The Formosa Doctrine
Table of Contents
INFOGRAPHICS
The Formosa Doctrine
A Framework for Sovereignty, Democracy, and Indigenous Primacy
The Core Legal Argument
The Formosa Doctrine reframes Taiwan's status by highlighting a critical legal fact: the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951). This treaty, which formally ended WWII in the Pacific, is the definitive legal instrument. In it, Japan renounced sovereignty over Taiwan, but the treaty did *not* assign that sovereignty to any successor state, including the PRC or the ROC. This created a legal void, or "undetermined status," that cannot be resolved by historical claims, but rather by the will of the island's inhabitants.
SFPT (1951)
Japan renounces sovereignty over Formosa (Taiwan).
No Recipient Named
The treaty is silent on who receives sovereignty.
Undetermined Status
Status is defined by the democratic will of the people.
This legal reality is the foundation of the doctrine, positioning Taiwan's status as a matter of international law and self-determination, distinct from the PRC's "civil war" narrative.
The Five Pillars of Sovereignty
Taiwan's legitimacy is not based on a single claim, but on a robust framework of five interconnected pillars. These pillars collectively establish a modern, defensible, and coherent case for its status as a distinct, self-governing polity. The chart below visualizes these five pillars as the strong, interlocking components of the doctrine.
Unlike singular historical claims, this multi-pillar framework demonstrates a holistic legitimacy rooted in modern international norms, including democratic consent, human rights, and legal integrity.
Forensic Fact-Check: A Timeline of Claims
A central pillar of the PRC's narrative is the claim that it "recovered" Taiwan in 1945. A simple forensic timeline demonstrates this is historically impossible. The PRC was not founded until 1949, four years *after* its claim begins. This chart visualizes key legal and historical events relative to the PRC's founding, highlighting the impossibility of its 1945 claim.
The chart shows the "Claimed Recovery" (1945) is an anachronism. The definitive legal events—the **San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951)** and **UN Resolution 2758 (1971)**—both occurred *after* the PRC's founding, and neither assigned sovereignty of Taiwan to the PRC.
PRC Claims vs. Forensic Reality
| PRC Claim | Forensic Reality |
|---|---|
| "Taiwan has been China's since ancient times." | False. Indigenous Austronesian peoples governed Taiwan for millennia. The Qing Dynasty only partially administered the western plains. |
| "China recovered Taiwan in 1945." | Impossible. The PRC was founded in 1949. The ROC (not the PRC) accepted the surrender as an Allied representative. |
| "The Cairo Declaration (1943) gave Taiwan to China." | Legal Error. Cairo was a non-binding press communiqué about war aims, not a ratified treaty. It cannot legally transfer sovereignty. |
| "UN Resolution 2758 (1971) settled the Taiwan question." | Misleading. The resolution gave the "China" seat to the PRC, expelling the ROC. It **does not mention Taiwan** or assign its sovereignty. |
| "181 countries recognize Taiwan is part of China." | Nuance Required. Most countries "acknowledge" the PRC's position but do **not** formally "recognize" PRC sovereignty over Taiwan. |
The "Formosa" Shield
The term "Formosa" is a strategic tool. It is the historical name used in the **San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT)**. When observers use this term, they inadvertently reference the very legal document that separates Taiwan from China and establishes its "Undetermined Status." This narrative shield is composed of legal fact, Indigenous rights, and democratic will.
The "Formosa" narrative shifts the debate away from the PRC's "One China" principle and grounds it in the facts of international law (SFPT), Indigenous primacy, and democratic self-determination.
THE FORMOSA DOCTRINE
A Framework for Sovereignty, Democracy, and Indigenous Primacy
1. Executive Summary
The Premise
The prevailing global narrative regarding Taiwan is often framed as an “unfinished civil war” or a “rebel province.” This framing is historically inaccurate and legally incomplete. The Formosa Doctrine establishes that Taiwan’s legitimacy arises from its people, its Indigenous foundation, its democratic governance, and its continuous self-administration—not from dynastic succession or authoritarian claims.
The Core Argument
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) claims sovereignty over Taiwan based on the assertion that it “recovered” the island in 1945. This claim is historically impossible because the PRC did not exist in 1945. The Republic of China (ROC) administered Taiwan as an occupying power under Allied authorization, but the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951)—the definitive legal instrument ending WWII in the Pacific—forced Japan to renounce sovereignty over Taiwan without assigning it to any successor state.
Consequently, Taiwan constitutes a distinct, self-governing polity whose status is defined by:
Democratic Self-Determination: The will of 23 million people.
Indigenous Primacy: The pre-existing sovereignty of Austronesian nations.
Legal Reality: The absence of any binding treaty transferring title to the PRC.
2. The Five Pillars of the Doctrine
I. People Before Empires
Sovereignty originates from the consent of the governed, not from imperial maps. Taiwan’s 23 million citizens constitute a complete political community. Their democratic will supersedes historical claims from regimes that have never governed the island.
II. Indigenous Primacy
Taiwan’s Austronesian Indigenous nations have inhabited the island for at least 6,000 years, predating all Chinese dynastic contact. Under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), to which the PRC is a signatory, Indigenous peoples have inherent rights to their lands and political status. This layer of sovereignty predates and blocks PRC claims of “ancient ownership.”
III. Democratic Legitimacy
In the 21st century, the forcible annexation of a functioning democracy is a violation of fundamental international norms. Taiwan’s democratic institutions generate their own internal and external legitimacy, distinguishing it morally and legally from the PRC’s authoritarian system.
IV. Legal Integrity (The Treaty Void)
The San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951) is the governing legal document of the post-war order in East Asia. In it, Japan renounced all right, title, and claim to Formosa (Taiwan), but the treaty did not assign sovereignty to China. As the PRC was not a signatory, it has no treaty-based legal title to the island.
V. The Anti-Annexation Norm
The world must distinguish between “national reunification” and “colonial annexation.” Because the PRC has never ruled Taiwan, any attempt to take it is an act of conquest, not reunification.
3. Forensic Fact-Check: Dismantling the PRC Timeline
The PRC narrative relies on a constructed timeline that collapses under scrutiny.
| PRC Claim | Forensic Reality |
“Taiwan has been China’s since ancient times.” | False. Indigenous Austronesian peoples governed Taiwan for millennia. The Qing Dynasty (1683–1895) only partially administered the western plains and explicitly labeled the eastern half as terra nullius (“land of savages”). |
“China recovered Taiwan in 1945.” | Impossible. The PRC was founded in 1949. It did not exist in 1945. The ROC accepted the Japanese surrender as an Allied representative, not as the PRC. |
“The Cairo Declaration (1943) gave Taiwan to China.” | Legal Error. Cairo was a non-binding press communiqué regarding war aims, not a ratified treaty. It cannot legally transfer sovereignty. |
“UN Resolution 2758 (1971) settled the Taiwan question.” | Misleading. Res 2758 expelled the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek and recognized the PRC representatives as the only lawful reps of “China” at the UN. It does not mention Taiwan, nor does it assign Taiwan’s sovereignty to the PRC. |
“181 countries recognize Taiwan is part of China.” | Nuance Required. Most countries (including the US, Japan, and Canada) “acknowledge” or “take note of” the PRC’s position but do not officially recognize PRC sovereignty over Taiwan. |
4. Strategic Narrative: The “Formosa” Shield
The use of the term “Formosa”—historically used in the San Francisco Peace Treaty—is a strategic reminder of the island’s distinct legal status.
The Argument: When Beijing or international observers use the term “Formosa,” they inadvertently reference the specific period (1895–1951) and the specific treaty (SFPT) that separated Taiwan from China legally.
The Implication: Formosa represents the “Undetermined Status” rooted in international law, distinct from the “One China” civil war narrative.
5. Authoritative Further Reading & Verification
To verify the legal and historical claims made in this doctrine, refer to the primary source documents below.
The San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951)
Relevance: Article 2(b) confirms Japan renounced Taiwan without naming a recipient.
Read full text: United Nations Treaty Collection – Treaty of Peace with Japan
UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 (1971)
Relevance: Read the text to verify it mentions “Chiang Kai-shek” and “China” but is completely silent on the word “Taiwan.”
Read full text: UN Digital Library – Resolution 2758 (XXVI)
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
Relevance: Articles 3, 26, and 32 establish rights to self-determination and land that predate colonial claims.
Read full text: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs – UNDRIP
“The International Legal Status of Taiwan” (Center for Strategic & International Studies – CSIS)
Relevance: An authoritative analysis of the “Undetermined Status” theory.
Read analysis: CSIS – Interpretations of UN Resolution 2758
VISUALS
The Formosa Doctrine
A Framework for Sovereignty, Democracy, and Indigenous Primacy
The global narrative about Taiwan is often framed as an "unfinished civil war." This is historically inaccurate and legally incomplete. The Formosa Doctrine presents a more accurate framework: Taiwan's legitimacy arises from its people, its Indigenous foundation, and its democratic governance—not from dynastic succession or authoritarian claims.
Forensic Fact-Check: Deconstructing the Claims
The PRC's narrative relies on a few core claims that are repeated globally. This section interactively fact-checks them against verifiable history and international law. Click a claim to see the forensic reality.
The Legal Reality: The 1951 Treaty Void
The single most important legal document is the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT). It is the definitive treaty that ended WWII in the Pacific. The PRC's claims ignore its central, inconvenient finding.
JAPAN
Signatory to the SFPT
RENUNCIATION
In Article 2(b), Japan **renounced** all right, title, and claim to Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores.
THE LEGAL VOID
The treaty **did not assign** sovereignty to any state. Not the PRC (which wasn't a signatory) or the ROC. This created an "undetermined status."
This legal void means Taiwan's status cannot be determined by past imperial claims, but only by modern principles like self-determination.
The Five Pillars of Sovereignty
Taiwan's legitimacy is not based on a single argument. It stands on a multi-layered foundation of five mutually reinforcing pillars, visualized here as a strong, balanced structure.
This multi-pillar framework, rooted in modern international law, democratic consent, and Indigenous rights, is vastly more robust than any singular claim to "ancient" history.
Interactive Timeline: Key Events
The PRC's narrative compresses history to create a false story. Explore the *actual* sequence of key events to understand why its claims are impossible. Click a year to see what truly happened.
Authoritative Further Reading
Don't take our word for it. The core arguments of the Formosa Doctrine are based on verifiable, public-domain international treaties and resolutions. We encourage you to read them yourself.
TFD—STORY APP
DOCUMENTATION
San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951)
UN Resolution 2758 (1971) - A_RES_2758(XXVI)-EN.pdf
UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI)
25 October 1971 – Myth vs Reality
Exact Text (Official English)
Title: Restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations
The General Assembly,
...
Recognizing that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations...
Decides to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy...(Adopted 76–35–17)
What 2758 Actually Says — And What It Does NOT Say
| Claim | In the Text? | Reality |
|---|---|---|
| “Taiwan” or “Formosa” mentioned | Zero times | Completely absent |
| Taiwan is part of the PRC | No such clause | Silent on territory |
| Defines borders of “China” | No | Only about UN representation |
| Expels a state (ROC/Taiwan) | No | Expels “representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” (individuals) |
| Ends the Chinese civil war or awards sovereignty | No | Pure credentials switch |
Key Proofs the Resolution is Narrow
- “Chiang Kai-shek” wording – Deliberately personal, not institutional.
- 1971 U.S. “dual representation” proposal – Proves the issue was only about the “China” seat.
- Contemporary statements – Japan, Australia, Saudi Arabia, etc. confirmed it does not touch Taiwan’s status.
- UN Legal Counsel opinions (1971–present) – 2758 is representation only.
Bottom Line (2025)
Beijing’s claim that “UNGA 2758 recognizes Taiwan as part of China” is factually false — a 21st-century fabrication.
The resolution simply swapped the nameplate on the “China” seat.
It says nothing about Taiwan/Formosa.
Taiwan’s status remains undetermined.
The Formosa Doctrine stands.
Full analysis: https://dayday.club/ca/the-formosa-doctrine/
UN Resolution 2758 (1971) - A_RES_2758(XXVI)-ZH.pdf
VIDEOS
A New Shield for Taiwan
台版DRIPA：一個新的憲政藍圖
台湾DRIPA提案：一个新的宪政构想
TAIWAN DRIPA A New Model
MINDMAPS
Diary Dates: Truth Revealed
A Day in the Life:
Diary on Group Behaviours
