Taiwan's security is the biggest out-of-state concern for the United States and the rest of the world right now. The threat in question is no other state than China. Their shared history is imprinted by repeated attempts to unify the island divided by the Taiwan Strait, approximately 130 miles wide at the narrowest point. 

 

The “Anti-Secession Law” of the People’s Republic of China, enacted in 2005, on paper, calls for a peaceful reunification but does not exclude one accompanied using force if the method aimed for turns out not to be sufficient. From installing administrative bodies in 1624 to modern-day military threats, including shooting long-range missiles over the island and even in Japanese sea territory to deter anyone from intervening, China has a deeply rooted and historic interest in accomplishing this goal. The international community never seemed to care enough for the island to recognize it as a sovereign state and establish diplomatic relations. Although Taiwan was a recognized member of the United Nations as the “Republic of China,” standing next to China as the “People’s Republic of China,” it was derecognized in 1971 to appease China's “one China policy.” This bold move is now backfiring in many countries. Recognizing the “one China policy” makes an invasion of Taiwan a domestic matter, a civil war from the country’s legal stance, which complicates supporting Taiwan in compliance with international law. The mass derecognition happened because of China’s ever-increasing political and economic powers in the 1970s, creating a large interest in remaining on good terms with China. Ever since Taiwan's RCA project serving the purpose of advancing its industrialization created TSMC in 1987, the world's biggest semiconductor producer, the tides shifted. If China invades Taiwan and gains control of the export of chips, the global community risks a monetary crisis bigger than COVID or the Great Recession of 2008. Microchips shape our daily lives and gain more relevance with the rapid modernization of the world. Cutting off the monopoly like export would create a ripple effect affecting almost every market.  

 

So where does the United States stand in all of this? TSMC's biggest market is North America, with Apple orders creating one-fifth of their revenue already. Lots is at stake if we let China just gain control of the biggest control lever of the world.  

 

On a domestic law level, the USA stopped recognizing Taiwan and cut its diplomatic relations in 1979 but passed the Taiwan Relations Act the same year. It serves as a substitute for establishing informal governmental communication and determines peace on the Taiwan Strait, a mutual interest of high relevance. Most importantly, it promises indirect military support in the form of “defense articles” and “defense services.” Which refers to the delivery of military equipment and required maintenance service. It does not establish Congress, the legislative branch, the President, or the executive branch to use U.S. armed forces to Taiwan's aid. It explicitly requires the United States to maintain the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion. The main goal of the Act, therefore, is that the US should be hands-off for the most part but should ideally equip Taiwan with enough equipment to defend itself. Given the present situation, which is engraved by China’s superior military capacity and capability, the Taiwan Relations Act is insufficient to ensure its main goal. In 2023, Congress passed the Invasion Prevention Act, which gives the President, as the “Commander in Chief,” the authority to use the Armed Forces and take the measures required to protect Taiwan against multiple scenarios. This gives the President a lot of power; the imbalance was redefined with the provision of the Act stating that the War Powers Resolution applies to such scenarios. The war powers resolution requires tightly knit communication and interaction between the executive and legislative branches in terms of military activity. Essentially, deciding whether the US armed forces will support Taiwan is a joint one. This Act builds on the foundation set out by the Taiwan Relations Act. So, despite there not being formal diplomatic relations between the two states, we would still come to help. So, does an intervention being legal on a domestic level, if decided upon in harmony by Congress and the President, suffice the required legal test? The short answer is no. 

 

The United States is a committed member of the United Nations, and all its activity outside its territory is subject to international law. Just like how the US courts enforce compliance with domestic law and the Constitution, the International Court of Justice decides what is and is not possible under international law. The most memorable difference, however, is that there is no real executive power that forces every member to play along. The closest thing to an executive branch is the UN Security Council, which can pass a resolution requiring UN soldiers to intervene. The UN Security Council, however, is infamous for rarely reaching such a decision. The reason is that the world's most powerful nations, which are mostly involved in a conflict in one way or another, each have their respective veto right. China also has a veto right, making an Intervention by “blue helmets” impossible unless China is derecognized as a UN member. In the case of an invasion, the UN Security Council would not respond in any way to prevent such an invasion.  

 

So, is there no way that the US can come to Taiwan's aid? Yes, Article 51 of the UN- Charter has a that constitutes the right to self-defense for UN member states. It allows for the use of force to an extent that is necessary and reasonable for the country to protect itself. It also allows the country with the right to self-defense to request other countries to aid them if required, which would be the case with the difference in military capability. The only problem is that Taiwan is not a UN member, without meeting this requirement, it does not have the rights enumerated under Article 51. The USA, however, interprets Article 51 to be subsidiary to International Law principles, such as the right to self-defense existed way before the UN Charter was created. This customary international law does not require the country that is being attacked to be a member of the UN and would enable Taiwan to request other countries, primarily the US, to help. This, of course, is a minority opinion, and without the consent of the UN Security Council, the US would move into a grey area of international law which could face scrutiny from the global community. The fact that the UN Security Council is useless in cases where the perpetrators are sitting at the same table as other members with a veto right, however, raises the question of not following laws and procedures, which is a big issue if it fails horribly in certain circumstances. What use is it in the modern-day global landscape considering the tense relations between the veto power UN Security Council states? This is in addition to the fact that Japan and other countries in the proximity of the invasion would inherit the right of self-defense too, because of deterrence attacks from China, they could also request support from the U.S, which would further cement our legal justification to prevent an invasion at all costs.  

 

An invasion is inevitable; Xi Jinping has repeatedly stated that reunification is a hardship he does not want the following generation to have to bear and deal with. Specialists expect an invasion to happen at least before 2050. As of now, we must hope that with problems such as the government shutdown, we can remain prepared to live up to our promise in the Taiwan Relations Act and the Taiwan Invasion Prevention Act and remain ready.