We’ve gone through decades of hybrid warfare threading the gaps in the rules-based international order. It doesn’t make sense for Taiwan or Finland to follow those rules when neither of the world’s superpowers—America or China—nor even many of its regional powers—Israel, Russia or Iran—are.
I agree though, that this is a clear provocation by China to drum up justification for broader retaliation. Typical Russian false-flag playbook.
China is currently ignoring UNCLOS rulings relating to its territorial claims vis-à-vis the Philippines.
Beijing isn’t bound by international law. Taiwan will not be resolved through the crumbling rules-based international order.
PH vs PCR ruling is not valid international law (as in at UN/CLOS). It's propaganda written on nice rented PCA stationary - a bunch of US/PH aligned experts ad hoc legal interpretation against PRC that is NOT formally accepted by UN, hence not accepted by UNCLOS/ICJ/ITLOS, much less because PRC not subject to optional arbituation clause no matter how much US propaganda screams she is. Don't get me wrong, it's very sensible legal position, but it's not formally accepted, and has the legal weight of me writing, the opposite position on toilet paper. Until there is formal UNCLOS/ITLOS ruling against PRC (like they did against UK hence US/Diego Garcia for Chagos), PRC is legally compliant with UNCLOS.
AKA PH vs PRC is the US led "rule-based-order" interpretation of UNCLOS (which we all know US hasn't ratified) which of course PRC is not obliged to follow, not actual UN "international law" that PRC has at least in propaganda accept as valid arbiter (if only because currently, UN reality has a PRC bias). In case of TW where PRC can, under international law, resolve TW kinetically by resuming legally ongoing civil war. Ultimately, of course, Beijing is not bound by (and should be not bound by) by non-UN rule-based / LIOrder, and even if she were, her behaviour would be acceptable considering US response to Chagos ruling, which let's be honest, one set of rules of you/me is the reasons why the rules-based order is breaking.
But circling back to TW, yes, PRC wouldn't give a care about any international law when it comes to "reunification", hence the dynamic between TW/PRC is a pure power game. It just so happens international law is on PRC side in TW scenarios.
China’s claims were rejected by the UNCLOS tribunal.
> circling back to TW, yes, PRC wouldn't give a care about any international law when it comes to "reunification"
Every war of conquest is justified as reunification. America would be reunifying the Panama Canal with itself, and Greenland with the North American plate. Russia should have claim to all former Soviet territories, and arguably China, too, or at least its western territories.
> just so happens international law is on PRC side in TW scenarios
It’s not. But as you say, that is irrelevant. We have nuclear states and everyone else; it’s pretty clear what Taiwan must do if she doesn’t want foreign invaders on her shores.
No, neither PRC or PH positions were "rejected" or "endorsed" because there hasn't been actual legal hearing of the case, in courts with UN/UNCLOS jurisdiction. There's nothing to reject. PCA ruling is not conducted by any official "UNCLOS tribunal". It's done by cosplay PCA UNCLOS tribunal whose determination the UN has not taken position in, which is a polite way of saying it's not legal UN law, aka it's not valid UNCLOS determination. All proponents of PCA ruling has to do is find one formal UN endorsement of their position against PRC, but it does not exist, hence it's not (UN) international law, at least UNCLOS which operates under UN. Regardless, PRC is not subject to optional UNCLOS arbituation clause, they are however subject to UNCLOS ruling via ICJ/ITLOS... until ICJ/ITLOS rules against PRC, which neither have... PRC in UNCLOS compliance. PRC legally can't be non compliant until UN says it is, and UN hasn't.
>justified
Sure, but not every reunification has as strong (international) legal precedence as PRC... i.e. Chinese territory treated as one country at UN, lack of formal armistice/ratification (legal) ending of the civil war. Hence PRC-TW is legally on ongoing civil war, over legally one country. Hence me saying UN reality has PRC bias. Of course ultimately international laws is not going to prevent PRC from reunifying, but merely point out that PRC can "legitimately" fight TW, it wouldn't be "aggression" it would be domestic "defensive" action.
>Taiwan must do
The TW that's thoroughly infiltrated by PRC espionage? If PRC is all over US networks, how entrenched do you think they were/are in TWs. Half the reason US pressured to coerce TW into giving up nuclear program is because PRC intelligence was already in TW, and if US didn't take action PRC would. Unless TW nuclear turnkey is faster than PRC hypersonics (7 minutes to any point in island) they won't be able to build credible nuclear deterence, not that nuclear has deterred PRC before (see how she fought with essentailly every NPT nuclear state over issues less important than TW). It's pretty clear what PRC must do reunify, and let's be honest she's actually doing it with gusto while TW is not.