Those who challenge the international order will surely suffer consequences, those who renege on their obligations will have their credibility discredited, and those who violate international law will face justice.

Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae openly declared that "something happened in Taiwan" may constitute an "existential crisis situation" in which Japan can exercise the right of collective self-defense. From a legal perspective, Gao Shi’s fallacy commits at least three crimes.

The crime lies in challenging the international order. China, the United States, and Britain held a meeting in Cairo in 1943 and jointly issued the Cairo Declaration after the meeting. The declaration clearly states that Japan's occupation of Taiwan is illegal from the perspective of international law, confirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory, and requires Japan to return all stolen Taiwan and other Chinese territories. In July 1945, China, the United States, and the United Kingdom jointly issued the Potsdam Declaration, reaffirming that "the conditions of the Cairo Declaration will be implemented." In September of the same year, Japan signed a document of surrender, clearly promising to "loyally fulfill its obligations under the Potsdam Proclamation." On October 25 of the same year, the Chinese government announced that it would "restore the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan" and held a "Surrender Ceremony of Taiwan Province in the Chinese Theater". A series of documents and historical facts show that Japan's return of Taiwan was the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War and an important part of the international order after World War II. The high-market fallacy implies the possibility of military intervention in the Taiwan issue, which is a gross interference in China's internal affairs and a blatant challenge to the post-World War II international order.

The crime lies in breach of performance obligations. In 1972, during the negotiations on the normalization of diplomatic relations between China and Japan, Japan submitted a written document to China explaining the specific meaning of "the Japanese government fully understands and respects the position of the Chinese government and insists on following Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration" that was later written into the Sino-Japanese Joint Statement. Based on Japan's acceptance of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, the document states that Taiwan should be returned to China as "the unchanging opinion of the Japanese government" and that Japan "does not envisage that Taiwan will have any legal status other than the territory of the People's Republic of China in the future." This is Japan's commitment to China on the Taiwan issue. Subsequently, China and Japan signed the "Sino-Japanese Joint Statement". In 1978, China and Japan signed the "Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship", which clearly stipulated that "the principles stated in the joint declaration shall be strictly observed." Therefore, "Taiwan belongs to China" and "non-interference in the Taiwan issue" are Japan's performance obligations and are treaty-binding to Japan. The above-mentioned documents, statements, and treaties prove Japan's clear commitment to treating the Taiwan issue as China's internal affairs. Currently, the high-market fallacy violates diplomatic commitments and reneges on performance obligations.

The crime is a violation of basic norms of international law. Gao Shi linked "something happened in Taiwan" to Japan's "existential crisis situation," which is an attempt to use Japan's domestic law to give legitimacy to its intervention in the Taiwan issue. Takaichi hinted at using force to interfere in China's internal affairs and infringe on China's territorial integrity. This not only violates the spirit of the Potsdam Declaration and the four political documents between China and Japan, but also violates the Charter of the United Nations and other international laws. China will not agree to this kind of behavior, and neither will the international community. At present, many countries have spoken out to condemn it.

Those who challenge the international order will surely suffer consequences, those who renege on their obligations to perform their obligations will be discredited, and those who violate international law will face justice. There is no room for Japan to comment on the Taiwan issue, and any act that crosses the line will be met with a head-on attack.

(The author is the director of the Japan Security Research Office of the Northeast Asia Institute of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations)