Strategic Recommendations on Advancing Cross-Strait Unification Through the Rule of Law

Strategic Recommendations on Advancing Cross-Strait Unification Through the Rule of Law (Brief)

Strategic Recommendations on Advancing Cross-Strait Unification Through the Rule of Law

Internal Reference · For Leadership Review

Date: January 2026 · Civilian Patriotic Research Group

I. Fundamental Assessment: Traditional Approaches Face Bottlenecks; the Rule-of-Law Path Offers Unique Advantages

Cross-strait unification faces a new historical juncture. Political negotiations have long stalled due to a lack of basic mutual trust; economic integration, while yielding significant results, has not automatically translated into political identity; military deterrence is a necessary baseline but unsuitable as a proactive instrument; cultural identity is too slow and has been eroded by "de-Sinicization" efforts. Against this backdrop, a new, sustainable strategic path must be explored.

Rule-of-law unification refers to the approach of using the extension of judicial jurisdiction as the core mechanism—through the daily practice of handling cross-strait cases involving telecommunications fraud, civil and commercial disputes, and intellectual property infringement—to gradually expand the influence of mainland law in the Taiwan region, ultimately establishing an irreversible legal foundation for the complete unification of the nation.

Four Unique Advantages:

Peacefulness — No resort to force, no armed conflict, consistent with the fundamental interests of people on both sides of the Strait

Progressiveness — From individual cases to established rules, from criminal to civil and commercial matters, every step is controllable and assessable

Low Reversibility — Once rule-of-law practices are established, they create institutional inertia that is difficult to reverse

High International Acceptability — Judicial jurisdiction is a matter of domestic sovereignty; the application of internationally recognized effects doctrine and protective principles makes foreign interference difficult

II. Core Mechanism: The "Three-Layer Progressive Model" Centered on Judicial Jurisdiction Extension

Layer 1: Case Accumulation, Rule Incubation

Every cross-strait case handled is a practice of rule-of-law unification. Through judicial reasoning in written decisions, a "cluster of adjudicative rules" for specific case types is gradually formed.

Landmark case: The Zhang Kaimin case established the "victim-territory jurisdiction" rule—exercising jurisdiction over Taiwan residents who commit crimes against mainland residents in third countries. This was later designated as Guiding Case No. 47 by the Supreme People's Procuratorate, becoming a national reference. Since then, similar cases from Spain, Malaysia, Cambodia, and elsewhere have followed this rule, with over 1,000 Taiwan nationals suspected of telecommunications fraud repatriated to the mainland for trial.

Layer 2: Institutional Transmission, Rule Consolidation

Through the transmission mechanism of "reporting and selection → experience summarization → judicial interpretation/guiding cases → legislative codification," innovative rules from individual cases are elevated into legal norms with universal binding force.

Successful precedent: The 2015 Supreme People's Court Provisions on the Recognition and Enforcement of Civil Judgments of Taiwan Region Courts clarified the conditions and procedures for recognizing and enforcing Taiwan region court judgments. The Hangzhou stolen assets return case pioneered the direct exchange of crime proceeds across the Strait through a "court–procuratorate–ARATS" tripartite coordination mechanism.

Layer 3: Winning Recognition, Gradual Transformation

When Taiwan compatriots experience the fairness and efficiency of mainland law through specific cases, a gradual transformation from "instrumental recognition" (the law is useful) to "value-based recognition" (the law is just) takes shape. This requires long-term, sustained accumulation of rule-of-law practice.

III. Key Support: Law Enforcement Actions as Vehicles, Drawing on International Experience

(1) Learning from U.S. Long-Arm Jurisdiction Methodology—With Fundamental Differences

The United States has extended judicial jurisdiction globally through "minimum contacts" and the "effects doctrine." China may learn from this methodology, but the fundamental difference is: the U.S. targets the sovereignty of other nations, while China targets its own territory (Taiwan). What China exercises are the internationally recognized effects doctrine and protective principles—not "long-arm jurisdiction," but the legitimate exercise of sovereignty.

(2) Northern Myanmar Cross-Border Law Enforcement as a Practical Model

In 2023–2024, China conducted joint law enforcement with Myanmar and other countries, apprehending tens of thousands of telecommunications fraud suspects (including Taiwan nationals), forming an operational chain of "apprehension → repatriation → trial."

Framed under "protecting citizens' rights," with high legitimacy

Multilateral cooperation model enhances legitimacy and reduces political costs

The "apprehension → repatriation → trial" chain can be standardized as an operational template

Sustained enforcement practices gradually establish rules, creating conditions for institutional consolidation

IV. Advancing Unilateral Rule-of-Law Unification with State Power

In the absence of formal cross-strait cooperation mechanisms, the mainland has both the capability and the necessity to unilaterally advance the rule-of-law unification process.

Legitimacy Foundation

Unilateral jurisdiction under the sovereignty principle—exercising judicial jurisdiction over the Taiwan region is the inherent right of state sovereignty

National responsibility to protect citizens' rights—mainland residents are victims in cross-border telecommunications fraud

Legal basis of one-China—this is "intra-territorial jurisdiction," not "extraterritorial jurisdiction"

State Power Support

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

Judicial credibility — Establishing specialized tribunals with judges versed in cross-strait law

Diplomatic-legal coordination — Articulating jurisdictional legitimacy through international law principles

Specific Pathways

Legislative proposals — amend the Criminal Procedure Law; enact the Special Procedures Act for Cross-Strait Judicial Assistance

Goodwill measures — the mainland may unilaterally recognize civil judgments of Taiwan region courts

Enforcement vehicles — maintain high-pressure enforcement against cross-border telecommunications fraud

Countermeasure tools — apply the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, Foreign Relations Law, and Blocking Measures

V. Confronting Challenges: External Interference and "Taiwan Independence" Obstruction

"Taiwan Independence" Legal Obstruction

Taiwan region imposes "public order" review thresholds on mainland judgments through regulations such as the "Act Governing Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area." Countermeasures: uphold legal position, unilaterally recognize Taiwan civil judgments as a goodwill gesture, and strengthen enforcement capabilities.

External Force Interference

The U.S. "Taiwan Relations Act" and similar instruments provide a purported legal basis for interference. Countermeasures: apply anti-sanctions legal instruments for targeted countermeasures, expose illegality at the international law level, and demonstrate the fairness of mainland rule of law through specific cases.

VI. Implementation Recommendations: Three-Phase Strategy

Core risk alert: Non-cooperation by Taiwan authorities, high-intensity external interference, logical gaps requiring time to verify (contingency plans developed)

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

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

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

VII. Notes and Disclaimers

This report constitutes a strategic conception and does not constitute a policy commitment. The core logic—from individual cases to universal jurisdiction, from rule-of-law unification to political unification—still contains theoretical gaps requiring practical verification. However, this conception provides a peaceful, progressive, operable, and low-reversibility unification path worthy of serious exploration.

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, coordinated centrally with collaboration from the Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of State Security, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Report Nature: Internal Discussion Draft | Date: January 2026

Civilian Patriotic Research Group