The Sovereignty of Taiwan

Before anything else, I want to point you to this amazing article/transcript ^[1] which better explains the current situation of Taiwan in a more realistic and expert manner than I ever could. In it, Yu-Jie Chen, “an assistant research professor at the Institutum Iurisprudentiae of Academia Sinica [The Institute of Jurisprudence of the Chinese Academy (in Taiwan)],” explains why Taiwan has not yet declared independence, and why it’s still functionally is a sovereign state with its unique identity. The rest of this page is my two cents on the matter.

Post Scriptum—January 21^st, 2026

Taiwan officially states and clarifies ^[2] that China and Taiwan are both different entities, and also defines the current state and policies governing cross-strait relations. They also state that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent state that maintains its own national defense and conducts its own foreign affairs. (here ^[3])

Main Article

Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China (ROC) is a democratic country and sovereign nation-state which falls entirely outside the jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). There is no ambiguity whatsoever as to the validity and sovereignty of this democratic government. I do not recognize the de jure administration claims of the Taiwan Area by the PRC.

I personally condemn any acts by all governments, people, or any domestic/international actors to diminish, censor, and thwart any action and statement which reinforces/encourages/promotes the international sovereignty of Taiwan. I deplore the censorship, coercion, threats, and propaganda which falsely claim and oppress Taiwan from gaining official independence from Mainland China.

However, The same statement applies for the opposite point of view, which would claim Mainland China de facto controlled by the CCP as belonging to fall within Taiwanese jurisdiction. I recognize the Taiwanese Constitution for claiming to be the sole representative of China, and not be limited to the Taiwan Area, or more accurately, areas actually currently controlled by the ROC. But it should be heavily emphasized that in practice the revised constitution only governs the de facto administered regions of the ROC, and treats citizens of Mainland China as foreigners falling outside of their jurisdiction. Realistically, the constitution cannot be democratically amended further without many unlikely different variables coming into place such as requiring the presence of a supermajority of all legislative representatives during the approval of a referendum, a majority vote of said referendum, and a lack of real danger from officially declaring and voting on such an independence. Although such facts may complicate matters for any diplomatic relation and the road to Taiwan’s official independence, blaming Taiwan for such statements which are now only formalities that should be treated as such, and citing these reasons for the current tensions are only pretexts to falsely justify undermining Taiwan’s sovereignty, integrity, and violate its people's fundamental right to the freedom from fear. The current Taiwanese government and its constitution currently does not seek to represent Mainland China, and only seeks to represent Taiwanese citizens, and functions as a sovereign independent state, regardless of the formalities which remain within the constitution. These formalities are not representative of the de facto attitude and interpretation of the Taiwanese people about their identity and law, observations which should instead be prioritized and acknowledged when dealing with the country.

For resolving cross-strait relations, I do not endorse the one country, two systems principle. There is no need for unification of the ROC into the PRC, and I will not officially recognize nor support such unification, which would nevertheless not be desired by an immensely grand majority of Taiwanese citizens.

As for personal remark, where both countries may justly differ in opinion, I recognize that there are two Chinas, and that this should be okay. Officially, I think it is fair to say the CCP has “won” the revolution through the establishment of the PRC—mainly by the sheer amount of population, natural resources and land it has jurisdiction over—despite the remaining existence of the ROC. Therefore, I endorse all peace efforts aimed at reconciliation without unification, nor the need to officially change the official names of any nation. One may forgive my confusion, as I do not understand why there is such a dire emphasis on the existence of a sole, legitimate China on paper outside of nationalist ideology, especially not when factoring in any practical and utilitarian facts. It is unfortunate it had to go this way, and yet I think two of the most sensible solutions to this formality are either recognition of two equally valid and distinct “Chinas,” where in practice only the PRC may be called as such, or a simple official name change of the ROC, which would be a formality democratically difficult to enact with little actual gain, especially when considering the existence of a distinct Taiwanese identity.

Overall, It is a difficult situation where I inherently lack expertise, but one I hope to help provide nuance to and novel ways to look at.

I believe that the entirety of the problems of the cross-strait relations can be resolved through dialogue, peace, democracy, and diplomacy, and should be resolved through those only means, while emphasizing that Taiwan should have a right to proclaim and democratically vote on official independence without threats, eventual invasion, nor acts of violence and similar oppression from the PRC or any other entities.