「反分裂國家法」與「台灣關係法」是中美兩國針對台灣所訂立的國內法，就法律性質而言，其共同特色是針對一個不屬於自己統治的領域，而以立法方式定位自己與該領域的雙邊關係。就二者的內容而言，「反分裂國家法」與「台灣關係法」都在規範一個國家對外的交往秩序，因此在某程度上有其對照性。本文乃針對「反分裂國家法」與「台灣關係法」，就台灣歸屬的認定、對台關係的設定、規範對象的異同、對人權問題的立場、對「使用武力」之規定等方面，進行法理上的比較。首先，身為「反分裂國家法」與「台灣關係法」所宣稱的規範對象，台灣當然應質疑中美兩國是否有權對台灣立法並設定法律限制的權力？其次，「反分裂國家法」與「台灣關係法」在對「台灣歸屬」的認定上是截然不同的。美國的「台灣關係法」是以「台灣地位未定論」為前提而制定該法，而中國「反分裂國家法」的立法前提，則是認定「台灣是中華人民共和國的神聖領土的一部分」，以此為出發點而制定該法。第三，「台灣關係法」和「反分裂國家法」都是規範一個國家對外的交往秩序，所以著重的是定位雙邊關係而非干涉被規範對象內部秩序的「自我構成性」。美國的「台灣關係法」是將自己界定為純粹的雙邊關係的法律規範，所以並不涉及台灣內部秩序應如何變動；但「反分裂國家法」除了雙邊關係之外，至少在第八條設定三個條件直接介入並限制台灣內部秩序的自主決定權，這是美國「台灣關係法」與「反分裂國家法」的不同處之一。在「反分裂國家法」中，中國將台灣人民區分為「台獨分裂勢力」和「被包括在全中國人民之內的臺灣同胞」。另一方面，在「台灣關係法」中，美國亦認為台灣內部存在兩種人：「臺灣人民」和「海峽這邊的中國人」。「臺灣人民」是「台灣關係法」保護和賦予權利的對象，而海峽這邊的中國人是認為「只有一個中國」，而在未來與「對岸的中國人」共同和平解決問題的當事者。最重要的是，中國制定「反分裂國家法」片面將台灣視為中華人民共和國的一部分，並禁止任何人民或團體主張或採取獨立的選擇，此點完全是違反國際人權條約保障自決權的相關規定。尤其甚者，「反分裂國家法」第八條也規定「非和平方式及其他必要措施」是由中華人民共和國國務院、中央軍事委員會自行決定和組織實施，此點等於是使用武力之空白支票。此種做法違反1928年巴黎廢戰公約(The Kellogg-Brigand Pact 1928)以及聯合國憲章禁止使用武力的國際法原則。

The Anti-Secession Law and the Taiwan Relations Act are both domestic laws that China and America made in view of Taiwan. Speaking with legal parlance, the common characteristics of these two laws is their view of a territory that they do not control. With respect to the context, the Anti-Secession Law and the Taiwan Relations Act are both dictating to one country its relationships with other countries, so certain comparisons can be made. This essay is therefore intending to compare the legal basis of the recognition of the ownership of Taiwan, and the consequent international law issues, i.e., the establishing of relationships with Taiwan, the different views concerning what those who are governed, the human rights issues, and the rules governing the using of force. The first issue towards these two laws would certainly be the legitimacy of the Anti-Secession Law and Taiwan Relations Act which in common claim to rule over the situation of Taiwan. Secondly, the Anti-Secession Law and Taiwan Relations Act stand on a very reverse side pertaining to the territorial issue of Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act set out a clear view that "Taiwan's status not confirmed", while the Anti-Secession Law of China strongly yet unilaterally proclaimed that 'Taiwan is part of the "holy" territory of People's Republic of China'. Thirdly, the Anti-Secession Law and the Taiwan Relations Act are both domestic regulations which governs their own diplomatic order towards Taiwan, which in nature shall not interfere in any sense with the national development of other country. Taiwan Relations Act is well sustained as a domestic regulation which does not concern with how the order of Taiwan will change. However, the Anti-Secession Law is intending to interfere and limit the decision of Taiwan should there be any tendency towards independence. In the Anti-Secession Law, China characterizes Taiwanese people into "Secession group for Taiwan independence" and "Taiwanese compatriots that are included in all China". On the other hand, in the Taiwan Relations Act, the States also conceives that there are two kinds of Taiwanese: "Taiwanese people" and "the Chinese at this side of the strait". "Taiwanese people" are the subjects that the Taiwan Relations Act, while the Chinese at this side of the strait think "there is only one China" and will be the concerned party in the future which solve the problems peacefully with "the Chinese on the other side of strait". More importantly, the Anti-Secession Law conceives Taiwan as part of The People's Republic of China, which prohibits any possibility of independence, and is consequently contrary to the related rules of International Human Rights Treaties, e.g., the right of self-determination. Furthermore, its Article 8 wrote a blank check for the use of force against a state which is beyond its jurisdiction, which is infringing The Kellogg-Brigand Pact 1928 and the UN Charter that prohibit in any case the use of military force without due cause.