficial channels, negotiate economic arrangements, and participate in selected international institutions. These activities demonstrate external legal capacities, although their precise significance depends on the relevant organization's constituent instruments.

Taiwan became a member of the World Trade Organization on January 1, 2002, under the designation Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, commonly known as Chinese Taipei. Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization permits accession by states and separate customs territories possessing full autonomy in their external commercial relations and other matters governed by the WTO agreements (Marrakesh Agreement, 1994, Article XII).

The treaty's membership provisions explain why participation in the WTO does not necessarily establish sovereign statehood. A separate customs territory may possess the relevant commercial autonomy without being recognized as an independent state. Taiwan's membership is legally significant because it establishes rights and obligations within the WTO system, but it does not settle the broader sovereignty dispute.

Taiwan also participates in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation under the name Chinese Taipei. It joined in November 1991, alongside the PRC and Hong Kong. APEC describes its participants as member economies, reflecting the forum's economic character and the fact that participation is not confined exclusively to entities recognized as sovereign states (APEC, Our Members).

These arrangements demonstrate why international legal participation cannot be reduced to a single question of UN membership. Taiwan possesses substantial external capacities and enjoys specific institutional rights, while the diplomatic and political limitations arising from its disputed status remain significant. Each arrangement must be assessed according to its legal basis rather than treated as a universal determination of sovereignty.

7. Taiwan Independence and International Law

Taiwan independence may refer to existing self-government, the sovereignty claimed by the Republic of China, or the establishment of a formally new state identified as Taiwan. These meanings produce different legal questions. The continuing operation of Taiwan's institutions is an established fact, while the legal consequences of constitutional transformation or a formal declaration of independence remain contested.

The distinction is important because Taiwan already possesses the principal institutions ordinarily associated with independent governmental authority. A declaration of independence would not necessarily establish a government for the first time. It might instead seek to alter the constitutional identity, territorial claims, or international characterization of the existing political order.

International law does not establish an automatic rule under which every declaration of independence creates a new state. Its consequences depend on the entity's circumstances, applicable legal rules, and subsequent international practice. Taiwan's historical separation from mainland China complicates an analysis that assumes it is simply an ordinary province attempting to secede from a government that presently administers it.

7.1 Is Taiwan Already Independent?

Taiwan is independent in the practical sense that its government exercises authority without being subordinate to the PRC. Beijing does not appoint Taiwan's president, administer its courts, enact its domestic legislation, or command its armed forces. The division of governmental authority has continued since 1949, although the constitutional and political character of Taiwan's institutions has changed considerably during that period.

Whether Taiwan is already independent as a matter of sovereign statehood raises a separate legal question. The ROC government maintains that its constitutional state already exists and that a new declaration is not required to establish its sovereignty. President Lai Ching-te has described the ROC and PRC as mutually non-subordinate political authorities and has presented Taiwan's existing constitutional system as a sovereign democratic order.

Supporters of formal Taiwanese independence may seek a different constitutional result. Proposals could involve changing the state's designation, redefining its territorial identity, or establishing a constitutional order expressly separate from the historical ROC claim to represent China. Such changes would raise questions concerning constitutional amendment, territorial alteration, and the political consent of Taiwan's population.

The ROC Constitution's Additional Articles establish demanding procedures for constitutional change. Article 12 requires a proposal supported by at least one-fourth of the members of the Legislative Yuan, approval by at least three-fourths of those present at a meeting attended by at least three-fourths of all legislators, and subsequent referendum approval meeting the constitutional threshold. Article 1 addresses the referendum procedures applicable to proposals involving constitutional amendment or alteration of national territory (ROC Constitution, Additional Articles).

Compliance with domestic constitutional requirements would not automatically compel recognition by other states. International legal personality and territorial sovereignty are assessed under international law, even where domestic constitutional procedures determine whether a political change is valid within Taiwan's legal system. A formal declaration could alter Taiwan's political position without necessarily producing uncontested sovereign status.

The legal significance of Taiwanese independence consequently cannot be determined solely by whether a declaration is issued. Taiwan's existing governmental authority, the continuity of the ROC, the historical territorial dispute, and the responses of other states would all remain relevant to the assessment.

7.2 Self-Determination and Unilateral Independence

The right of self-determination is recognized in Article 1(2) of the UN Charter and common Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It affirms the right of peoples to determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. The principle is established in international law, although its application to particular territorial disputes may remain contested.

The legal status of the two covenants requires qualification in Taiwan's case. The ROC signed both instruments in 1967, before losing its UN representation. President Ma Ying-jeou subsequently signed instruments of ratification on May 14, 2009, but the UN did not accept their deposit. Taiwan consequently did not complete the ordinary UN depositary process for becoming a party to the covenants (ROC Office of the President, 2009).

Taiwan had already established a domestic mechanism for implementing their provisions. The Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was promulgated on April 22, 2009, and entered into force on December 10, 2009. Article 2 expressly gives the human rights protection provisions of the two covenants domestic legal effect, while Article 4 directs government institutions and agencies to act consistently with those provisions (ROC Ministry of Justice, 2009).

The distinction between treaty participation and domestic implementation is significant. Taiwan's legislation establishes legal obligations within its domestic system despite the unsuccessful deposit of the instruments of ratification. It does not, by itself, establish that Taiwan completed the internationally recognized process of becoming a party to the covenants through the UN depositary.

Self-determination is conventionally distinguished between internal and external dimensions. Internal self-determination concerns political participation and the ability of a community to exercise meaningful control over its public affairs. External self-determination may involve independence or another internationally recognized political status. The clearest historical applications of external self-determination arose during decolonization, while claims involving unilateral secession outside that setting remain disputed.

Taiwan's population exercises extensive democratic self-government. Competitive elections, constitutional institutions, and political freedoms demonstrate the capacity of its electorate to determine the composition and policies of its government. These circumstances are relevant to the principle of self-determination of peoples, but they do not automatically establish an unrestricted legal entitlement to unilateral independence.

The applicability of conventional secession doctrine is itself contested. Taiwan is not administered by the PRC as a subordinate provincial government, and the ROC claims constitutional continuity with a state established before the PRC. Any characterization of Taiwanese independence as secession must account for this historical and institutional distinction.

The International Court of Justice's 2010 advisory opinion concerning Kosovo provides limited guidance. The Court concluded that Kosovo's declaration of independence did not violate applicable international law. It did not establish that Kosovo possessed a general right to secede, that its declaration automatically created statehood, or that other governments were required to recognize it (ICJ, 2010).

The Court also distinguished the absence of a prohibition on a declaration from the existence of a positive legal entitlement to independence. Its reasoning addressed the specific circumstances of Kosovo, including the relevant Security Council framework. Taiwan's history, constitutional identity, and disputed territorial status differ substantially, preventing the opinion from serving as a conclusive precedent on Taiwanese sovereignty.

The legal question is consequently more demanding than whether Taiwan's population supports a particular political outcome. Democratic consent may possess substantial political and legal relevance, but its relationship to territorial integrity, constitutional continuity, and external self-determination must be established through the applicable international rules. No universal judicial determination has resolved their interaction in Taiwan's particular circumstances.

7.3 China's Anti-Secession Law and the Use of Force

China's Anti-Secession Law, adopted on March 14, 2005, establishes the PRC's domestic legal position concerning efforts to secure Taiwanese independence. Article 8 provides for nonpeaceful means and other necessary measures under specified circumstances, including actions Beijing characterizes as producing Taiwan's secession, major incidents involving secession, or the complete exhaustion of possibilities for peaceful reunification (Anti-Secession Law, 2005).

The legislation reflects Beijing's understanding of Taiwan as part of existing Chinese territory. Under that position, measures directed against formal independence are presented as protecting national sovereignty and territorial integrity. The law also provides for peaceful reunification through consultation and negotiation while authorizing coercive measures under the conditions identified in Article 8.

Domestic legislation, however, cannot independently establish the international legality of military action. A government's assertion of territorial sovereignty may be relevant to the legal characterization of a dispute, but it does not automatically displace obligations arising under applicable international law. The legal effect of China's Anti-Secession Law must consequently be distinguished from the international rules governing the use of force.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits threats or uses of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states, subject to the Charter's applicable exceptions and legal framework. Its application to particular cross-Strait scenarios requires attention to the disputed status of Taiwan, the nature of the contemplated conduct, and the international legal relationships involved. Beijing maintains that the dispute concerns Chinese territory, while Taiwan rejects the claim that the PRC possesses sovereign authority over it.

The customary international-law principle of non-intervention raises related but distinct questions. As explained by the International Court of Justice in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, prohibited intervention involves coercion concerning matters that a state is entitled to decide freely (ICJ, 1986). Applying the principle of non-intervention to Taiwan requires addressing the disputed legal status of the parties rather than presuming a conclusion about sovereignty.

Territorial sovereignty, the prohibition on force, and non-intervention are connected but do not possess identical legal requirements. The validity of a claim to territorial title does not, by itself, determine the lawfulness of every measure undertaken to enforce that claim. Equally, an assessment of a particular military action cannot disregard the legal characterization of the territory and the parties concerned.

A future alteration of Taiwan's constitutional or political status could raise questions concerning declarations of independence, recognition, self-determination, and the legality of responses by Beijing. These questions would require separate legal assessments. No single conclusion about Taiwanese statehood automatically determines the legality of every possible action across the Taiwan Strait.

Conclusion

Taiwan possesses the principal factual characteristics associated with statehood under international law. It has a permanent population, identifiable territory, effective governmental institutions, and substantial capacity to conduct international relations. Its authorities exercise these powers independently of the People's Republic of China, which claims sovereignty over Taiwan but has never administered it. Taiwan consequently functions as a self-governing political entity, although its status as a separate sovereign state remains internationally contested.

The postwar peace settlements do not provide an uncontested determination of Taiwan's territorial sovereignty. The San Francisco Peace Treaty established Japan's renunciation of its rights to Formosa and the Pescadores without expressly designating a recipient, while the subsequent Treaty of Taipei addressed important bilateral consequences without containing an express territorial cession. Competing interpretations of these instruments continue to influence the legal positions advanced by Beijing, Taipei, and other governments.

UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 resolved China's representation within the United Nations but did not expressly adjudicate Taiwan's territorial sovereignty. Its subsequent application by UN institutions has restricted Taiwan's participation, while other international arrangements recognize specific capacities exercised by Taiwan's authorities. Diplomatic recognition, UN membership, international legal personality, and territorial sovereignty consequently remain distinct legal questions.

Taiwan's effective self-government is an established fact; the international legal characterization of its sovereignty remains disputed. International law supplies principles for evaluating statehood, recognition, territorial title, and self-determination, but their application has not produced a universally accepted determination of Taiwan's status. The most defensible legal conclusion is that Taiwan possesses substantial characteristics of an independent state while continuing to occupy a contested position within the international legal order.

References

American Institute in Taiwan (1982) Declassified Cables: Taiwan Arms Sales & Six Assurances (1982) [online]. Available at: https://web-archive-2022.ait.org.tw/our-relationship/policy-history/key-u-s-foreign-policy-documents-region/six-assurances-1982/index.html (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Anti-Secession Law (2005) Adopted by the Third Session of the Tenth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, 14 March 2005, Presidential Order No. 34 [online]. Available at: https://eng.mod.gov.cn/xb/Publications/LR/4888396.html (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (n.d.) Our Members [online]. Available at: https://www.apec.org/who-we-are/our-members (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Cairo Declaration (1943) Agreed communiqué of the United States, United Kingdom and Republic of China, November 1943, released 1 December 1943. Reproduced in Foreign Relations of the United States: The Conferences at Cairo and Tehran, 1943 [online]. Available at: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1943CairoTehran/d343 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Charter of the United Nations (1945) Signed at San Francisco, 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/node/125814 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Constitution of the People's Republic of China (1982) Adopted 4 December 1982, as amended through 11 March 2018 [online]. Available at: https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Constitution of the Republic of China (1947) Promulgated 1 January 1947, entered into force 25 December 1947 [online]. Office of the President, Republic of China (Taiwan). Available at: https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/94 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Constitution of the Republic of China: Additional Articles (1991) As subsequently amended [online]. Office of the President, Republic of China (Taiwan). Available at: https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/95 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Convention on Rights and Duties of States (1933) Signed at Montevideo, 26 December 1933, entered into force 26 December 1934, 165 LNTS 19 [online]. Available at: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1933v04/d134 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

European Parliament (2024) Resolution of 24 October 2024 on the Misinterpretation of UN Resolution 2758 by the People's Republic of China and Its Continuous Military Provocations around Taiwan, 2024/2891(RSP), P10_TA(2024)0030 [online]. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-10-2024-0030_EN.pdf (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

House of Commons Library (2022) UK–Taiwan Friendship and Cooperation. Commons Library Debate Pack, CDP-2022-0031 [online]. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2022-0031/ (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

House of Commons Library (2024) International Status of Taiwan. Commons Library Debate Pack, CDP-2024-0158, 26 November [online]. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cdp-2024-0158/ (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

International Court of Justice (1948) Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter), Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1948, ICJ Reports 1948, p. 57 [online]. Available at: https://icj-web.leman.un-icc.cloud/sites/default/files/case-related/3/003-19480528-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14 [online]. Available at: https://api.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

International Court of Justice (2010) Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 403 [online]. Available at: https://api.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/141/141-20100722-ADV-01-00-EN.pdf (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI), 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171 [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&mtdsg_no=IV-4&src=IND (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) Adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI), 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976, 993 UNTS 3 [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ShowMTDSGDetails.aspx?chapter=4&lang=en&mtdsg_no=IV-3&src=UNTSONLINE&tabid=1 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China (1972) Issued at Beijing, 29 September 1972 [online]. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Available at: https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/joint72.html (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China (1978) Announced 15 December 1978, establishing diplomatic relations effective 1 January 1979 [online]. Reproduced in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume I. Available at: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1977-80v01/d104 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Joint Communiqué of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China (1982) Issued 17 August 1982 [online]. American Institute in Taiwan. Available at: https://web-archive-2022.ait.org.tw/our-relationship/policy-history/key-u-s-foreign-policy-documents-region/u-s-prc-joint-communique-1982/index.html (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (1994) Signed at Marrakesh, 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995, 1867 UNTS 154 [online]. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto_e.htm (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (1985) Diplomatic Bluebook 1985: Promoting Relations with Specific Countries [online]. Available at: https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/other/bluebook/1985/1985-3-3.htm (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China (2025) China's Position Paper on the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, 30 September [online]. Available at: https://www.mfa.gov.cn/eng/xw/zyxw/202509/t20250930_11721842.html (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (2026) MOFA Reiterates That UNGA Resolution 2758 Makes No Mention of Taiwan and Cannot Be Used to Exclude Taiwan from UN System. Press Release No. 468, 26 September [online]. Available at: https://en.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1329&s=123150&sms=272 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Ministry of Justice of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (2009) Act to Implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Promulgated 22 April 2009 [online]. Available at: https://mojlaw.moj.gov.tw/eng/lawcontente.aspx?lsid=fl048731 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Office of the President of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (2009) President Ma Signs Instruments of Ratification of Two Covenants on Human Rights, 14 May [online]. Available at: https://english.president.gov.tw/NEWS/3151 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Office of the President of the Republic of China (Taiwan) (2024) Inaugural Address of ROC 16th-term President Lai Ching-te, 20 May [online]. Available at: https://english.president.gov.tw/NEWS/6726 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Potsdam Proclamation (1945) Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender, issued by the governments of the United States, United Kingdom and Republic of China, 26 July 1945 [online]. Reproduced in Foreign Relations of the United States: The Conference of Berlin (The Potsdam Conference), 1945, Volume II. Available at: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945Berlinv02/d1382 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Shanghai Communiqué (1972) Joint Statement Following Discussions with Leaders of the People's Republic of China, issued 27 February 1972 [online]. Reproduced in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XVII, China, 1969–1972. Available at: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v17/d203 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

State Council Taiwan Affairs Office and State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China (2022) The Taiwan Question and China's Reunification in the New Era. White Paper, August [online]. Available at: https://english.scio.gov.cn/whitepapers/2022-08/10/content_78365819.htm (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Taiwan Relations Act (1979) Public Law 96-8, enacted 10 April 1979, 93 Stat. 14, codified at 22 USC §§ 3301–3316 [online]. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-134/t22/s3301/ (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China (1952) Signed at Taipei, 28 April 1952, entered into force 5 August 1952, 138 UNTS 3 [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=08000002801526ae (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Treaty of Peace between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of China (Treaty of Shimonoseki) (1895) Signed at Shimonoseki, 17 April 1895, entered into force 8 May 1895 [online]. Reproduced in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1895. Available at: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1895p1/d203 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

Treaty of Peace with Japan (San Francisco Peace Treaty) (1951) Signed at San Francisco, 8 September 1951, entered into force 28 April 1952, 136 UNTS 45 [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=08000002801528c2 (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

United Nations (n.d.) About UN Membership [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/about-us/about-un-membership (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

United Nations General Assembly (1971) Restoration of the Lawful Rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations. Resolution 2758 (XXVI), UN Doc. A/RES/2758(XXVI), adopted 25 October 1971 [online]. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/192054/ (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

United Nations Secretary-General (2007) Noon Briefing of 23 July 2007. Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General [online]. Available at: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/highlight/2007-07-23.html (Accessed: 12 November 2026).

World Trade Organization (n.d.) Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei) and the WTO: Member Information [online]. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/chinese_taipei_e.htm (Accessed: 12 November 2026).