Although the SEF and ARATS were unable to reach a consensus during the meetings on functional issues after the "Koo-Wang Talks," the two sides remained in close contact, promoted their related affairs, advanced cross-strait exchanges, and resolved certain routine issues. 

　　The Third Meeting on Functional Issues was held in Taipei on December 18 to 22, 1993. Participants on the mainland side included ARATS personnel as well as representatives of the Ministry of Public Security, Ministry of Agriculture, Fujian Public Security Department and Taiwan Affairs Office in the capacity of ARATS "Negotiation Task Force Experts." 

The key points of the meeting and major views exchanged between the two sides include the following: 

1. Repatriation of hijackers 

The two sides initially exchanged a draft agreement on this issue during the talks in Xiamen. During the Taipei meeting, three draft agreements were exchanged on December 18, 19, and 22, respectively. 

(1) Regarding the repatriation of hijackers, the two sides agreed in principle that prosecution and punishment should be handled by the side to which the hijacked aircraft belongs. However, the Taiwan side maintained the view that, based on the spirit of mutual respect, the language "persons of one's own side shall not be deported" should be included in the agreement. Although the mainland side consented in principle, it said it would be difficult to put this in writing. 

(2) The Taiwan side maintained that deportation should be refused in hijacking cases where a judicial process (investigation, trial and enforcement) is underway for the same case or another case. The mainland side was highly sensitive about legal language and was unwilling to accept the judicial jurisdiction of the Taiwan side. 

(3) The deportation of criminals (or criminal suspects) shall be handled identically to the repatriation of hijackers as regards refusal of deportation, compulsory punishment, offset, requests, transfers, exchanges and scope of prosecution. The Taiwan side therefore proposed that applicable provisions be established to jointly resolve the issue of the deportation of criminals (and criminal suspects). The mainland side insisted on focusing discussions on joint crime fighting. 

2. Repatriation of illegal immigrants

The two sides twice exchanged draft agreements on this issue during the Xiamen talks. During the Taipei talks, they further exchanged draft agreements on December 20 and 22. 

(1) The position of the mainland side was that illegal entry should refer only to persons that enter the mainland or Taiwan area in violation of related regulations on "both sides." The Taiwan side stated that the two sides each have their own immigration laws and noted that the position that someone could legally exit one side and not be required to legally enter the other side would be unrealistic. 

(2) In view of the difficulties created by the frequent inability of the mainland side to accept repatriated illegal immigrants in a timely manner, the Taiwan side adhered to the position of active repatriation. The mainland side agreed under the condition of "on-site inspections" at detention areas designated by the Taiwan side. The Taiwan side believed that there would be no substantive benefit to "on-site inspections" and held that "local inspections" at coastal areas should suffice. It also explained that regulations for active repatriation were needed because the mainland side was unable to coordinate normally with repatriation operations. 

(3) Since the repatriation illegal immigrants involves an annual cost of over NT$100 million, the Taiwan side maintained that the mainland side should bear this cost under the principle of distribution of damages. The mainland side firmly disagreed. 

3. Handling of marine fishing disputes between the two sides 

The two sides exchanged views on this issue during the talks in Xiamen. During the Taipei talks, they held two discussions on this issue and exchanged draft agreements on the afternoons of December 19 and 20. No clear progress was made on this issue since the Xiamen talks: 

(1) The Taiwan side maintained that the agreement should apply to fishing vessel disputes, disputes between fishing vessels and non-official vessels, and disputes over collisions between fishing vessels and official vessels. The mainland side insisted that the agreement should only apply to disputes between fishing vessels and disputes between fishing vessels and non-official vessels, and not include disputes over collisions between fishing vessels and official vessels. The mainland side also believed that due to qualitative and legal differences, the agreement should not cover criminal lawsuits brought by victims. The Taiwan side believed that it is likely that disputes will occur between fishing vessels and other vessels and that such disputes should be resolved jointly as actual circumstances require. Regarding lawsuits brought by victims, the Taiwan side said it could consider any difficulties that may exist due to differences in legal systems. 

(2) The two sides had fewer differences on the issue of out-of-court settlements by fishermen. The Taiwan side proposed that official vessels could handle reconciliation in territorial waters on a trial basis. The mainland side was reserved on this point due to issues of territorial water boundaries and the potential bias of official vessels. The Taiwan side explained that official vessels could still serve a function by impartially intervening to prevent the violent resolution of disputes between the interested parties. 

(3) The Taiwan side believed that the two sides should each establish mediation bodies to jointly mediate disputes and legally enforce the mediation results. The mainland side agreed that the two sides should each establish mediation bodies, but believed that the function of such bodies should be to handle negotiations between the representatives of the fishermen on a case-by-case basis. The mainland side also held the position that each side should adopt effective measures to implement the mediation results. 

4. Facilitation of entry and exit of SEF and ARATS officials

Consensus was reached on the main part of this issue. The two sides agreed to grant the convenience of "issuing and holding certificates" to SEF and ARATS personnel involved in negotiations and to facilitate customs inspection and clearance for certain levels of SEF and ARATS officials and accompanying personnel. However, some of the details remained to be settled. 

5. Other routine negotiation issues 

The two sides exchanged general views on cross-strait judicial assistance, joint crime fighting, protection of intellectual property rights, Taiwanese investment interests and other related issues to facilitate future talks. 

　　This was the first cross-strait meeting to be held in Taipei since 1951. It was covered widely by the media and gave rise to various political positions that affected the progress of the talks. In addition, the meeting achieved consensus on certain technical issues pertaining to the "repatriation of people who enter the area of the other side in violation of relevant regulations [illegal migrants] and related questions," an "agreement on matters relating to the deportation of cross-strait hijackers," and "negotiations on the handling of cross-strait fishing disputes." However, the mainland side was highly evasive on legal issues, such as "non-repatriation of one's own people," jurisdiction between the two sides on the same legal case, and validation of mediation results. The mainland side was also extremely opposed to language such as "judicial bodies" and "law," proposing instead language with "one country, two systems" significance. This was the major barrier during the talks.