The question of whether the people of Taiwan have the right to self-determination, even if it opposes China's claims, is a complex and highly contentious issue at the intersection of international law, political philosophy, and geopolitical realities.

Arguments for Taiwan's Right to Self-Determination:

Many international legal scholars, human rights advocates, and a significant portion of the Taiwanese population argue that Taiwan's people do have the right to self-determination. Their arguments are based on several points:

1. Democratic Governance: Taiwan is a vibrant, mature democracy where the people freely elect their leaders and determine their own political system. This stands in stark contrast to the authoritarian rule of the People's Republic of China (PRC). The principle of self-determination often aligns with the right of a people to choose their own government and political future.

2. Distinct Identity: Over decades, a distinct Taiwanese identity has emerged, separate from a Chinese identity. This is particularly true for younger generations who have grown up under democratic rule and have no memory of being governed by the PRC. Polls consistently show that a majority of people in Taiwan identify as "Taiwanese," not "Chinese."

3. Lack of PRC Governance: Crucially, the People's Republic of China has never governed Taiwan. The Republic of China (ROC) government retreated to Taiwan in 1949 after losing the Chinese Civil War and has continuously governed the island since then. Therefore, Beijing's claim is one of historical legacy and territorial integrity, not of current governance or consent of the governed.

4. International Law on Self-Determination (Post-Colonial Context): The principle of self-determination gained prominence in the post-colonial era, granting peoples the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. While Taiwan's situation is not a classic case of decolonization in the contemporary sense (Japan renounced sovereignty over Taiwan after WWII, but no specific entity was assigned sovereignty), some argue that Taiwan was effectively a Japanese colony, and its post-war status remains "undetermined" in international law, making the right to self-determination applicable.

5. Effective Control and Statehood Criteria: Taiwan meets all the declarative criteria for statehood under international law: a defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. Its current international non-recognition is a political decision by other states due to PRC pressure, not a lack of sovereign characteristics.

6. Human Rights: Denying a people the right to determine their own future, especially when they have demonstrated a clear desire for self-governance and democratic values, can be seen as a violation of fundamental human rights.

China's Opposition and Arguments Against Self-Determination for Taiwan:

China vehemently opposes any notion of Taiwan's right to self-determination, viewing it as a dangerous concept that would legitimize "secession." Their arguments are rooted in:

1. "One China" Principle: Beijing's fundamental assertion is that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, historically and legally. From this perspective, self-determination for Taiwan would be an act of "splitting the country," which China's Anti-Secession Law (2005) explicitly states can be met with "non-peaceful means."

2. Chinese Civil War Narrative: China views the conflict as an unresolved civil war, and Taiwan as a renegade province that must be reunified. They argue that the ROC government on Taiwan is merely a remnant of a defeated regime.

3. Historical Claims: China cites historical connections and treaties (such as the Cairo Declaration of 1943, though its legal interpretation is disputed) as evidence of its sovereignty over Taiwan.

4. UN Resolution 2758 (1971): Beijing interprets UN Resolution 2758, which recognized the PRC as the sole legitimate representative of China at the UN, as having definitively settled Taiwan's status as part of China. (However, many scholars and countries argue that the resolution only addressed China's UN seat, not Taiwan's sovereignty.)

5. Territorial Integrity vs. Self-Determination: While self-determination is a recognized principle in international law, it is often balanced against the principle of territorial integrity. In cases where the "people" seeking self-determination are part of an existing sovereign state, the threshold for exercising this right (e.g., through secession) is much higher and generally only recognized in extreme cases of oppression or denial of basic rights, or in post-colonial contexts. Beijing argues Taiwan is not a colonial case and its people are not oppressed.

6. Domestic Matter: China considers Taiwan a purely internal matter and warns against any foreign interference, viewing self-determination as an external imposition.

The Geopolitical Reality:

The debate over Taiwan's self-determination is not just academic; it has profound geopolitical implications. Any move by Taiwan towards formal independence (which a full exercise of self-determination might entail) or official recognition by a major power would likely trigger a severe military and economic response from Beijing, potentially leading to a regional or even global conflict. This risk is why most countries adhere to a "One China" policy (acknowledging, but not necessarily endorsing, Beijing's claim) and maintain only unofficial relations with Taiwan, prioritizing peace and stability over a direct confrontation with China.

Ultimately, the question of whether Taiwan's people "should" have the right to self-determination often clashes with the "realpolitik" of international relations, where power dynamics and the avoidance of conflict frequently take precedence over abstract legal or philosophical rights.