www射-国产免费一级-欧美福利-亚洲成人福利-成人一区在线观看-亚州成人

Global EditionASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
Opinion
Home / Opinion / Op-Ed Contributors

US domestic acts cannot undermine joint communiques

By Kong Qingjiang | chinadaily.com.cn | Updated: 2022-09-14 15:05
Share
Share - WeChat
[Photo by Li Min/China Daily]

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to mark up the Taiwan Policy Act (TPA) on Wednesday, which is described as "the most comprehensive restructuring of US policy towards Taiwan since the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979." The TPA seeks to provide $4.5 billion in security assistance to Taiwan over four years, and recognize China's Taiwan as a "major non-NATO ally" of the United States.

Such a bill, if passed, will only ratchet up the already high tensions across the Taiwan Straits. Because it is another blatant US provocation seeking to challenge China's sovereignty and territory integrity and hollow out the one-China principle by undermining the three joint communiques with domestic legislation.

However, the truth is, any discussion on China-US relations should be held under the framework of the three joint communiques issued by the two countries, that is, the Shanghai Communique of Feb 28, 1972, the Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations of Dec 15, 1978, and the US-China Communique on US Arms Sales to Taiwan of Aug 17, 1982.

According to customary international law, which is codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty means an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation. And since the three joint communiques are treaties that are legally binding on both China and the United States, they are governed by international law and therefore should be abided by the two countries.

The core of the three joint communiques is the one-China principle, which forms the political and legal foundation of China-US relations. In the communiques, the US side acknowledges that the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China, and the people of the US will maintain cultural, commercial and other unofficial relations with Taiwan residents within this context.

The US, in the communiques, has committed to never infringing on China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China's internal affairs, or pursuing a policy of "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan". The US' commitments are in black and white, and thus leave no room for ambiguity or denial.

The three joint communiques followed the passing of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, which underscores the one-China principle that the People's Republic of China is the only legitimate government of China. It is important to stress here that the UN General Assembly resolutions on membership are legally binding on all the UN member states, including the US.

But due to domestic political pressure, the US Congress, shortly after issuing the Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations, enacted the Taiwan Relations Act, which aims to maintain, in disguised form, official and military relations between the US and Taiwan.

The Taiwan Relations Act seriously violates the one-China principle, the three China-US joint communiques and the spirit of UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, and thus is unlawful in international law.

The Taiwan Relations Act offers the anti-China political forces in the US a legal excuse to follow the "policy" of "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan". Worse, many in the US even believe that under the US Constitution, the three joint communiques are executive agreements and therefore inferior in terms of legal force to legislation passed by the Congress.

However, there is no truth in such beliefs judging by the ambit and jurisdiction of international law. Under international law, there is only one US and its executive and legislature represent the country bearing the name of the United States of America. So any act done in the name of the US shall be regarded as that of the country.

Also, according to the principle of promissory estoppel, a country cannot go back on its international commitments. Promissory estoppel is a legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law and prevents a party from going back on its word, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel is part of the law in the US and other countries.

Therefore, the US is obligated to abide by the commitments it has made in the three joint communiques and not pass any law that is in conflict with those commitments. In other words, the claim that the Taiwan Relations Act is legislation passed by the Congress and the three joint communiques are executive agreements does not give the US the legal power to go back on its international promises.

Moreover, according to customary international law, a country should handle its relations with other countries on the basis of international law, not based on its domestic laws that are in conflict with international law. And according to international law, the Taiwan Relations Act is unlawful.

No country can abrogate its commitments on the pretext that its domestic law conflicts with international law. In fact, by giving precedence to its domestic laws over international laws, the US has been violating international law. Also, any act that derives from the Taiwan Relations Act is illegal in light of international law, that is, the three joint communiques and UN General Assembly Resolution 2758.

Given these facts, China is firmly opposed to any official US exchanges with the island's authorities in any form and under any name. China's claim is based on facts, that there is but one China and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and that is predicated in international law.

And the US Senate's political show to "upgrade" the Taiwan Relations Act, which is motivated by the pursuit of political gains in the run-up to the midterm elections, only reinforces the fact that some senators are willing to sacrifice long-term Sino-US ties for their own selfish interests. The Taiwan Policy Act shows how lawlessly the US is willing to act in pursuit of its aims.

The author is dean of the School of International Law, China University of Political Science and Law. The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.

Most Viewed in 24 Hours
Top
BACK TO THE TOP
English
Copyright 1995 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

Registration Number: 130349
FOLLOW US
主站蜘蛛池模板: 亚洲免费影院 | 久久精品vr中文字幕 | 国产在线激情视频 | 国产精品美乳免费看 | 天天爱天天做天天爽天天躁 | 日韩精品在线免费观看 | 91b站 | 欧美视频在线观看免费精品欧美视频 | 老人毛片| 久久精品视频91 | a黄视频 | 国产91丝袜美腿在线观看 | 一区二区精品在线观看 | 久草视频免费在线播放 | 国产亚洲欧美日韩在线看片 | 黑色丝袜美美女被躁视频 | 日韩欧免费一区二区三区 | 97视频免费播放观看在线视频 | 亚洲成a人片在线网站 | 欧美在线看欧美高清视频免费 | 全部在线播放免费毛片 | 蜜臀91精品国产高清在线观看 | 精品欧美高清不卡在线 | 真实国产乱人伦在线视频播放 | 欧美黑人巨大xxxxxxxx | 免费黄网大全 | 成年女人午夜免费视频 | 成人午夜视频一区二区国语 | 美国一级毛片在线 | 久久国产一区二区三区 | 成人网在线免费观看 | 视频偷拍一级视频在线观看 | 99久久精品免费观看国产 | 国产综合在线观看视频 | 日本高清毛片视频在线看 | 色综合精品 | 亚洲国产精品一区二区久 | 成人国产网站v片免费观看 成人国产午夜在线视频 | 欧美精品专区免费观看 | 国产成人综合91香蕉 | 精品视频99|