Decoding UNGA Resolution 2758 and Taiwan's Status under International Law

Editor's note:

Hello and welcome to the "Big Argument" column, a distinctive commentary column in our newsletter that diverges from traditional Western narratives and perspectives. It focuses on hot-button issues that have yet to fully reflect the Chinese stance and perspective. Some notable pieces of the column, which are also among the most engaging articles in the history of this newsletter include Three key takeaways from latest Taiwan Strait military drills and Stabilizing U.S.-China relations: Trump can do it, if drawing lessons from past.

You might find that some views in the article differ from the typical Western perspectives, but I believe understanding different viewpoints might be one of the reasons some of you subscribe to this newsletter.

Today’s article is co-authored by Ren Ke, Cheng Zhuo, Yue Xitong, and Zhao Bo, all of whom have previously worked as journalists in Taiwan. The piece examines UNGA Resolution 2758 and Taiwan's status under international law.

---

How has the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 2758 addressed the Taiwan question without mentioning the renegade province, and established the one-China principle under international law?

Topic of the Taiwan question, which is at the core of China's core interests, has gained greater prominence as Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities have pushed further toward "Taiwan independence" since Lai Ching-te took office a year ago. Lai has promoted a "new two-state theory" centered on the notion of "non-subordination," claiming that "the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are not subordinate to each other," and asserting that "Taiwan has never been part of the People's Republic of China (PRC)." He has even labeled the Chinese mainland as a "foreign hostile force."

Furthermore, the DPP authorities are now attempting to undermine the historical significance of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758—the legitimate historical document that affirmed the one-China principle. They claim that "China is distorting the meaning of the resolution," arguing that the resolution did not specifically mention Taiwan.

On October 25, 1971, the 26th session of the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted Resolution 2758, titled Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations. This resolution restored the seat and representation of China at the UN to the government of the People's Republic of China, while expelling the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek, leader of the Kuomintang (KMT) Party and the former nationalist government in Nanjing who had retreated to Taiwan after losing the Chinese Civil War (1946-1949) against the Communist Party of China (CPC) but continued to claim authority under the name "Republic of China" (ROC).

UNGA Resolution 2758 is the central topic of our discussion. It holds significant importance, yet narratives contradicting the resolution's original spirit have gained traction. Some politicians in the United States, the European Union, and Japan have been using these arguments as part of anti-China propaganda. The most recent example is the passage of the so-called "Taiwan International Solidarity Act" by the U.S. House of Representatives in early May 2025. This act "clarifies" that Resolution 2758 does not prevent the U.S. from using its vote, voice, and influence to counter efforts to marginalize Taiwan on the global stage.

These interpretations rely on biased "research" driven by political motives, such as a report from the German Marshall Fund (GMF). Supported by Taiwan's "Ministry of Foreign Affairs" and the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S. (TECRO), authors Jacques deLisle and Bonnie S. Glaser accused China of "distorting UNGA2758." They claimed that the resolution does not mention Taiwan or clarify that Taiwan is part of China, arguing that "the resolution does not contain the words 'Taiwan' or 'Republic of China.'" They also denied that the resolution affirms China's one-China principle.

Original text of UNGA Resolution 2758 , United Nations Digital Library

Indeed, UNGA Resolution 2758 does not mention Taiwan, but it is all about Taiwan and its status under international law. It does not need to name it, and the text of the resolution has its considerations. A deeper study of this document reveals that its significance goes far beyond the surface of its text.

The issue is related to three key questions:

1. Why is Taiwan not mentioned in UNGA Resolution 2758?

2. What are the relations among China, the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC)?

3. What is Taiwan's real status under international law?

In a bid to answer these questions, we have studied relevant essays by some leading scholars on international law and Taiwan question in China and also interviewed them, including Rao Geping (饶戈平), professor at the prestigious Peking University; Chen Guiqing (陈桂清), a seasoned expert at the Institute of Taiwan Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Yang Zewei (杨泽伟), Luojia Distinguished Professor at Wuhan University School of Law; and Wang Yingjin (王英津), Professor of the Department of Political Science, School of International Relations, Beijing-based Renmin University of China (RUC) and Director of the Research Center for Cross-Strait Relations in RUC.

Chinese scholars argue that the resolution’s core significance lies in three key questions. By analyzing these questions, one can fully understand why the Resolution affirms the one-China principle—recognizing Taiwan as an inalienable part of China—even though the resolution does not explicitly mention the province, which is currently controlled by a separatist local regime.

The original Chinese text of UNGA Resolution 2758, United Nations Digital Library

Why is Taiwan not mentioned?

One of the key arguments made by those opposing China's position on UNGA Resolution 2758 centers on the absence of any direct reference to Taiwan in the resolution's text. Instead, it refers to "the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek." On this basis, some separatist voices claim that the resolution has no bearing on Taiwan's status or its relationship with the PRC.

"There was simply no need to mention it," said Chen Guiqing. He explained that the resolution's carefully worded language reflects the United Nations' consistent position—that it has never recognized representatives sent in the name of Taiwan, nor will it accept Taiwan as a separate member or allow it to obtain an additional seat at the UN.

Prior to the resolution's adoption, there was already broad international consensus that Taiwan is a part of China (a point we will elaborate on later). It was on the basis of this historical fact and global consensus that the UN General Assembly decided to restore China's lawful seat to the People's Republic of China.

Chen said the resolution was aimed at determining "who represents China at the UN" rather than "adding a UN seat." Now that Taiwan is a part of China, just like Guangdong, Fujian, or any other provinces of China, there is obviously no need to spell out a particular Chinese province in the UN document.

It is also worth noting that many in China — including experts, officials, and diplomats — point out that although the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949, the Chinese Civil War has not officially concluded, as the Kuomintang (KMT) retreated to Taiwan. As a result, national reunification remains incomplete, and Taiwan is viewed as a renegade province defying the authority of the central government in Beijing.

Rao Geping believed that UNGA Resolution 2758 is closely bound up with the question of Taiwan's status. Though it tactically avoided mentioning Taiwan, it explicitly mentioned Chiang Kai-shek by name, which was the political symbol of a renegade regime unlawfully occupying Taiwan under the name of the ROC. Thus, by mentioning Chiang Kai-shek, the resolution was actually referring to the self-proclaimed authorities in Taiwan, with the aim to settle the issue of the relations between the UN and Taiwan.

UNGA Resolution 2758 expelled the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek, who was head of the former ROC government, which was no longer qualified to represent China, instead of the representatives of Taiwan. Therefore, Taiwan has never been represented as a "state" in the UN; it has always been a part of China and is covered by China in terms of international law. The resolution is thus consistent with a historical fact that Taiwan has been part of China's territory, and has never been an independent country. There is no room for the name "Taiwan" to appear in a United Nations document as a member state.

Chen Guiqing argued that it is particularly noteworthy that the Chiang Kai-shek regime at that moment also viewed itself as representative of China, the ROC to be specific, including Taiwan and the Chinese mainland, rather than Taiwan only. On the day the UN General Assembly voted on the resolution, Chiang Kai-shek's representatives in the UN reiterated their agreement to Taiwan's belonging to China.

The Chiang Kai-shek regime never rejected the one-China principle. Even remnants of the Chinese Kuomintang Party retreated to Taiwan in 1949 following a failure in the civil war, the Chiang Kai-shek regime was opposed to splitting Taiwan from China, and the rhetoric of "two Chinas." Its political divergence with Beijing only lies in who represents the whole of China, or who is the only legitimate central government of China.

The historical facts also showed that the so-called "Taiwan independence" has never been an issue until in recent decades as the authorities in Taiwan are trying to go further on the road seeking separatism, a dangerous move trying to change the status quo across the Taiwan Strait, which is supported by the United States and some Western countries in many ways, including the GMF report.

The People's Liberation Army (PLA) occupied the Presidential Palace in Nanjing. April, 1949.

What are the relations among China, the PRC and the ROC?

UNGA Resolution 2758 does not name Taiwan, or the ROC. However, this leaves no ambiguity or room for misinterpretation. Instead, it shows that the UN followed the precondition for the adoption of the resolution -- one-China principle and Taiwan is part of China.

To properly understand the issue, it is crucial to clearly define the relationship between China, the PRC, and the ROC. This relationship lies at the heart of the Taiwan question — a topic that confuses many and is intentionally misrepresented by some to advance "Taiwan independence" and to strategically contain China's rise. Many advocates of "Taiwan independence," including Lai Ching-te himself, have claimed that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are "not affiliated with each other" — a narrative that stems from a distorted interpretation of this fundamental issue.

The name of a state is consistent, continuous, and stable, whereas the state title changes with the succession of governments. Following the collapse of the communist rule in Eastern Europe in 1989, the Polish People's Republic became the Republic of Poland, and the Socialist Republic of Romania was renamed the Republic of Romania. These were changes in regime and state titles, but the states themselves—Poland and Romania—remained the same. The subjects of international law did not change, and the new regimes inherited the international legal status of their predecessors.

In the case of China, "China" is the state name, while the "Republic of China (ROC)" and the "People's Republic of China (PRC)" are the state titles China has during different historical periods. From the ROC to the PRC, the subject of international law did not change, neither the state of China.

From the perspective of a specific historical period, a state's name and its official designation are inseparable and constitute a singular identity. Therefore, currently, the PRC and China share the identity.

The ROC was established in 1912 following the 1911 Revolution that toppled the Qing Dynasty. From 1927, the Kuomintang (KMT), or the nationalists, reunified the country and ruled it as a one-party state. In 1949, the KMT-led government was defeated in the Chinese civil war by the CPC and retreated to Taiwan. The PRC was established in the same year.

Here comes the core dispute between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan: the KMT and following authorities in Taiwan continued to call themselves "the ROC," yet they have remained faithful to the "Constitution of the ROC," which stipulates that both the Chinese mainland and Taiwan belong to one China. They believed that the ROC continued to exist after the 1949 defeat.

Both Wang Yingjin and Rao Geping argued that the principle of effectiveness, which is generally followed in modern international law practice, should be applied to judge this issue. The principle holds that a regime within a country can be recognized as the legitimate and effective central government as long as it controls the vast majority of the country's territory, exercises stable and effective governance over a considerable period of time, and gains the recognition of the overwhelming majority of the population within its controlled areas, even without completely overthrowing the former regime or occupying the entire national territory.

Hence, the ROC had been overthrown and the PRC inherited the ROC's political power, its territory, and its international legal status. Although Chiang Kai-shek's remnants continued to use the name of "ROC," they had essentially become a local rebel force of China and lost their qualification to represent China. The name of "ROC" was no longer the name of China as a subject under international law, but merely a term of the past.

This argument was also endorsed by UNGA Resolution 2758 in an ingenious way. Since the PRC replaced the ROC in 1949 according to the principle of effectiveness, the PRC government has become the sole legitimate representative of China. However, due to the Cold War and the U.S. Intervention, the PRC's place in the UN had been unlawfully occupied from 1949 to 1971.

UNGA Resolution 2758 decides to "RESTORE," rather than recognize, all its rights to the PRC and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the UN, which means that the UN endorsed the regime change in China from the ROC to the PRC.

Thus, Chen Guiqing regards the Resolution as "the UN version of the one-China principle." The Resolution can be seen as an authoritative affirmation for the fact that "Taiwan belongs to China."

As Rao Geping has noted, the reason why the United Nations tolerated the representation of China by the Chiang Kai-shek regime for over 20 years was that it claimed itself, and was deemed by some others, as the representative of China and believed that Taiwan belongs to China. The seat it occupied in the UN was not other's, but China's. This fact testifies from another perspective that the UN only recognizes one China, with Taiwan being treated as part of China.

Chinese representative's seats in the 26th UN General Assembly, New York, Oct. 25, 1971. The photo was taken immediately after UNGA Resolution 2758 was adopted and the PRC's rights in the UN were restored. On the left is Qiao Guanhua, Chinese vice foreign minister, and Huang Hua, China's permanent representative to the UN, on the right.

What is Taiwan's status under international law?

Let us introduce the official stance of the PRC first and then explain why this stance is correct per international law and historical documents.

The official description of the one-China principle is that there is but one China in the world, Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China.

Many officials, spokespersons and diplomats talked about Taiwan's status under international law. At a press conference on March 7, 2025, Wang Yi, member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Chinese Foreign Minister, responded to the narrative questioning UNGA Resolution 2758. He said the only reference to the Taiwan region in the UN is "Taiwan, Province of China." Taiwan is never a country, not in the past, and never in the future.

In December 2024, Zhu Fenglian, spokesperson for the State Council Taiwan Affairs Office, said at a press conference that Taiwan has no international legal status other than being a part of China.

Prof. Yang Zewei from Wuhan University noted that such stance has also been endorsed in Resolution 2758, and the resolution has developed into customary international law, receiving recognition and support from over 180 countries worldwide.

According to Yang, a faithful interpretation of the essence of the resolution can help us understand the issue of Taiwan's status under international law.

Yang said the legal implications of UNGA resolutions should be interpreted following relevant rules of international law, including the general rule regarding treaty interpretation in Articles 31-33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

China, as a party to the Resolution 2758, has the right to interpret the resolution. Its interpretation constitutes an official interpretation, and is also deemed an "authentic interpretation."

Also, the document should be interpreted "in good faith" and "in the light of its object and purpose," which includes the United Nations' purposes and principles, such as those regarding maintaining international peace and security and non-interference in internal affairs.

The interpretation should also consider relevant history. For UNGA Resolution 2758, important historical materials concerning Taiwan should be taken into account: Taiwan's return to China is an important part of the outcomes of the victory in World War II and the postwar international order. The Cairo Declaration issued by China, the United States and the United Kingdom in end of November 1943, stated that it was the purpose of the three allies that all the territories Japan had stolen from China, "such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." (Manchuria is Northeast China, Formosa is Taiwan Island, and the Pescadores is Penghu Islands.) Such statements can also prove that Taiwan is part of China. Later in July 1945, China (ROC), the United States and the UK issued the Potsdam Declaration, saying that "the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out..."

Prof. Rao also noted that on October 25, 1945, then government of China (ROC) accepted Japan's surrender and announced that it was resuming the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan. From that point forward, China had recovered Taiwan as part of its territory, de jure and de facto.

Yang further pointed out that after the resolution, the vast majority of UN member states adopted a position consistent with the resolution by recognizing the PRC government as the sole legitimate government representing China, establishing diplomatic relations with it on such basis, and cutting off their diplomatic ties with the authorities in Taiwan or refusing to engage in official contacts with them.

Also, UN agencies made corresponding actions based on the one-China principle as reflected in resolution, and they show a firm belief in practice that adhering to this resolution is a legal obligation, and resolutely resist and clearly oppose actions that violate or may violate the resolution.

According to Yang, such practices are widespread and consistent and constitute an acceptance of that practice as law (opinio juris), meeting the criteria for the formation of a rule of customary international law.

---