1971年之前，中華民國曾長期在國際上打壓中華人民共和國的國際空間。中華民國政府採取「漢賊不兩立」政策，阻止中華人民共和國進入聯合國以及絕大多數國際組織。多數國際組織也多以「北京政權」（Peking Regime）或「中共政權」（Chinese Communist Regime）稱呼中華人民共和國。但中華人民共和國於朝鮮戰爭結束後，在受邀出席聯合國安理會會議和進行國際談判時，也以「中華人民共和國中央人民政府」（Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China或P.R.O.C.）名義在國際空間中活動。"[17]:555[18]
1971年中華人民共和國取得「中國」代表權後，也轉而積極限制中華民國的國際空間。近二十年來，中華民國政府多次由其邦交國提案希望加入聯合國等國際組織以及向世界衛生組織派出觀察員，但是均受到中國代表權問題以及中華人民共和國的堅決反對而未被接受。中華民國政府一直試圖增加其國際影響力，但在政治現實下，甚少國際組織接受中華民國作為其會員國。且多數國際組織往往以「中國台灣省」（Taiwan, Province of China）、「中華台北」（Chinese Taipei）或「中國台灣」（Taiwan, China）稱呼中華民國。
The Government of the United Kingdom, acknowledging the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China, have decided to remove their official representation in Taiwan on March 13, 1972. 聯合王國政府承認中國政府關於台灣是中華人民共和國的一個省的立場，決定於一九七二年三月十三日撤銷其在台灣的官方代表機構。
The Government of the United Kingdom recognize the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. 聯合王國政府承認中華人民共和國政府是中國的唯一合法政府。
The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan. 美利堅合眾國承認中華人民共和國政府是中國的唯一合法政府。在此範圍內，美國人民將同台灣人民保持文化、商務和其他非官方關係。
The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. 美利堅合眾國政府承認中國的立場，即只有一個中國，台灣是中國的一部分。
2016年底，當勞·特朗普就職美國總統前，曾試圖以一中政策作為與中國的外交及貿易談判的籌碼[45]，藉台灣為棋子[46]，獲取如朝鮮核問題、南海爭議、貿易等各方面議題的談判優勢，並爭取中國在有關方面作出讓步。曾表示他充分理解一個中國政策，但除非和中國能在其他事情，包括貿易問題上談成協議，否則「不需受到一個中國政策約束（be bound by a one China policy）」。但中方認為此舉嚴重冒犯，遭到中方的強烈不滿，中國外交部重申一個中國政策是中方底線，不可談判。
The Chinese Government reaffirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. The Canadian Government takes note of this position of the Chinese Government. 中國政府重申：台灣是中華人民共和國領土不可分割的一部分。加拿大政府注意到中國政府的這一立場。
澳洲外交貿易部（Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade）. Australia-Taiwan relationship. 澳洲外交貿易部（Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade）. [2022-08-11]. （原始內容存檔於2021-09-08）. The terms of our Joint Communiqué dictate the fundamental basis of Australia’s one China policy – the Australian Government does not recognise the ROC as a sovereign state and does not regard the authorities in Taiwan as having the status of a national government. Dealings between Australian government officials and Taiwan, therefore, take place unofficially. For example, Australia’s representative office in Taiwan does not have diplomatic status nor do Taiwan’s representative offices in Australia, which have the title 「Taipei Economic and Cultural Office」 (TECO).
Andrew Godwin. Legal Aspects of Australia's Commercial Relationship With Taiwan. Bond Law Review (Bond University Publication). 1992-06, 4 (1): 50 [2018-02-11]. （原始內容存檔於2018-02-12） （英語）. Furthermore, what is acknowledged is Beijing's 'position' that Taiwan is a province of China. Thus, a valid interpretation of the wording used is that Australia neither accepts Beijing's position that Taiwan is a province of China nor recognizes that Taiwan is a province of China.
Interview with Harvey Feldman (PDF). The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training. Foreign Affairs Oral History Project. 2001: 69–70 [2020-08-02]. （原始內容存檔(PDF)於2019-04-24）.
What Is the U.S. 「One China」 Policy, and Why Does it Matter? （頁面存檔備份，存於互聯網檔案館）, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017-01-13, "The United States did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan......Instead, Washington acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan was part of China. For geopolitical reasons, both the United States and the PRC were willing to go forward with diplomatic recognition despite their differences on this matter. When China attempted to change the Chinese text from the original acknowledge to recognize, Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher told a Senate hearing questioner, 「[W]e regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word 『acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.」 In the August 17, 1982, U.S.-China Communique, the United States went one step further, stating that it had no intention of pursuing a policy of 「two Chinas」 or 「one China, one Taiwan.」To this day, the U.S. 「one China」 position stands: the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China."
Shirley A. Kan; Wayne M. Morrison. U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues(pdf). Congressional Research Service: 4. 2013-01-04 [2020-08-02]. （原始內容存檔(PDF)於2016-12-11）. The position of the United States, as clarified in the China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy report of the Congressional Research Service (date: July 9, 2007) is summed up in five points: # The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. # The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. # U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan; # U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and # U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as undetermined. U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled. These positions remained unchanged in a 2013 report of the Congressional Research Service.
China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei(PDF). Congressional Research Service: 39. 2014-10-10 [2017-03-07]. （原始內容存檔(PDF)於2017-04-10） （英語）. In the Chinese text, the word for 「acknowledge」 is 「cheng ren」 (recognize), a change from 「ren shi」 (acknowledge),used in the 1972 Shanghai Communique. During debate on the TRA in February 1979, Senator Jacob Javits noted the difference and said that 「it is very important that we not subscribe to [the Chinese position on one China] either way.」 Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher responded that 「we regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word 『acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.」 (Wolff and Simon, pp. 310-311).
Shirley A. Kan; Wayne M. Morrison. U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues(pdf). Congressional Research Service: 4. 2013-01-04 [2017-05-11]. （原始內容存檔(PDF)於2016-12-11）. The position of the United States, as clarified in the China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy report of the Congressional Research Service (date: July 9, 2007) is summed up in five points: # The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. # The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. # U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan; # U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and # U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as undetermined. U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled. These positions remained unchanged in a 2013 report of the Congressional Research Service.
Readout of the President’s Call with President Xi Jinping of China (新聞稿). Washington D.C.: Office of the Press Secretary, The White House. 2017-02-09 [2017-02-12]. （原始內容存檔於2017-02-13） （英語）. The two leaders discussed numerous topics and President Trump agreed, at the request of President Xi, to honor our "one China" policy.
川普與習近平通電話：認同「一個中國」政策. 華盛頓特區: The New York Times 《紐約時報》. 2017-02-10 [2017-02-12]. （原始內容存檔於2017-02-12） （中文）. 「兩位領導人討論了許多話題。在習近平主席的要求下，特朗普總統同意繼續履行我們（美國）的一個中國政策，」白宮在週四深夜發佈的一份聲明中表示。文中還稱這次談話「格外親切友好」，兩位領導「都邀請對方來自己國家會面」。
Charles Ventura. Trump tells Xi Jinping: U.S. will honor 'One China' policy. USA Today《今日美國報》. 2017-02-09 （英語）. President Trump spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping for the first time since taking over the White House late Thursday, agreeing to honor America's long-standing "One China" policy.
Canada-Taiwan relations. Government of Canada. [2023-10-23]. （原始內容存檔於2023-08-25）. Consistent with its One China policy, Canada maintains unofficial but valuable economic, cultural and people-to-people ties with Taiwan.
VIJAY GOKHALE. What Should India Do Before the Next Taiwan Strait Crisis?. Carnegie India. [APRIL 17, 2023]. （原始內容存檔於2023-05-01） （英語）. The other question that needs answering is whether India specifically articulated or affirmed a 「One China」 policy when it transferred diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1949? During the negotiations with the PRC for opening diplomatic relations, India agreed not to have official relations with the ROC or support Taiwan’s membership in the UN as the representative of China.135 There was no mention, however, of a One China policy by either party in the formal communications exchanged between Nehru136and Zhou Enlai137 at the time of India’s recognition of the PRC. It is also a matter of fact that when relations were normalized following then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi’s visit in December 1988 (or the return visit of then premier Li Peng in December 1991), the joint press communique made no reference to One China. The first reference to 「One China」 is contained in the ChinaIndia Joint Declaration of November 30, 1996, during Chinese president Jiang Zemin’s state visit to India.138 The intention may have been to reassure the PRC that India’s decision to open a nonofficial office in Taipei in 1995 did not mean a change in policy. Yet after a decade (during which similar references were made at least four more times in bilateral joint statements), the practice of referring to One China was discontinued by India in 2009 on the grounds that China was not willing to show concern for Indian sensitivities on issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity.139 The current government has explicitly stated in 2014 (through then external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj) that 「for India to agree to a one-China policy, China should reaffirm a one-India policy.」140 This policy of making no official reference to One China is consistent with the original position and intent of the Government of India, namely that India’s transfer of recognition to the PRC in 1949 does not require any further explanation. Therefore, in the future, India should not make any reference to a One China policy in statements and communiques, whether joint or solo.請檢查|access-date=中的日期值 (幫助)
中英建交公報第二句
