The article highlights the history of formation of the official Taiwanese discourse on the problems of territorial affiliation and legal claims to the islands in the South China Sea. Two leading political parties of Taiwan (Guomindang and DPP) have substantial differences in their approach to the sovereignty on the features in SCS and “historical rights” to the sea. Details are given about reasons for emergence and disappearance of the concept of "historical waters" in the Taiwanese law, which allegedly should have been subject to the jurisdiction of the Republic of China. Taiwan's activities on the two features in the SCS aimed at demonstrating their "effective occupation" are highlighted. Official stance of different administrations and its changes are considered in detail. While sharing the same approach to the status of Taiping island, Guomindang and DPP disagree on affiliation of all other land features in the SCS. When considering the interpretation of the notorious "U-shaped line" by Taiwanese politicians, a conclusion is made about the actual proximity of the foreign policy stances of the PRC and the Guomindang, which are based on the idea of the common Chinese identity, revealed by significant part of the Taiwan inhabitants. As for the approach of DPP to the problem of SCS, the determining factor here is the Taiwanese identity of its supporters. This further complicates the situation: the DPP, on the one hand, proclaims sovereignty over all SCS facilities to demonstrate unity with PRC on the issue of China's territorial integrity, on the other hand — pragmatically recognizes the impossibility of actual exercising its nominal sovereignty over the disputed territories. Thus an obvious contradiction between theory and practice in the Taiwanese policy is revealed. The nuances of Taiwanese attitude to the award of the Hague Tribunal on the Philippines vs China case are elucidated. The reasons of the tribunal’s refusal to provide status of island to the biggest feature in Nansha group are determined.
