Following the devastation of the Second World War, the United Nations (UN) was founded in 1945 by 51 Founding Member–States, including the Philippines, with the central mission of maintaining international peace and security. Within the United Nations, it is the UN Security Council that has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. To do this, the UNSC is given broad powers under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. These include the complete or partial interruption of economic relations, the severance of diplomatic relations, and military action by air, sea, or land as necessary to maintain peace and security. 

Structurally, the UN Security Council is made up of five permanent members and ten non-permanent members that are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. The permanent members are the People’s Republic of China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Most of the permanent members have held their seats in the UN Security Council since 1945, and their role as permanent members is enshrined in Article 23 of the UN Charter. 

Notably, the People’s Republic of China was not always China’s representative among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. From 1945 to 1971, the Republic of China, as represented by Chiang Kai-shek, held China’s seat in the UN Security Council. This is because the Republic of China was China’s recognized government during the formation of the United Nations in 1945. Nowadays, the People’s Republic of China is more commonly known as China, while the Republic of China, although not recognized by the UN as “China,” is known as Taiwan. The segregation of the two governments is a result of the Chinese Civil War that continued after the end of World War II. The two powers in that conflict were the Communists led by Mao Zedong and the Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-shek. The Chinese Civil War spanned from 1945 to 1949, with the Communists winning the war, which led to the expulsion of Chiang Kai-shek’s government to Taiwan. Despite the loss of the Nationalists, they still held China’s permanent seat in the United Nations until 1971. 

In 1971, with the passing of UN Resolution 2758 entitled “The Restoration of the Lawful Right of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations,” the “representatives of Chiang Kai-shek” were removed from the UN Security Council and replaced by the People’s Republic of China. Ever since the passing of the Resolution, Taiwan has not been formally recognized by the United Nations as a member or as an independent State separate from the People’s Republic of China. 

Despite Taiwan’s removal from the United Nations, China has formally sought reunification with Taiwan since 1979. Formally, reunification was first peacefully initiated by its “Message to Compatriots in Taiwan.” It has been almost 50 years since the first call for reunification, which has not yet happened, but is still a continuing goal for China. As recently as January 1, 2026, Chinese President XI Jinping pledged to achieve the “reunification” of China and Taiwan. Further stating that such reunification is unstoppable. In recent years, the call for reunification has taken a more “violent” turn. Starting in August 2022, China began its recent unprecedented large-scale fire drills that seem to hint at an invasion of Taiwan. There have been several drills since 2022, with experts calling this wave of large-scale fire drills the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis. Given the United Nations’s role in maintaining peace and security around the world, recent actions by China call into question the United Nations’s role in the Taiwan Strait. 

Any military action by either China or Taiwan has peace and security consequences that go beyond the Taiwan Strait. A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would likely close the Taiwan Strait and limit the export capability of both countries. Such an event would be devastating to the world economy. China was the largest exporter in 2024, while Taiwan was the 11th largest exporter in the world in the same year. Military action will likely limit the trade of both countries to world markets. Apart from economic impact on the country-policy level, public and private markets will likely react as well. Given the importance of both China and Taiwan to the world economy, fearful lenders will likely restrict lending and only provide loans to borrowers that have good collateral. Any military action may close the Taiwan Strait, similar to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz during the ongoing Iran–Israel Conflict. Any closure of the Taiwan Strait would be significant given that 20% of global maritime trade by value passes through it. Moreover, nearly half of the global container fleet and the majority of advanced semiconductors traverse this strait. Apart from economic consequences, there are direct peace and security concerns. An invasion of Taiwan is likely to get the United States involved in its defense. Despite the abrogation of political ties in 1979, the US has maintained unofficial defense ties with Taiwan. 

The China-Taiwan tension begs the question of the role of the UN in a possible conflict. Firstly, can the United Nations intervene on behalf of a non-member and non-state such as Taiwan? Secondly, can the United Nations effectively maintain peace and security if there is any conflict between China and Taiwan despite a deadlock in the UN Security Council?

The United Nations can intervene on behalf of a non-member. Article 24 of the UN Charter does not distinguish between members and non-members. Military intervention on behalf of a non-member is seen in the UN’s military intervention in the Korean War in 1950. At that time, neither South Korea nor North Korea was a UN member. Both North Korea and South Korea only joined the United Nations in 1991. How about UN intervention in non-states? Can the UN intervene in a domestic conflict? As a general rule, no. Article II, Paragraph 7 of the UN Charter states that “[n]othing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state[.]” However, the same paragraph provides an exception to the rule that has been historically applied: “[t]his principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.”

History has also shown that the United Nations can intervene in domestic conflicts through the UN Security Council. For example, Somalia’s Civil War prompted UN Security Council Resolution 794 (1992) to declare the civil war as an “international threat to peace and security,” resulting in the deployment of UN Peacekeepers and other humanitarian agencies of the UN. The Libyan civil war is another example of the UN intervening in a domestic issue. Under Resolution 1973 (2011), Member States were authorized to participate in the protection of civilians under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Moreover, all commercial flights were banned in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, an arms embargo was implemented, and all aircraft registered under the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or owned by Libyan corporations or nations were not allowed to fly or land in the territory of Member States. Even an assets freeze was implemented over assets owned or controlled by the Libyan Government.

A UN intervention through the UN Security Council between China and Taiwan, though, is highly unlikely— even if any conflict would likely be an international threat to peace and security. Any effective UN Security Council intervention, similar to the UN interventions in Somalia and Libya, would require the affirmative vote of at least nine members of the UN Security Council, including the concurring votes of the permanent members. This is where the infamous veto by a permanent member comes in. While there is no explicit statement in the UN Charter that permanent members can “veto” a proposal to intervene for reasons of peace and security, the statement “including the concurring votes of the permanent members” in Article 27 has been interpreted to mean so. It is proposed that any action concerning the conflict between China and Taiwan would simply be vetoed by China using its power as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. If China were to do so, it would do so with precedent. Permanent members often vetoed the UN’s participation in conflicts in which they have a vested interest. As early as 1956, France and the United Kingdom vetoed a Draft Security Council Resolution that called for Israel to immediately withdraw its troops from Egyptian territory during the 1956 Suez Canal Crisis. The Soviet Union vetoed UN Security Council Draft Resolution S/3730, which called for the USSR to withdraw its forces during its own invasion of Hungary. The United States, the United Kingdom, and France vetoed a UN Security Council Draft Resolution S/21048 on the US’s 1989 invasion of Panama. Apart from requesting the withdrawal of forces, even UN Security Council Resolutions that called for the application of economic sanctions and respect for human rights were vetoed. During the Syrian Civil War, UN Security Council Draft Resolutions S/2011/612, S/2012/77, and S/2017/172 were vetoed by Russia and China. 

Given the trend of the use of the veto power, it is likely that China would veto any UN Security Council Resolutions regarding any conflict between China and Taiwan. Even UN Security Council resolutions that did not have anything to do with the Taiwan Strait, but recognized Taiwan, were vetoed by China. These include UN Security Council Draft Resolution S/1997/18, which called for the deployment of UN military observers to implement a cease-fire agreement in Guatemala. China vetoed on the grounds that “no country’s peace process should be at the expense of another country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” This was in response to the invitation of Taiwan authorities to the signing ceremony of the peace agreement in Guatemala.  Another was UN Security Council Draft Resolution S/1999/201, which aimed to continue the deployment of the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP) in monitoring the border areas of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. China vetoed on the grounds that Macedonia recognized the sovereignty of Taiwan. 

Since the UN Security Council cannot operate without China’s vote, the United Nations may have to find another way to maintain peace and security in the Taiwan Strait. Another body within the UN, the General Assembly, may act instead. The UN General Assembly consists of all members of the United Nations. One of its main functions is to call to the attention of the UN Security Council situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security. The “call to attention” is effectively a recommendation that the General Assembly passes on to the UN Security Council to decide. In the case of the Taiwan Strait, any recommended resolution by the UN General Assembly for the purposes of maintaining peace and security may be vetoed – resulting in UN inaction. Because of this possibility, other avenues for maintaining peace and security by the UN should be considered.

While it is the UN Security Council that has the primary responsibility to maintain peace and security, there is no explicit prohibition that forbids the United Nations General Assembly from enacting international peace and security efforts. At the start of the Korean War, the then USSR (now Russia) refused to allow the UN Security Council to intervene by using its veto power. Due to the deadlock in the UN Security Council, the United States and several members of the UN Security Council and General Assembly passed UN General Assembly Resolution 377 A(V), also known as the Uniting for Peace Resolution. The Resolution gave the UN General Assembly the power to convene emergency special sessions within 24 hours when the Security Council fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in “any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression[.]” According to the Resolution, the General Assembly may make appropriate recommendations to member-states for collective measures in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression. These recommendations may even include the use of armed force when necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Since the passing of this resolution, 11 emergency special sessions were held. The most recent was in 2014 regarding the threat to international peace and security in Ukraine. 

Resolutions analogous to the Uniting Peace Resolution may be the solution for maintaining peace and security in the Taiwan Strait if there is a UN Security Council deadlock. An example of such a resolution would be General Assembly Resolution 498 (V). This Resolution recognized the deadlock in the UN Security Council and called upon the People’s Republic of China to cease hostilities in Korea and for Member States to continue to aid the United Nations action in Korea during the Korean War. To be clear, the passing of resolutions analogous to the Uniting for Peace Resolution does not require the deployment of troops. The resolutions may be a call upon Member States of the UN General Assembly to promote peace and security through non-violent means.

In summary, the United Nations could intervene in a conflict between China and Taiwan on the grounds that it is an international threat to peace and security. Even if Taiwan is not recognized as an independent State or member of the United Nations. However, history has shown that the current use of the veto power of permanent members by the UN Security Council will likely result in China’s veto of any UN Security Council Resolution concerning Taiwan. If the

UN Security Council is deadlocked by veto, UN actions similar to the Uniting for Peace Resolution could be forwarded by the UN General Assembly to uphold one of the main purposes of the United Nations—the maintenance of peace and security.