[komali2]

"France" is a great example, as is "Italy." What we perceive of when we hear those words is a territory and government that are perfectly overlain. In reality, what one might consider France or Italy in reality contains other sovereign states! San Marino, The Vatican, Monaco, Andorra.

Personally I think it's important for modern people to reject this feudal era idea that a government can claim a mandate to rule over certain territories just because of the territory of previous governments, or because of the distributions of certain ethnicities, religions, or languages. I think it's important for people to maintain an identity separate from any given government, to defang the ability of governments to leverage racialized nationalism to protect the state's continuity at all costs, even to the detriment to the people living in its territory.

By the way, it remains false that Taiwan makes any claims to PRC territory. Imagine how silly you could make me look if you could quote exactly where in the Taiwanese constitution it does! I invite you to try.

[DiogenesKynikos]

> Imagine how silly you could make me look if you could quote exactly where in the Taiwanese constitution it does! I invite you to try.

Okay, since you asked for it. Article 4 of the constitution of the Republic of China:

"The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly."

This was passed in 1947, when the Republic of China very explicitly claimed all of China (plus Mongolia). The constitution sets that claim in stone, and says that it can only be changed by an act of the legislature. There's never been such an act.

Taiwan formally recognizes mainland China as the "Mainland Area," and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area." It's a legal mess that arises out of formally claiming a territory that they don't control (and now no longer want to regain control over).

[komali2]

I didn't realize it was the same person I had made this comment to twice, so I will copy and paste my answer here:

> > The key phrase is "existing boundaries." The constitution was passed in 1947, when the "existing boundaries" of the ROC were very clear: all of China, plus Mongolia.

Nope, they were never formally defined, not even in legislation.

This flexibility was explicitly acknowledged in the constitutional reforms, when a clear delineation was made between "territory the ROC controls, and mainland territory (which the ROC does not claim)". The constitutional court also addressed the question directly: https://cons.judicial.gov.tw/en/docdata.aspx?fid=100&id=3105... TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."

Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory. Lacking any other Taiwanese claim to the territory (legislation, etc), it's therefore a fact that Taiwan makes no claims whatsoever to PRC territory.

> and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area."

There is no evidence to back this claim.

> It's a legal mess that arises out of formally claiming a territory that they don't control

There is no evidence that Taiwan makes a formal claim to territory it doesn't have sovereignty over (aka, PRC territory).

[DiogenesKynikos]

They were formally defined by the term "existing boundaries," which was clear in 1947. It most definitely did not mean the island of Taiwan, a tiny part of the Republic of China at the time.

> TLDR "the constitution does not define the actual territory."

That's not the TLDR of the ruling, and nothing like that appears in the ruling. The TLDR of the ruling is that the court does not have the authority to rule on what the territory of the ROC is.

> Thus, the constitution does not represent the ROC claiming PRC territory.

The constitution clearly defines the existing territory as the borders of the ROC at the time of the passage of the constitution, in 1947. That was explicitly maintained by the ROC government for decades after it lost the civil war. The current ruling party doesn't agree with it, but hasn't changed the constitution or passed any act that eliminates the claim.

>> and legally considers it part of the ROC but under different rules than the "Free Area."

> There is no evidence to back this claim

You're disputing that the ROC formally defines a "Mainland Area," as opposed to recognizing the mainland as belonging to a separate country? This is not even something you can reasonably dispute. They do use that legal fiction.