1971年之前，中华民国曾长期在国际上打压中华人民共和国的国际空间。中华民国政府采取“汉贼不两立”政策，阻止中华人民共和国进入联合国以及绝大多数国际组织。多数国际组织也多以“北京政权”（Peking Regime）或“中共政权”（Chinese Communist Regime）称呼中华人民共和国。但中华人民共和国于朝鲜战争结束后，在受邀出席联合国安理会会议和进行国际谈判时，却也能以“中华人民共和国中央人民政府”（Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China或P.R.O.C.）名义在国际空间中活动。"[16]:555[17]
1971年中华人民共和国取得“中国”代表权后，也转而积极限制中华民国的国际空间。近二十年来，中华民国政府多次由其邦交国提案希望加入联合国等国际组织以及向世界卫生组织派出观察员，但是均受到中国代表权问题以及中华人民共和国的坚决反对而未被接受。中华民国政府一直试图增加其国际影响力，但在政治现实下，甚少国际组织接受中华民国作为其会员国。且多数国际组织往往以“中国台湾省”（Taiwan, Province of China）、“中华台北”（Chinese Taipei）或“中国台湾”（Taiwan, China）称呼中华民国。
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. 联合王国政府承认中国政府关于台湾是中华人民共和国的一个省的立场，决定于一九七二年三月十三日撤销其在台湾的官方代表机构。
The Government of the United Kingdom recognize the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. 联合王国政府承认中华人民共和国政府是中国的唯一合法政府。
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. 美利坚合众国承认中华人民共和国政府是中国的唯一合法政府。在此范围内，美国人民将同台湾人民保持文化、商务和其他非官方关系。
The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China. 美利坚合众国政府承认中国的立场，即只有一个中国，台湾是中国的一部分。
2016年底，唐纳德·特朗普就职美国总统前，曾试图以一中政策作为与中国的外交及贸易谈判的筹码[43]，藉台湾为棋子[44]，获取如朝鲜核问题、南中国海争议、贸易等各方面议题的谈判优势，并争取中国在有关方面作出让步。曾表示他充分理解一个中国政策，但除非和中国能在其他事情，包括贸易问题上谈成协议，否则“不需受到一个中国政策约束（be bound by a one China policy）”。但中方认为此举严重冒犯，遭到中方的强烈不满，中国外交部重申一个中国政策是中方底线，不可谈判。
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. 中国政府重申：台湾是中华人民共和国领土不可分割的一部分。加拿大政府注意到中国政府的这一立场。
澳大利亚外交贸易部（Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade）. Australia-Taiwan relationship. 澳大利亚外交贸易部（Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade）. [2022-08-11]. （原始内容存档于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]. （原始内容存档于2018-02-12） （英语）. 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]. （原始内容存档(PDF)于2019-04-24）.
What Is the U.S. “One China” Policy, and Why Does it Matter? （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）, 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]. （原始内容存档(PDF)于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]. （原始内容存档(PDF)于2017-04-10） （英语）. 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]. （原始内容存档(PDF)于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 (新闻稿). Washington D.C.: Office of the Press Secretary, The White House. 2017-02-09 [2017-02-12]. （原始内容存档于2017-02-13） （英语）. 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. 华盛顿特区: The New York Times 《纽约时报》. 2017-02-10 [2017-02-12]. （原始内容存档于2017-02-12） （中文）. “两位领导人讨论了许多话题。在习近平主席的要求下，特朗普总统同意继续履行我们（美国）的一个中国政策，”白宫在周四深夜发布的一份声明中表示。文中还称这次谈话“格外亲切友好”，两位领导“都邀请对方来自己国家会面”。
Charles Ventura. Trump tells Xi Jinping: U.S. will honor 'One China' policy. USA Today《今日美国报》. 2017-02-09 （英语）. 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]. （原始内容存档于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]. （原始内容存档于2023-05-01） （英语）. 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.请检查|access-date=中的日期值 (帮助)
中英建交公报第二句
