Return to Answer

Well, the Han people invaded Taiwan en masse during their civil war in the mid 20th century, overwhelming the local indigenous Austronesian "Formosans" by numbers. Before that, it was administered by Japan for many decades, and only small parts of it were ever under the control of Qing dynasty proxies (e.g.: the pirate Coxinga), whilst indigenous small "tribal" states existed, even through preceding Dutch and Portuguese loose administrations. It's difficult to see what (or whose) law applies, or exactly who might be seeking independence from whom.

If for example, many countries refuse to recognise the independence of a large powerful country, then what meaning does it have? Similarly, if many countries acknowledge the independence (or right to self-determination) of small (in numbers or area) polities (or "countries"), what meaning does it have? Independence seems to be more a de facto state, that is latterly given de jure status, as it can't practicably be changed. Then there's the related point about economic independence. You could argue that most countries are not economically independent.

So, to answer the question... there is only any international law that says anything because powerful countries agree that there is, and in the case of Taiwan, at least one powerful country doesn't agree.

Well, the Han people invaded Taiwan en masse during their civil war in the mid 20th century, overwhelming the local indigenous Austronesian "Formosans" by numbers. Before that, it was administered by Japan for many decades, and only small parts of it were ever under the control of Qing dynasty proxies (e.g.: the pirate Coxinga), whilst indigenous small "tribal" states existed, even through preceding Dutch and Portuguese loose administrations. It's difficult to see what (or whose) law applies, or exactly who might be seeking independence from whom.

If for example, many countries refuse to recognise the independence of a large powerful country, then what meaning does it have? Similarly, if many countries acknowledge the independence (or right to self-determination) of small (in numbers or area) polities (or "countries"), what meaning does it have? Independence seems to be more a de facto state, that is latterly given de jure status, as it can't practicably be changed. Then there's the related point about economic independence. You could argue that most countries are not economically independent.

So, to answer the question... there is only any international law that says anything because powerful countries agree that there is, and in the case of Taiwan, at least one powerful country doesn't agree; but other powerful countries do agree; hence a war may ensue to decide it.

Well, the Han people invaded Taiwan en masse during their civil war in the mid 20th century, overwhelming the local indigenous Austronesian "Formosans" by numbers. Before that, it was administered by Japan for many decades, and only small parts of it were ever under the control of Qing dynasty proxies (e.g.: the pirate Coxinga), whilst indigenous small "tribal" states existed, even through preceding Dutch and Portuguese loose administrations. It's difficult to see what (or whose) law applies, or exactly who might be seeking independence from whom.

If for example, many countries refuse to recognise the independence of a large powerful country, then what meaning does it have? Similarly, if many countries acknowledge the independence (or right to self-determination) of small (in numbers or area) polities (or "countries"), what meaning does it have? Independence seems to be more a de facto state, that is latterly given de jure status, as it can't practicably be changed. Then there's the related point about economic independence. You could argue that most countries are not economically independent.

Well, the Han people invaded Taiwan en masse during their civil war in the mid 20th century, overwhelming the local indigenous Austronesian "Formosans" by numbers. Before that, it was administered by Japan for many decades, and only small parts of it were ever under the control of Qing dynasty proxies (e.g.: the pirate Coxinga), whilst indigenous small "tribal" states existed, even through preceding Dutch and Portuguese loose administrations. It's difficult to see what (or whose) law applies, or exactly who might be seeking independence from whom.

If for example, many countries refuse to recognise the independence of a large powerful country, then what meaning does it have? Similarly, if many countries acknowledge the independence (or right to self-determination) of small (in numbers or area) polities (or "countries"), what meaning does it have? Independence seems to be more a de facto state, that is latterly given de jure status, as it can't practicably be changed. Then there's the related point about economic independence. You could argue that most countries are not economically independent.

So, to answer the question... there is only any international law that says anything because powerful countries agree that there is, and in the case of Taiwan, at least one powerful country doesn't agree.

Well, the Han people invaded Taiwan en masse during their civil war in the mid 20th century, overwhelming the local indigenous Austronesian "Formosans" by numbers. Before that, it was administered by Japan for many decades, and only small parts of it were ever under the control of Qing dynasty proxies (e.g.: the pirate Coxinga), whilst indigenous small "tribal" states existed, even through preceding Dutch and Portuguese loose administrations. It's difficult to see what (or whose) law applies, or exactly who might be seeking independence from whom.

If for example, many countries refuse to recognise the independence of a large powerful country, then what meaning does it have? Similarly, if many countries acknowledge the independence (or right to self-determination) of small (in numbers or area) polities (or "countries"), what meaning does it have? Independence seems to be more a de facto state, that is latterly given de jure status, as it can't practicably be changed. Then there's the related point about economic independence.

Well, the Han people invaded Taiwan en masse during their civil war in the mid 20th century, overwhelming the local indigenous Austronesian "Formosans" by numbers. Before that, it was administered by Japan for many decades, and only small parts of it were ever under the control of Qing dynasty proxies (e.g.: the pirate Coxinga), whilst indigenous small "tribal" states existed, even through preceding Dutch and Portuguese loose administrations. It's difficult to see what (or whose) law applies, or exactly who might be seeking independence from whom.

If for example, many countries refuse to recognise the independence of a large powerful country, then what meaning does it have? Similarly, if many countries acknowledge the independence (or right to self-determination) of small (in numbers or area) polities (or "countries"), what meaning does it have? Independence seems to be more a de facto state, that is latterly given de jure status, as it can't practicably be changed. Then there's the related point about economic independence. You could argue that most countries are not economically independent.