U.S. Law Treats Taiwan As An Independent, Sovereign Nation.
Among the explanatory definitions of the Taiwan Relations Act, is: “Whenever the laws of the United States refer or relate to foreign countries, nations, states, governments, or similar entities, such terms shall include and such laws shall apply with respect to Taiwan” at 22 USC §3303(a), (b)(1).
As recently as 2015, under instructions from the Legal Advisor of the Department of State, the Solicitor General asserted that the President of the United States had the constitutional authority to withhold recognition of Israel’s claim to sovereignty over Jerusalem. The Solicitor General pointed to precedent for this exclusive presidential prerogative in the case of Taiwan.
The Supreme Court ultimately concurred that the Constitution grants the President such exclusive authority. In its 2015 Zivotofsky v. Kerry decision (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-628/), the Court quoted the Solicitor General’s explanation that the TRA “treated Taiwan as if it were a legally distinct entity from China— an entity with which the United States intended to maintain strong ties.” In Zivotofsky, the Court’s decision recorded:
“The Solicitor General explains that the [Normalization Communiqué] designation ‘China’ involves ‘a geographic description, not an assertion that Taiwan is . . . part of sovereign China’,” an explanation that the late Justice Antonin Scalia wryly endorsed with an approving “Quite so”. The court in Zivotofsky continued: “According to the solicitor general, the United States ‘acknowledges the Chinese position’ that Taiwan is a part of China, but ‘does not take a position’ of its own on that issue.”
President Carter had expressed that position on January 1,1979, when he expressly “acknowledge[d] the Chinese position” that “Taiwan is part of China,” but he did not accept that claim….
「台灣關係法」的解釋性定義之一是:「美國所有涉及國家、民族國家、主權國家、政府與類似實體的法律，其效力都應囊括並適用於台灣」22 USC §3303(a), (b)(1).
2015年，根據國務院法律顧問的指示，聯邦總大事務律師( Solicitor General)宣稱美國總統擁有憲法權力，可以拒絕承認以色列對耶路撒冷主權的主張。總大事務律師指出，這項總統職權應用的先例便是台灣。
最高法院最後同意憲法賦予總統這項獨特的職權。在2015年Zivotofsky 對 Kerry 的訴訟中，法院引用了美國司法部聯邦總大事務律師的解釋，強調台灣關係法(Taiwan Relations Act)「把台灣看成一個於法理上與中國有所區別的實體 – 一個美國意圖與之保持緊密關係的實體。」在Zivotofsky案中，法院的判決如此記載:「總大事務律師解釋說，[美中公報] 指定的「中國」，涉及地理描述，而非斷言台灣屬於中國主權的一部分」，「前任最高法院法官安東寧·斯卡利亞也以『一定是這漾的！』來回應這樣的解釋。」