CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

Anti-Secession Law

law of the People's Republic of China (PRC), formalising the long-standing policy of the PRC to use "non-peaceful means" against the "Taiwan independence movement" in the event of a declaration of independence

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 22, 2026
Entity authorityQ574556 ↗
Source-derived summary

The Anti-Secession Law is a law of the People's Republic of China, passed by the 3rd Session of the 10th National People's Congress. It was ratified on March 14, 2005, and went into effect immediately. Although the law, at ten articles, is relatively short, Article 8 formalized the long-standing policy of the PRC to use military means against Taiwanese independence in the event peaceful means become impossible.

Background

The re-election of Chen Shui-bian of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to the Taiwanese presidency, led many to conclude that there has been an increase in Taiwan independence sentiment and that a new Taiwanese identity is emerging on the island which is opposed to identification with China. During the 2004 Taiwanese Legislative Election, the strategy of the pan-Green coalition was to try to capitalize on this trend to win a majority in the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan. Among some Taiwanese Independence supporters, it is believed that a pan-green majority could force a crucial referendum for constitutional reform and, perhaps, to further move the island toward de jure independence. Many Taiwanese independence supporters, including former President Lee Teng-Hui, argued that Taiwan should declare independence before 2008 on the theory that international pressure over the Beijing Olympics would prevent the PRC from using force against Taiwan.

These events in late 2004 caused a great deal of alarm in Beijing. Observers indicated that many in Beijing believed that its policies toward Taiwan had failed both because it did not have sufficient incentives to gain Taiwanese public support for unification and at the same time, it seemed that many in Taiwan did not take Beijing's stated threats of force seriously. The Taiwanese government had defined the status quo in such a way that a de jure declaration of independence could be argued to not represent a change in the status quo.

Editorial summary

“Anti-Secession Law” enters the record as law of the People's Republic of China (PRC), formalising the long-standing policy of the PRC to use "non-peaceful means" against the "Taiwan independence movement" in the event of a declaration of independence. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Anti-Secession, People's and Republic can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewMost valuable as an event-and-institution map that identifies actors, dates and record creators for deeper historical inquiry. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2005, 2004, 2008—that can be checked directly. The linked authority record independently contributes the date 2005-03-14. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Anti-Secession, People's and Republic.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Anti-Secession Law” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Anti-Secession, People's and Republic provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Contemporary correspondence, administrative files and participant testimony can test how later narratives organized the event or institution. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 22, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q574556. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2005, 2004 and 2008.

Critical limits

Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Anti-Secession Law”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Anti-Secession Law primary sources, Anti-Secession Law archive and Anti-Secession research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Anti-Secession Law”?
  2. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
  3. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Anti-Secession Law” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.