> You should educate yourself about the fact that PRC Taiwan and USA all legally recognize one China policy. China is not PRC, PRC is at best the only internationally recognized government of China. Even so there is still only one China.
> Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level official from US.
One China Policy isn't a law, at least not outside the PRC; it's a gentlemen's agreement between the U.S., China (PRC), and Taiwan (ROC) which permits everybody to save face without having to go to war. It's not written down anywhere, except perhaps on a hurried memorandum.
Furthermore, the only reason the PRC represents China in the United Nations is because of another gentlemen's agreement between the PRC and the U.S. (Nixon, Kissinger) that the PRC would abstain from forcefully invading Taiwan. Up until then the ROC had the seat and would have continued to do so. (Note that this is distinct from the One China Policy, which is a face-saving public gloss on the commitments to abstain from using military force over Taiwan.)
But-for the strategic ambiguity wrt Taiwan, the U.S. is very careful not to violate Chinese territorial sovereignty. I'm not aware of any principal of international law that is per se violated by Pelosi visiting Taiwan. Perhaps the PRC has a law on the books that says otherwise, but the PRC doesn't administer Taiwan. This state affairs exists beyond written and normative international law; it just is what it is.
Now if the U.S. were to have a military presence on Taiwan, especially a permanent presence, then that would be another story. International law wouldn't figure into it either, but it would be a much clearer violation of the U.S.-PRC agreement regarding the PRC's ascension to the U.N. and the subsequent One China Policy memorandum. AFAIK, the U.S. doesn't permit military officers to enter Taiwan, at least not in their official capacity. Unlike the President, the Speaker of the House holds no military office. From the U.S. perspective, this is the no-go line.
If you want to talk about violating clearly written international agreements, let's talk Hong Kong. But that wouldn't be very productive, either, because despite the formalities the Hong Kong situation also pushes beyond the envelop of what normative international law can speak to.
Looks great, a well rounded analysis of the situation.
But, it misses the critical historical heritage for the event and the actual international laws at the time of the end of WWII.
The situation is more like the China domestic war was not ending, and US intervened China's unification out of the strategic goal of contain communism. PRC of cuz had been the Vanguard of political insurgency across the east Asia.
One China policy is recognized by international law not because of US, one China policy is derived from a series of international treaties after ww2. Those are the laws actually has the most legitimacy.
And the other so called general men's agreement of PRC's representation of this one China. That's just an automatic derivation from that fact that PRC inherits the ROC seat in UN. You are reversing the cause and effect. But this is quite common for people living in US, as they tend to view everything as if they were always under US leadership, and claimed that a lot things that actually sanctioned under check and balance of geopolitical struggles into some kind of US concession out of necessary strategic goal that eventually US are going to revert.
Precisely that's one wrong lesson of geopolitical struggling. You can always claims a moral superiority and legal high ground from ones own perspective. That's the case for US, Taiwan, PRC, and even for Japan's refusal to admit it war crimes. But the underlying facts of power and strength, which has always been the driven force of geopolitical struggles, is always the foundation.
> Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level official from US.
One China Policy isn't a law, at least not outside the PRC; it's a gentlemen's agreement between the U.S., China (PRC), and Taiwan (ROC) which permits everybody to save face without having to go to war. It's not written down anywhere, except perhaps on a hurried memorandum.
Furthermore, the only reason the PRC represents China in the United Nations is because of another gentlemen's agreement between the PRC and the U.S. (Nixon, Kissinger) that the PRC would abstain from forcefully invading Taiwan. Up until then the ROC had the seat and would have continued to do so. (Note that this is distinct from the One China Policy, which is a face-saving public gloss on the commitments to abstain from using military force over Taiwan.)
But-for the strategic ambiguity wrt Taiwan, the U.S. is very careful not to violate Chinese territorial sovereignty. I'm not aware of any principal of international law that is per se violated by Pelosi visiting Taiwan. Perhaps the PRC has a law on the books that says otherwise, but the PRC doesn't administer Taiwan. This state affairs exists beyond written and normative international law; it just is what it is.
Now if the U.S. were to have a military presence on Taiwan, especially a permanent presence, then that would be another story. International law wouldn't figure into it either, but it would be a much clearer violation of the U.S.-PRC agreement regarding the PRC's ascension to the U.N. and the subsequent One China Policy memorandum. AFAIK, the U.S. doesn't permit military officers to enter Taiwan, at least not in their official capacity. Unlike the President, the Speaker of the House holds no military office. From the U.S. perspective, this is the no-go line.
If you want to talk about violating clearly written international agreements, let's talk Hong Kong. But that wouldn't be very productive, either, because despite the formalities the Hong Kong situation also pushes beyond the envelop of what normative international law can speak to.