In the not-so-distant future of late 2025, the world had eyes fixed firmly on the waters of the Taiwan Strait. Nations large and small watched warily, not just because of military posturing, but because of the delicate web of law and legitimacy that underpinned peace itself.
Amid this tension sat Julia Foster, a young legal scholar specializing in international law and conflict resolution. At a major U.N. conference in Geneva, she stood before a lecture hall packed with diplomats, academics, and journalists.
“If we call a law bad because it serves only a privileged few,” she began, “then perhaps there is no such thing as a bad law—only incomplete ones.”
Her statement was met at first with murmurs—but what she said next hit home.
⸻
- Laws as Social Contracts
Julia reminded her audience that laws are not arbitrary edicts. At their best, they are social contracts—designed to be fair to all, including those who lack power. Laws are built to last only as long as people believe in their fairness. If they serve only a privileged few, they collapse under their own contradictions. Fairness, not mercy, is the safety net that protects the law.
That principle wasn’t just philosophical. Around the world in 2025, countries were rewriting laws to address emerging challenges—from AI governance to labor rights to national security. In China, the legal system had just completed a major foreign-related legal framework, stamping out gaps in international law and compliance procedures. Scholars hailed it as a step toward legal clarity in foreign affairs—even as observers cautioned such frameworks could be used to enforce political ends under the guise of “state security.”
⸻
- Gray Areas and Ambition
Julia continued:
“Those who seek to bend law for personal gain do not do so by force—they do so by hunting in the gray areas.”
Around the world, even well-intentioned laws had loopholes. In China, authorities recently released new judicial interpretations clarifying complex labor dispute rules—aimed at preventing exploitation but also affecting foreign-invested businesses navigating compliance.
In Taiwan, legal reforms were reshaping the social safety net itself—for example, the National Health Insurance system was made more equitable and continuous, no matter where citizens lived, reflecting constitutional mandates and political consensus about fairness.
These examples showed how laws evolve—but also how intent matters: are they being used to empower or exclude?
⸻
- Law at the Crossroads of Sovereignty and Peace
Then came the most politically charged topic: Taiwan and international law.
Julia spoke calmly, but her voice carried far:
“A law is born of a social contract. When a law is debated and ratified by many nations, it becomes a guarantee of mutual trust.”
But what happens when interpretations of law diverge dramatically between states?
The heart of the Taiwanese question lay in international law, history, and politics. For decades, Beijing has insisted that the One-China principle is rooted in international norms, pointing to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (1971) and the collective acceptance of that framework in official U.N. documents. According to that view, Taiwan is treated as part of China; no separate sovereign status exists under U.N. procedures.
As recently as this December, Chinese diplomats reiterated that position in statements to European and global audiences, insisting that any attempt to treat Taiwan as a separate entity undermines the post-war international order.
But that interpretation is not universally uncontested. Some scholars and legal experts argue that Resolution 2758 addressed representation at the U.N. and not territorial sovereignty per se. Others point out that international law prohibits acquisition of territory by force and that sovereignty must be grounded in the consent of the governed, self-determination, and widely accepted legal criteria—not just diplomatic recognition. (This latter point, crucial in many legal debates, is reflected in broader scholarship and analysis outside official diplomatic texts.)
The effects of competing legal narratives were real. Not long ago, Taiwan banned a major Chinese social media platform—citing legal non-compliance and concerns about fraud and influence operations—showing how domestic law and politics can intersect with perceptions of sovereignty.
Furthermore, great powers were putting legal and military muscle behind their interpretations. In early December 2025, the U.S. passed a massive defense bill allocating billions in support for Taiwan’s security and regional deterrence—embedding legal commitments into strategic policy.
⸻
- The Fragile Architecture of Peace
Julia concluded with a reminder that even the most robust legal frameworks depend on collective belief in their fairness and legitimacy:
“If a law is believed only by a few, it is no law at all.”
She paused, scanning the room.
“Now imagine the consequences when states disagree not just on interpretation, but on the foundational principles of law—sovereignty, rights, and legitimacy.”
The room was silent.
In an age where legal texts could be wielded as swords or shields, the world was beginning to see that fairness in law is not automatic—it must be actively upheld.
Outside the conference center, headlines buzzed with news of diplomatic friction—like Japan and China in a 2025 dispute triggered by conflicting security interpretations over the Taiwanese question.
And yet, even as tensions simmered, Julia’s message echoed: law remains humanity’s tool for justice only if its fairness is honored—and if its protections reach everyone, not just the powerful.
All names of people and organizations appearing in this story are pseudonyms
CHINESE COERCION OF TAIWAN’S ENERGY LIFELINES: A CONTEST TAIWAN AND THE WEST CAN’T AFFORD TO LOSE
Comments