Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 (XXVI)" in English language version.
One view is that since the UN Charter is still valid, and it still states the Republic of China and not the People's Republic of China, therefore Taiwan should be part of the United Nations. However, this view neglects the fact that later in 1971, UN Resolution 2758 transferred the UN seat from the ROC to the PRC.
同樣的，聯合國憲章第二十三條也記載「蘇聯」為安理會五個常任理事國之一。但「蘇聯」這個國家一九九一年以後就消滅了。俄羅斯繼承蘇聯在安理會的常任理事國席位，但與蘇聯是不同的國家。聯合國憲章第二十三條「蘇聯」一語迄今也未修正，也是一項不影響實質的脫節。但這不表示俄羅斯以「蘇聯」的名稱參與聯合國。[Similarly, Article 23 of the UN Charter also records the 'Soviet Union' as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. But the country of 'Soviet Union' was eliminated after 1991. Russia inherited the Soviet Union's permanent seat on the Security Council, yet is a different country from the Soviet Union. The word 'Soviet Union' in Article 23 of the UN Charter has not been amended to date, also a disconnection that does not affect the essence of the matter. But this does not mean that Russia participates in the United Nations under the name of the 'Soviet Union'.]
中華人民共和國、中華民國是新、舊國號，它們都指涉同一個國家─中國。一九四九年，中共是建立新政府（同時更改國號），不是脫離原來的大中國建立新國家。一九七一年十月二十五日，聯合國是將台北政府逐出，不是將中（華民）國逐出（聯合國從未逐出任何會員國）。[The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China are the new and old names of the country, and both referring to the same country — China. In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party established a new government (changing the country's name simultaneously), rather than establishing a new country by breaking away from the original Greater China. On October 25, 1971, the United Nations expelled the Taipei government, not (the Republic of) China (the United Nations has never expelled any member state).]
2758 號決議…等於確立了「中華民國」是中國的舊政府稱號，由「中華人民共和國政府」繼承，…[Resolution 2758 ... established that the 'Republic of China' was the old name of the government of China, succeeded by the 'government of the People's Republic of China', ...]
Unlike her predecessor Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai Ing-wen has not recognized the existence of the "1992 Consensus." Yet, she has tried to reach a middle ground between Beijing's stance and that of her own party, the DPP. In her inaugural speech, she carefully worded her position, acknowledging the first meeting between SEF and ARATS in 1992 as "historical fact." She stated that the meeting had "arrived at various joint acknowledgments and understandings" and was conducted "in a spirit of mutual understanding and a political attitude of seeking common ground while setting aside differences," a phrase often used by Beijing... In other words, while Tsai did not accept the "1992 Consensus," she acknowledged that the 1992 meeting took place in a positive spirit that should lay the groundwork for sustaining crossstrait peace.
...Under international law, the 1992 SEF-ARATS exchanges would not amount to a legally binding agreement on the meaning of "One China" and other sovereignty questions. While SEF and ARATS apparently possessed the capacity to represent their own governments in concluding agreements on cross-strait cooperation, the intention of each organization was to sign legal instruments recording their agreement on the specific matters under negotiation... The parties never evinced an intention to conclude an agreement on sovereignty matters involving the notion of "One China" precisely because they could not reach agreement on the thorny issues involved. Instead, they bypassed the "One China" issues and went on to conclude formal written agreements on technical matters. In other words, the element of intent to create legal obligations on sovereignty questions did not exist. This is evident from the caution of SEF—it carefully avoided committing itself to a written agreement with regard to the all-important political issue and suggested that each side orally state its differing position separately. This poses a contrast with the formal agreements later concluded by the two organizations on various economic and technical matters. None of these cross-strait agreements touched upon the "One China" issue, and all were concluded without regard to it.
One view is that since the UN Charter is still valid, and it still states the Republic of China and not the People's Republic of China, therefore Taiwan should be part of the United Nations. However, this view neglects the fact that later in 1971, UN Resolution 2758 transferred the UN seat from the ROC to the PRC.
同樣的，聯合國憲章第二十三條也記載「蘇聯」為安理會五個常任理事國之一。但「蘇聯」這個國家一九九一年以後就消滅了。俄羅斯繼承蘇聯在安理會的常任理事國席位，但與蘇聯是不同的國家。聯合國憲章第二十三條「蘇聯」一語迄今也未修正，也是一項不影響實質的脫節。但這不表示俄羅斯以「蘇聯」的名稱參與聯合國。[Similarly, Article 23 of the UN Charter also records the 'Soviet Union' as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. But the country of 'Soviet Union' was eliminated after 1991. Russia inherited the Soviet Union's permanent seat on the Security Council, yet is a different country from the Soviet Union. The word 'Soviet Union' in Article 23 of the UN Charter has not been amended to date, also a disconnection that does not affect the essence of the matter. But this does not mean that Russia participates in the United Nations under the name of the 'Soviet Union'.]
中華人民共和國、中華民國是新、舊國號，它們都指涉同一個國家─中國。一九四九年，中共是建立新政府（同時更改國號），不是脫離原來的大中國建立新國家。一九七一年十月二十五日，聯合國是將台北政府逐出，不是將中（華民）國逐出（聯合國從未逐出任何會員國）。[The People's Republic of China and the Republic of China are the new and old names of the country, and both referring to the same country — China. In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party established a new government (changing the country's name simultaneously), rather than establishing a new country by breaking away from the original Greater China. On October 25, 1971, the United Nations expelled the Taipei government, not (the Republic of) China (the United Nations has never expelled any member state).]
2758 號決議…等於確立了「中華民國」是中國的舊政府稱號，由「中華人民共和國政府」繼承，…[Resolution 2758 ... established that the 'Republic of China' was the old name of the government of China, succeeded by the 'government of the People's Republic of China', ...]
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: year (link){{citation}}: CS1 maint: year (link)