Taiwan Maintains Inherited Territorial Claims in South China Sea

Taiwan has formally retained a series of territorial claims inherited from the Republic of China following its relocation to the island in 1949. According to a recent analysis by the Taipei Times, these assertions cover significant portions of the South China Sea, including the Paracel and Senkaku Islands, as well as the Spratly archipelago. This position stands distinct from the broader claims made by the People’s Republic of China, which extends its sovereignty assertions to include not only these maritime features but also the entire Taiwan region and nearby islands such as Kinmen and Penghu.

The historical roots of these disputes trace back to the late 1940s, when the Republic of China published maps featuring an eleven-dash line that enclosed approximately 90 percent of the South China Sea. While constitutional amendments in 1991 separated the administration of the island from the mainland, they did not explicitly revoke these maritime and territorial assertions. Consequently, Taiwan maintains administrative control over Itu Aba in the Spratly Islands and Pratas Island, the latter of which is assigned to Kaohsiung City’s Qijin District, while facing overlapping claims from Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and Japan.

Historical Origins of Maritime Claims

The current ten-dash line used by Beijing is widely understood to have evolved from the earlier eleven-dash line established by the Republic of China, with only minor modifications. This continuity highlights the complex legal and historical underpinnings of the region's maritime disputes. Although the 1991 constitutional changes redefined the relationship between the island and the mainland, they left the broader territorial assertions regarding the South China Sea and the Senkaku Islands intact, creating a legal ambiguity that persists to this day.

Recent diplomatic moves have further complicated the landscape. In 2013, the administration of then-President Ma Ying-jeou signed a fisheries agreement with Japan that granted access to waters near the Senkaku Islands without explicitly addressing sovereignty. This approach contrasts with the stance of the subsequent administration under President Tsai Ing-wen, which in 2016 emphasized sovereignty over the South China Sea islands but notably avoided referencing the historic waters or the dash line. These differing strategies reflect the nuanced political calculations involved in managing territorial disputes while maintaining diplomatic stability.

Political Dynamics and Legal Constraints

Domestic political considerations play a significant role in shaping Taiwan’s approach to these claims. As noted in the Taipei Times, the Kuomintang has historically incorporated Chinese nationalism into its platform, whereas the Democratic Progressive Party was founded on Taiwanese nationalism and democratic principles. Despite these ideological differences, both parties have generally avoided relinquishing inherited claims, likely due to the risk of domestic political backlash and criticism from opposition groups. This consensus on retaining claims provides a degree of stability in Taipei’s official position, even as the political context shifts.

However, the practical enforcement of these claims remains limited. An arbitral tribunal previously rejected Chinese claims to historic rights to resources within the nine-dash line, stating that such rights must align with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. While the ruling did not determine sovereignty over the islands themselves, it underscored the legal challenges associated with broad maritime claims. Furthermore, analysts note that neither the Democratic Progressive Party nor the Kuomintang possesses the military capability to unilaterally enforce these territorial assertions, highlighting the gap between legal claims and operational reality.

Future Implications for Regional Stability

The continued retention of these claims by Taiwan adds a layer of complexity to the already multifaceted disputes in the South China Sea. With multiple nations asserting overlapping rights to the same waters and islands, the potential for friction remains high. The lack of a unified approach among the various stakeholders, combined with the inability of any single party to decisively enforce its claims, suggests that diplomatic and legal channels will continue to be the primary arenas for managing these tensions. Observers will likely watch closely for any shifts in policy or new diplomatic initiatives that could either de-escalate or exacerbate these long-standing disputes.