Koxinga - ROC & PRC make the exact same historic claims to Taiwan. difference being that the ROC has had pssession since 1945.
On the other hand, the Taiwanese oppossed the ROC takeover and were put down ruthlessly and at the loss of many lives.
if one takes the past decade in isolation, then the ROC as de jeure might look obvious to many observers. if one goes back more than a decade then its much less so.
Really? Because I think if you took a decade like the twenties or thirties or forties, the Republic of China’s claim to being a nation would look pretty solid. I’ll certainly admit that their claim to being the only Chinese government took a sharp dip after 1949 but they certainly are a real government regardless of Beijing’s feelings on the matter. The Republic of China was founded in 1912 and has been in continous existence and in control of real territory ever since. Its claims to be a sovereign nation are certainly at least as strong as the People’s Republic of China’s are.
The Qing dynasty considered Outer Mongolia and northern Vietnam as parts of their empire, and Korea was supposed to be a protectorate. Going on this basis, if anything China’s claims to those regions would be stronger than to Taiwan, since the Qing itself admitted that it exercised only incomplete control over the island as late as 1874.
So what? North America has been settled by Europeans for nearly as long, but it’s not considered an extension of Europe, now is it? I’ll repeat my question: where in international law can you find that the ethnicity of a region’s inhabitants support claims of sovreignity by an outside power? If ethnic Chinese settlement of the region makes the PRC’s claims such a slam dunk, surely you can come up with a cite for this legal argument?
Again, what’s to say that both “Chinese” governments are not deluded? Everybody acknowledges that the KMT was living a fantasy when it talked about “liberating” the mainland, why not the PRC’s claims on Taiwan equally so?
I’d say that in an unsettled situation like that, where the original US government that controlled Oregon no longer existed, then no, not necessarily. It would be up to the people of Oregon to decide whether they wanted to join the reconstituted US.
Missed the edit window. But to follow up, a critical point is that the government that ceded away control of Taiwan in 1895 no longer exists in any way, shape, fashion, or form. So your analogy is a bit flawed: it should say that after ceding Oregon, the US government collapses, and two new rival regimes arise claiming to be the US’s successor government. Also, many parts of the US, not just Oregon, undergo changes in boundaries and allegience during this period. Florida is now part of Cuba, and the southern half of Texas now belongs to Mexico. Who’s to say that Oregon absolutely must be part of the reconstituted US under these circumstances?
I dont think your cite is a good counterpoint. That the minority non-Chinese element of the population of Taiwan had killed some Japanese mariners does not mean the Chinese were not in possession of the island at the time. To this day some Australian aboriginal groups live in the desert outside effective control of the Australian state that claims sovereignity over the continent, but there is no doubt however who really runs things here. As your cite says:
I’m not a lawyer and I’m not making a legal argument. Historically however a state’s claim over an area has often been regarded as very strongly supported if the population is of the same ethnic and linguistic background as the claiming nation-state. Entire bureaus were established at the end of WW1 to count how many people in what area belonged to what ethnicity to determine to which state the area would go. If the locals were lucky they also got to vote on it, if not too bad. Ethnic background has determined countless borders, and even warfare to unite all the people of a nationality (eg unification of Germany and Italy) has been regarded as a somehow legitimate expression of nationalism and national self-determination. You mentioned the Sudetenland earlier, it is largely forgotten now but what made the final settlement there so difficult to oppose was that even the opponents of the agreement recognised that their opposition was based solely upon power politics. The German ethnicity of the population fatally undermined the moral case to oppose the transfer.
The ultimate difference is that the KMT was deluded. It did not have any ability to assert its claim hence the claim was as you say a fantasy. The PRC has the resources to assert its claim, it is hence not delusional. The ultimate reality then and now is that the ROC exists as a separate state solely because the US Navy keeps it so and the PRC would have asserted its control in 1949 were this not the case.
Somehow I doubt it would be up to population of Oregon to decide although I think it should be. Please correct me if I’m wrong but I’m assuming from your choice of the particular name Koxinga that you’re Taiwanese, almost certainly ethnically Chinese and that you favour independence? I dont think justification of independence for Taiwan requires anything more then the wishes of the current population. That’s a political question. In the historical question of whether the PRC has a valid claim then yes they do, based upon centuries of history, former sovereignity over the island and ethnic makeup. I dont believe the historical question should override the political question but it is what it is.
I assume everyone else finds this argument that China ( either PRC or KMT ) has no claims to Taiwan coming from a poster named Koxinga, as vastly amusing as I do :D.
Koxinga - I dunno man, you seem to be out on quite a limb. You can indeed make a legitimate argument that China’s claims to Taiwan are only a little stronger than their claims to Tibet. But then France’s claim to Alsace-Lorraine isn’t really much stronger. International law, such as it is ( and some would argue not much ) at this level pretty much comes down to squatter’s rights + international recognition.
In practical terms China Guy is, as usual, correct that as long as the Taiwanese governments continue to make their farcical claims to be the government of all of China and the PRC reciprocates, both including Taiwan in that equation, the issue is going to remain hopelessly clouded.
My post was eaten. Factually, if you look at the 20-40’s timeframe, China had an extremely weak central government, was in a state of continuous civil war, vast majority of the country was controlled by independent warlords, French, German, English and Japanese had colonies with extra territoritality rights & unequal trading rights, Japanese colonized Manchuria, Japanese invaded China, etc.
Not exactly a spotless arguement for sovereignity. Like everything in this debate, there are deep shades of grey.
No inconsistency on my part–I’m holding out for the rightful Ming heir to come along any day now. Once HE shows up, sure, let’s rejoin the mainland. In fact, let’s make that an absolute condition. 
Only if he is an approved re-incarnation. D&R
For those that don’t know Koxinga, or why Tammerlane finds this ironically amusing…
I think you will find that Koxinga was disputing the assertion that the island had only “briefly” been claimed by Japan. He was establishing that the Japanese had been in possession of the island for 50 years. By the way, you might recognize where that poster’s name comes from as an indication he’s pretty solidly grounded in the history of Taiwan… 
On preview, I see that his name has become known… 
Eolbo, if we are talking de facto ownership, then international law is irrelevant. But we have been talking de jure ownership, and that does, indeed, involve a legal argument. If you are going to assert that the People’s Republic of China has the legitimate legal claim to the island, you have to have some law to back it up.
I alluded to it in my own post actually.
I’ll remember that should I ever make such a claim. Law schmaw, I haven’t discussed the issue in terms of potential legality or illegality at all nor do I intend to. International law is nothing more then a fiction to calm little children. Territorial claims between great powers are ultimately settled in the political and military domain. A strong claim exists based on historical circumstances and there are considerations of power politics. No other considerations are relevent.
Total nonsense, as a visit to the Hague would quickly make clear. Quite a lot is settled by international law. While territorial claims are not always settled that way, some are. And the issue isn’t what will happen de facto, which, as everyone agrees, is currently that Taiwan is a separate nation, but de jure, because the OP is discussing the “legitimate” claims to Taiwan (not the practical claims).
Cite?
It is my belief that international law is only invoked by the more powerful nation to justify their actions. So I’m asking for a case where:
the weaker side justifies its territorial claim by international law;
the stronger side, while opposing the former’s action, nonetheless admits defeat on the matter soely based on the fact it can’t win the legal argument.
Fight my ignorance.
Lets not be deluded. This is not a trifling matter going to be settled at the Hague. We’re not talking about a dispute over fishing rights here, something that might be amicably resolved with recourse to a court and mutual acceptance of a legal decision. This issue lies in the realm where great powers act in accordance with international law only if its convenient for them. In recent years US foreign policy has largely consisted of depositing a big steaming turd on notions of international law. The US is not exceptional in this regard.
Were a man to beat his wife to a bloody pulp, and force her to sign over her car to him, we recognise the element of duress and do not regard her rights in the matter as extinguished and can predict that neither does she. The reality is many international agreements and treaties similarly occur at gunpoint with a militarily defeated state signing away rights and territories entirely against its will and with no genuine acceptance of its terms. I note in this regard that Alsace-Lorraine experienced 4 ‘final’ resolutions in a hundred years. People could debate who has a better legal claim to Alsace-Lorraine but its not important and we’d be entering the realm of irrelevancy.
The simple facts are Taiwan was part of the Chinese empire for centuries and has a Chinese population. China was forced at gunpoint by Japan to to hand over the island, did not let go willingly and the PRC as the victor of the civil war wants to recover Taiwan. It seems odd to me that there is even a question whether China has a valid claim over Taiwan. You can debate who a valid successor state can be all you like and who has a better de jure claim but its just construction of an intellectual edifice, it might be fun, but its of no importance, and is irrelevant to the considerations on which this issue might one day be settled.