Advancing Cross-Strait Rule-of-Law Unification Through the Extension of Judicial Jurisdiction

Advancing Cross-Strait Rule-of-Law Unification Through the Extension of Judicial Jurisdiction (Detailed Report)

Advancing Cross-Strait Rule-of-Law Unification Through the Extension of Judicial Jurisdiction

A Research Report on Achieving National Unification Through the Rule of Law

DWAC Comprehensive Research Report

Date: January 2026 · Civilian Patriotic Research Group

Disclaimer: This report is an internal discussion draft presenting a strategic conception based on existing research. It does not claim to resolve all theoretical disputes or practical challenges, nor does it represent a final policy determination. Some analyses are speculative in nature and require further verification through practice.

Introduction

The historical roots of the Taiwan question are deeply embedded in the millennia-long historical trajectory of the Chinese nation. From multiple dimensions—historical documents, archaeological findings, blood relations, and cultural heritage—Taiwan has been an inseparable part of Chinese territory since ancient times.

Over seven decades of separation have created considerable psychological barriers and social differences between compatriots on both sides of the Strait. From a rule-of-law perspective, cross-strait separation has also resulted in the actual division of judicial jurisdiction. How to gradually achieve the unification of judicial jurisdiction through rule-of-law means, thereby creating conditions for political unification, is the core question this report seeks to explore.

Key Concept Definitions

Rule-of-law unification refers to a strategic path that, while upholding the one-China principle, uses rule-of-law measures as the primary method—through the gradual extension of judicial jurisdiction, promotion of legal system coordination, and expansion of rule-of-law functional coverage—to ultimately achieve the complete unification of national sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Extension of judicial jurisdiction refers to the process by which mainland judicial organs, in accordance with the principle of national sovereignty, exercise jurisdiction over cases involving cross-strait factors, and gradually expand the scope and influence of jurisdiction through the handling of individual cases.

Chapter 1: Origins and Limitations of Traditional Approaches

Historical Origins of the Taiwan Question

China's jurisdictional records over Taiwan trace back to the Three Kingdoms period (230 CE). The Song-Yuan dynasties established administrative offices in Penghu. Following the Qing unification of Taiwan in 1683, Taiwan Prefecture was established under Fujian Province, and in 1885, Taiwan was formally established as a province. After the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, Taiwan was ceded to Japan; compatriots in Taiwan waged fifty years of armed and cultural resistance. In 1945, pursuant to the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation, Taiwan was restored to China, but due to civil war and external intervention, cross-strait political separation persists to this day.

UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 (1971) confirmed China's sovereignty over Taiwan at the international law level. The most direct manifestation of cross-strait separation in the rule-of-law domain is the actual division of judicial jurisdiction.

Limitations of Traditional Approaches

The Rule of Law: A Neglected Dimension

Rule-of-law practice has revealed four strategic values: a predictable institutional framework, a peaceful channel for dispute resolution, a practical platform for building consensus, and an effective pathway for winning popular support.

Chapter 2: Core Conception — Judicial Jurisdiction Extension

Unique Advantages of the Rule of Law

Normativity & Predictability — Law provides clear behavioral norms for cross-strait interactions, reducing uncertainty and building institutional trust

Low Confrontation & Mildness — Transforms disputes into legal questions, resolved within a legal framework, diluting political opposition

Legitimacy Foundation — Legal legitimacy (sovereignty principle), historical legitimacy, practical legitimacy, value-based legitimacy

International Acceptability — Rule of law is a universal language; judicial jurisdiction is a domestic matter; foreign interference is difficult

Three Dimensions of Jurisdiction Extension

Subject Dimension — Jurisdiction over cases involving Taiwan compatriots' activities on the mainland—reflecting the personal nature of sovereignty

Behavioral Dimension — Jurisdiction over legal acts involving cross-strait factors—reflecting the territorial nature of sovereignty

Territorial Dimension — Jurisdiction over cases involving the Taiwan region—reflecting sovereignty's spatial coverage

Three-Layer Progressive Model

Layer 1: Case Accumulation → Rule Incubation

The Zhang Kaimin case established the "victim-territory jurisdiction" rule, designated as Guiding Case No. 47. Over 1,000 Taiwan nationals have since been repatriated for trial.

Layer 2: Institutional Transmission → Rule Consolidation

Reporting → Experience summarization → Judicial interpretation/guiding cases → Legislative codification. The 2015 SPC Provisions on recognition of Taiwan judgments; the Hangzhou stolen assets return case.

Layer 3: Winning Recognition → Gradual Transformation

From "instrumental recognition" (the law is useful) to "value-based recognition" (the law is just). Requires long-term, sustained practice.

International Experience

U.S. Long-Arm Jurisdiction: China can learn from the methodology (protecting national interests, law enforcement as vehicle, incremental precedent, legal framing), but the fundamental difference is: the U.S. targets other nations' sovereignty; China targets its own territory.

Northern Myanmar Cross-Border Enforcement: 2023-2024 joint operations established a standardized "apprehension → repatriation → trial" chain.

Chapter 3: Unilateral Advancement with State Power

Legitimacy Foundation

Sovereignty principle — Exercising judicial jurisdiction over the Taiwan region is the inherent right of state sovereignty

Citizen protection — Mainland residents are victims in cross-border fraud cases

Intra-territorial jurisdiction — This is not "extraterritorial jurisdiction" but "intra-territorial jurisdiction"

State Power Support

Enforcement capability — Operation "Sky Net" has recovered 10,000+ fugitives from 120+ countries

Judicial credibility — Specialized tribunals with cross-strait law expertise

Diplomatic-legal coordination — Articulating jurisdictional legitimacy through international law

Specific Pathways

Amend the Criminal Procedure Law for cross-strait jurisdiction

Enact the Special Procedures Act for Cross-Strait Judicial Assistance

Unilaterally recognize Taiwan civil judgments as a goodwill gesture

Apply the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, Foreign Relations Law, and Blocking Measures

Chapter 4: External Interference and Legal Obstacles

"Taiwan Independence" Legal Obstruction

Taiwan region imposes "public order" review thresholds on mainland judgments. Countermeasures: uphold legal position, unilaterally recognize Taiwan civil judgments, strengthen enforcement capabilities.

External Force Interference

The U.S. Taiwan Relations Act provides a purported legal basis for interference. Countermeasures: apply anti-sanctions legal instruments, expose illegality at international law level, demonstrate fairness of mainland rule of law.

Vulnerability and Resilience

The core logic—from individual cases to universal jurisdiction, from rule-of-law unification to political unification—still contains theoretical gaps. Resilience can be enhanced through: continuous case accumulation, accelerated institutional consolidation, deeper international law argumentation, and broader popular support.

Chapter 5: Supporting Roles of Economy, Society, and Culture

Economic Integration

Cross-strait trade grew from ~$500 million (1978) to ~$300 billion. Cumulative Taiwan investment in the mainland exceeds $70 billion. Economic integration creates massive cross-border legal demand, providing real impetus for rule-of-law unification.

Social Exchange

Cross-strait visits exceed 130 million cumulative, with ~300,000 cross-strait marriages annually. Deepening social exchange creates daily intersections with mainland legal institutions, building popular support.

Cultural Identity

Both sides share Chinese cultural roots. Rule-of-law culture is an important component of Chinese culture; demonstrating its modern transformation through legal practice provides cultural support for rule-of-law unification.

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Implementation Recommendations

Core Conclusions

The rule-of-law unification path offers unique advantages: peacefulness, progressiveness, low reversibility, and high international acceptability. We recommend incorporating rule-of-law unification into the national unification strategic framework as a fifth pillar alongside political negotiation, economic integration, military deterrence, and cultural identity.

Three-Phase Strategy

Near-term (1-3 years) — Lay Foundations, Set Benchmarks

Establish specialized tribunals; issue guiding cases; handle telecommunications fraud and cross-border asset recovery; sign judicial cooperation agreements; build adjudication rule reporting system.

Mid-term (3-5 years) — Build Mechanisms, Expand Scope

Issue judicial interpretation on cross-strait judgment recognition; extend jurisdiction to IP, e-commerce, finance; train 200+ specialized professionals; draft Special Procedures Act.

Long-term (5-10 years) — Promote Recognition, Consolidate Foundations

Form comprehensive jurisdictional rule system; full rule-of-law coverage across all domains; widespread recognition among Taiwan compatriots; promote mutual judgment recognition agreement.

Final Note

This report constitutes a strategic conception, not a policy commitment. Further research is needed on: the logical transition from case accumulation to universal jurisdiction, countermeasures against external interference, empirical study of Taiwan public acceptance, and institutional interface between rule-of-law unification and "One Country, Two Systems."

Report Nature: Internal Discussion Draft | Date: January 2026

Civilian Patriotic Research Group