The National Interest 刊登台灣主權問題文章China Has No Legal Claim to Taiwan
雖然之前打定主意，
在板上二十大習上李下聽床洗版文結束前
個人暫不寫認真文章
但有點管不住手手....
China Has No Legal Claim to Taiwan
副標:The simple fact is that China has no more legal right to Taiwan than it has to Korea.
這篇文章很有意思
首先，這是刊登在The National Interest上
這是個老牌的美國國際事務雜誌
許多作者為退休外交官、智庫或各國大使
所以在這雜誌上刊登這樣一篇文章
本身就代表了一定的政治風向
其次，我個人是第一次看到非台灣人撰寫主張台灣主權未定論的專文
這篇China Has No Legal Claim to Taiwan除了是美國人寫的外
更有趣的是還比台灣主權未定論的主張更為激進
更進一步的主張台灣是屬於美國二戰後占領管理地區
台灣主權是屬於美國的
只是戰後借給國民黨棲身
但美國對台灣仍有監護責任
美國對台灣有依聯合國憲章第七十三條之義務
即是說美國對台灣有
最大限度地促進台灣居民的福祉，並為此目的發展自治，
適當考慮到台灣人民的政治願望，
並協助台灣逐步發展其自由政治制度之義務
當然，細看全文
我個人認為此文有過於強行的部分
其以舊金山和約為主要論述依據
但就事論事
個人方才重新查看舊金山和約全文
我自己是無法得到與作者相同的結論
不過這是十分有趣的風向
與各位分享
以下正文
China Has No Legal Claim to Taiwan
The simple fact is that China has no more legal right to Taiwan than it has to Korea.
by Peter C. Hansen Michael Rubin
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-has-no-legal-claim-taiwan-205190
In the wake of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) August visit to Taiwan, mainland China has increased its threats to the island. Its bluster masks two inconvenient facts. First, the Chinese Communist Party recognized even before World War II that Taiwan was not part of China. Even Mao Zedong, the founder of the People’s Republic of China, acknowledged in a 1936 interview with hagiographer Edgar Snow that Taiwan was no more part of China than Korea was. Second, Beijing has no legal claim to Taiwan even today.
During an October 2004 television interview in Beijing, Secretary of State Colin Powell remarked that “Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy.” Chinese leaders welcomed Powell’s statement, even though Powell elided an important consideration: If Taiwan is not independent or sovereign as a nation, and if it is not a legal no man's land (that is, terra nullius), then to whom does it belong?
Mainland Chinese authorities consistently say the answer is obvious: Taiwan belongs to them. Repetition and volume do not substitute for legality, however. Japan took and occupied Taiwan in 1894, and the Qing dynasty formalized that arrangement in the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki that ended the Sino-Japanese War. This gave Japan legal title to the island and extinguished China’s imperial title, which had notably been obtained for the first time only two centuries earlier. Japan proceeded to rule Taiwan for the next half century, with full legal authority, until the Allies defeated Japan in World War II.
In 1952, three years after Chiang Kai-Shek’s government fled from Mao’s forces to Taiwan, the San Francisco Peace Treaty between the Allies and Japan entered into force. The Treaty recognized the United States as “the principal occupying Power” on the island. While Beijing points out that it is not a signatory to the Treaty, its unilateral position does not negate the legal fact that, from the point of view of the 46 states party to the Treaty, the United States became the legal custodian of Taiwan when Japan’s title was dissolved. Meanwhile, Beijing’s claim to the island—pressed by the Soviet Union—was voted down.
The treaty set aside the Cairo Declaration of 1943, in which the United States, United Kingdom, and the Republic of China had stated an intention to return Taiwan to China. In 1952, the State Department declared this wartime statement to be non-binding. Dozens of countries around the world adopted the Treaty in 1952 even though the Republic of China had both been administering the island since the end of the war and was internationally recognized as the sole legitimate government of China despite its situation.
While negotiating the treaty, Harry Truman’s administration purposely left the relationship between Taiwan and mainland China unresolved. A confidential September 1951 U.S. position paper stated, “It is the view of the United States that if it is agreed that the question of the time when Formosa should be returned to China should be left open, this equally makes it appropriate that the whole matter be left unresolved by the treaty, save for the elimination of Japan’s interest. No one can say that at some future unpredictable date a return to China would necessarily serve the best interests of the inhabitants, whose welfare, under the Charter of the United Nations, is paramount (Article 73).” The U.S. position won the day. Japan’s title to the island was extinguished, and the treaty left Taiwan legally occupied by the United States, the secondary and subordinate occupying power implicitly being the Republic of China government in exile, which was sustained through massive U.S. government military and financial aid.
Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN) addresses situations such as these:
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end … to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions…
The United States took its “sacred trust” seriously. During the Truman and Dwight Eisenhower administrations, the United States flooded Taiwan with aid in order to build its capacity. By 1952, U.S. assistance accounted for more than ten percent of all Republic of China budgets. After the 1955 Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of China, the United States continued to reject Beijing’s pretensions concerning the island. The United States did not relinquish its title nor did it ever concede that Taiwan ever legally reverted to “China.”
Neither Beijing nor the Republic of China signed the treaty. Also in 1952, however, the Republic of China and Japan negotiated the Treaty of Taipei to formalize peace between the two states. The Taipei Treaty sidestepped the question of sovereignty over Taiwan. As George Yeh, the Republic of China’s foreign minister from 1949 to 1958, explained, Japan had no right to claim sovereignty over the island or to transfer it to the Republic of China. This statement effectively affirmed the United States’ sovereign role as the island’s “principal occupying Power.”
The United States’ rapprochement with China orchestrated by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger beginning in the early 1970s did not alter the San Francisco Peace Treaty’s legal settlement. Beijing took over the Republic of China’s U.N. seat in 1971, but the various joint communiqués by the United States since that time have never ceded the United States’ title to Taiwan. Even in 1979, when the United States recognized Beijing as the “sole legal Government of China,” the United States did not renounce its title or Article 73 duties or make a present of the island to “China,” however defined. Instead, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act affirmed pre-1979 law concerning Taiwan. This included the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which has statutory status in United States law. Furthermore, in 1982, the United States adopted the “Six Assurances” maintaining the Taiwan Relations Act and arms sales to the Republic of China on the island. This move signaled Washington’s ongoing—and fully legal—rejection of Beijing’s claim to Taiwan.
The United States’ position has been clarified in the twenty-first century. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo affirmed that “Taiwan has not been part of China,” and he observed that such a position was bipartisan. Pelosi’s recent visit to the island highlighted this unity concerning Taiwan. President Joe Biden, for his part, has notably articulated four times the United States’ commitment to Taiwan, even as his National Security Council staff has tried each time to walk back these verbal statements.
The legal issue today concerning Taiwan is not whether Beijing has title to Taiwan, given that China has not held title to the island since 1895, and has as weak a claim to it today as Spain does to Cuba. There can be no legal change in sovereignty over the island unless the United States renounces its sovereignty or unless a new treaty supplants the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
The only valid legal issue concerning Taiwan’s status is how the United States will continue to conduct, and eventually conclude, its “sacred trust” concerning Taiwan. To bring its custodian role to an equally honorable and lawful end, the United States must continue to “ensure ... their just treatment, and their protection against abuses” under Article 73 until it can exercise a “full measure of self-government,” and finally decide their own future. Taiwan’s vibrant democracy is a testament to the success of the treaty and the postwar order it established, and augurs well for the Taiwanese to decide the island’s final status once all threats subside.
With the law not on its side, Beijing instead claims civilizational rights to Taiwan, even though China’s first official presence in Taiwan actually began much later than those of Spain and Holland. However sensitive Taiwan might be to Beijing’s worldview, the UN Charter to which Beijing has adhered since 1979 requires peaceful coexistence. Beijing’s consistent threats toward Taiwan constitute threats both to the post-war order under the UN Charter and to the broader Westphalian system of international law.
The simple fact is that China has no more legal right to Taiwan than it has to Korea. The United States, by contrast, has an explicit legal title to Taiwan, even though the United States has eschewed imperial power and instead sought to fulfill its Article 73 duties to Taiwan’s inhabitants. It is past time for the United States to clarify that Taiwan’s fate is for its inhabitants alone to determine.
Peter C. Hansen is a public international law specialist and trial and appellate attorney based in Washington, D.C.
Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
在板上二十大習上李下聽床洗版文結束前
個人暫不寫認真文章
但有點管不住手手....
China Has No Legal Claim to Taiwan
副標:The simple fact is that China has no more legal right to Taiwan than it has to Korea.
這篇文章很有意思
首先，這是刊登在The National Interest上
這是個老牌的美國國際事務雜誌
許多作者為退休外交官、智庫或各國大使
所以在這雜誌上刊登這樣一篇文章
本身就代表了一定的政治風向
其次，我個人是第一次看到非台灣人撰寫主張台灣主權未定論的專文
這篇China Has No Legal Claim to Taiwan除了是美國人寫的外
更有趣的是還比台灣主權未定論的主張更為激進
更進一步的主張台灣是屬於美國二戰後占領管理地區
台灣主權是屬於美國的
只是戰後借給國民黨棲身
但美國對台灣仍有監護責任
美國對台灣有依聯合國憲章第七十三條之義務
即是說美國對台灣有
最大限度地促進台灣居民的福祉，並為此目的發展自治，
適當考慮到台灣人民的政治願望，
並協助台灣逐步發展其自由政治制度之義務
當然，細看全文
我個人認為此文有過於強行的部分
其以舊金山和約為主要論述依據
但就事論事
個人方才重新查看舊金山和約全文
我自己是無法得到與作者相同的結論
不過這是十分有趣的風向
與各位分享
以下正文
China Has No Legal Claim to Taiwan
The simple fact is that China has no more legal right to Taiwan than it has to Korea.
by Peter C. Hansen Michael Rubin
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-has-no-legal-claim-taiwan-205190
In the wake of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) August visit to Taiwan, mainland China has increased its threats to the island. Its bluster masks two inconvenient facts. First, the Chinese Communist Party recognized even before World War II that Taiwan was not part of China. Even Mao Zedong, the founder of the People’s Republic of China, acknowledged in a 1936 interview with hagiographer Edgar Snow that Taiwan was no more part of China than Korea was. Second, Beijing has no legal claim to Taiwan even today.
During an October 2004 television interview in Beijing, Secretary of State Colin Powell remarked that “Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy.” Chinese leaders welcomed Powell’s statement, even though Powell elided an important consideration: If Taiwan is not independent or sovereign as a nation, and if it is not a legal no man's land (that is, terra nullius), then to whom does it belong?
Mainland Chinese authorities consistently say the answer is obvious: Taiwan belongs to them. Repetition and volume do not substitute for legality, however. Japan took and occupied Taiwan in 1894, and the Qing dynasty formalized that arrangement in the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki that ended the Sino-Japanese War. This gave Japan legal title to the island and extinguished China’s imperial title, which had notably been obtained for the first time only two centuries earlier. Japan proceeded to rule Taiwan for the next half century, with full legal authority, until the Allies defeated Japan in World War II.
In 1952, three years after Chiang Kai-Shek’s government fled from Mao’s forces to Taiwan, the San Francisco Peace Treaty between the Allies and Japan entered into force. The Treaty recognized the United States as “the principal occupying Power” on the island. While Beijing points out that it is not a signatory to the Treaty, its unilateral position does not negate the legal fact that, from the point of view of the 46 states party to the Treaty, the United States became the legal custodian of Taiwan when Japan’s title was dissolved. Meanwhile, Beijing’s claim to the island—pressed by the Soviet Union—was voted down.
The treaty set aside the Cairo Declaration of 1943, in which the United States, United Kingdom, and the Republic of China had stated an intention to return Taiwan to China. In 1952, the State Department declared this wartime statement to be non-binding. Dozens of countries around the world adopted the Treaty in 1952 even though the Republic of China had both been administering the island since the end of the war and was internationally recognized as the sole legitimate government of China despite its situation.
While negotiating the treaty, Harry Truman’s administration purposely left the relationship between Taiwan and mainland China unresolved. A confidential September 1951 U.S. position paper stated, “It is the view of the United States that if it is agreed that the question of the time when Formosa should be returned to China should be left open, this equally makes it appropriate that the whole matter be left unresolved by the treaty, save for the elimination of Japan’s interest. No one can say that at some future unpredictable date a return to China would necessarily serve the best interests of the inhabitants, whose welfare, under the Charter of the United Nations, is paramount (Article 73).” The U.S. position won the day. Japan’s title to the island was extinguished, and the treaty left Taiwan legally occupied by the United States, the secondary and subordinate occupying power implicitly being the Republic of China government in exile, which was sustained through massive U.S. government military and financial aid.
Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations (UN) addresses situations such as these:
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end … to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions…
The United States took its “sacred trust” seriously. During the Truman and Dwight Eisenhower administrations, the United States flooded Taiwan with aid in order to build its capacity. By 1952, U.S. assistance accounted for more than ten percent of all Republic of China budgets. After the 1955 Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of China, the United States continued to reject Beijing’s pretensions concerning the island. The United States did not relinquish its title nor did it ever concede that Taiwan ever legally reverted to “China.”
Neither Beijing nor the Republic of China signed the treaty. Also in 1952, however, the Republic of China and Japan negotiated the Treaty of Taipei to formalize peace between the two states. The Taipei Treaty sidestepped the question of sovereignty over Taiwan. As George Yeh, the Republic of China’s foreign minister from 1949 to 1958, explained, Japan had no right to claim sovereignty over the island or to transfer it to the Republic of China. This statement effectively affirmed the United States’ sovereign role as the island’s “principal occupying Power.”
The United States’ rapprochement with China orchestrated by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger beginning in the early 1970s did not alter the San Francisco Peace Treaty’s legal settlement. Beijing took over the Republic of China’s U.N. seat in 1971, but the various joint communiqués by the United States since that time have never ceded the United States’ title to Taiwan. Even in 1979, when the United States recognized Beijing as the “sole legal Government of China,” the United States did not renounce its title or Article 73 duties or make a present of the island to “China,” however defined. Instead, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act affirmed pre-1979 law concerning Taiwan. This included the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which has statutory status in United States law. Furthermore, in 1982, the United States adopted the “Six Assurances” maintaining the Taiwan Relations Act and arms sales to the Republic of China on the island. This move signaled Washington’s ongoing—and fully legal—rejection of Beijing’s claim to Taiwan.
The United States’ position has been clarified in the twenty-first century. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo affirmed that “Taiwan has not been part of China,” and he observed that such a position was bipartisan. Pelosi’s recent visit to the island highlighted this unity concerning Taiwan. President Joe Biden, for his part, has notably articulated four times the United States’ commitment to Taiwan, even as his National Security Council staff has tried each time to walk back these verbal statements.
The legal issue today concerning Taiwan is not whether Beijing has title to Taiwan, given that China has not held title to the island since 1895, and has as weak a claim to it today as Spain does to Cuba. There can be no legal change in sovereignty over the island unless the United States renounces its sovereignty or unless a new treaty supplants the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
The only valid legal issue concerning Taiwan’s status is how the United States will continue to conduct, and eventually conclude, its “sacred trust” concerning Taiwan. To bring its custodian role to an equally honorable and lawful end, the United States must continue to “ensure ... their just treatment, and their protection against abuses” under Article 73 until it can exercise a “full measure of self-government,” and finally decide their own future. Taiwan’s vibrant democracy is a testament to the success of the treaty and the postwar order it established, and augurs well for the Taiwanese to decide the island’s final status once all threats subside.
With the law not on its side, Beijing instead claims civilizational rights to Taiwan, even though China’s first official presence in Taiwan actually began much later than those of Spain and Holland. However sensitive Taiwan might be to Beijing’s worldview, the UN Charter to which Beijing has adhered since 1979 requires peaceful coexistence. Beijing’s consistent threats toward Taiwan constitute threats both to the post-war order under the UN Charter and to the broader Westphalian system of international law.
The simple fact is that China has no more legal right to Taiwan than it has to Korea. The United States, by contrast, has an explicit legal title to Taiwan, even though the United States has eschewed imperial power and instead sought to fulfill its Article 73 duties to Taiwan’s inhabitants. It is past time for the United States to clarify that Taiwan’s fate is for its inhabitants alone to determine.
Peter C. Hansen is a public international law specialist and trial and appellate attorney based in Washington, D.C.
Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
19 个评论
the national interest雜誌本身是支持realists of Int Rel - 在台灣問題上 偏向"strategy of ambiguity" 反對美方無條件的防衛promise 但是不反對對台軍售 加強經貿 (他的母體 the center of NI 前身是the Nixon center), 他也發表來自四面八方的意見文章 隨便一搜“taiwan” 一排各種觀點的評論文。
已隐藏
已隐藏
>>中 華 民 國 憲 法中華民國三十六年十二月二十五日施行第四條 中華民國領土依其固有之疆域，非經國民...
6. 台灣不是中華民國領土，
看國際法只能得到這個結論
且這件事國民黨自己最清楚
〈議定中華民國與日本國間和平條約總報告 書〉，外交部「對日和約」案卷第５４冊
查金山和約 僅規定日本放棄臺灣澎湖而未認定其誰屬，此 點自非中日和約所能補救
https://upload.cc/i1/2022/10/14/rog1cw.jpg
但這篇文章原作者說的是
7. 台灣是美國領土，只是借給國民黨，美國有義務依台灣人的政治願望，協助台灣建立自由政治制度
你台有出路的宣传是曲解联大2758决议
>>2758 表達聯大對中國大陸代表權的認定，可沒有解決臺灣歸屬的問題。甚至中華民國不能以一般成員再度加...美国人已经意识到中共长期曲解2758了，台湾人应该大肆宣传这一点
已隐藏
>>6. 台灣不是中華民國領土，看國際法只能得到這個結論且這件事國民黨自己最清楚〈議定中華民國與日本國間...
但日本政府在停战前已经表明接受波茨但公告，和开罗宣言。波茨坦公告写明要求日本把台湾，澎湖，满洲还给中华民国。而日本在中日和约中放弃台湾澎湖主权，那自然就是转交给中华民国了。实际上也是这么操作的。除此之外，日本政府和中共建交的中日和平友好条约中，再次写明遵守波茨坦公告，换句话就是认可台湾主权属于中国。
>>但日本政府在停战前已经表明接受波茨但公告，和开罗宣言。波茨坦公告写明要求日本把台湾，澎湖，满洲还给中...
在講什麼
合約就是簽名才算數，波茨坦宣言是有日本簽名？
沒有嘛
舊金山和約跟中日和約寫什麼就是什麼
最明確一次！中國若侵台 拜登：美國會出兵防衛台灣 - 评论 by @來閒逛的台灣人
https://pincong.rocks/article/item_id-836245
前面留言我丟了很多文件
中日和約當年中華民國談判代表，外交部長葉公超都直接報告裡寫明台灣主權問題沒解
美國國務院都寫了各國解釋跟反應
蘇聯都抗議日本只放棄台灣主權沒移交不符波茨坦宣言被無視
算了，我就再貼一次
Memorandum from the Office of Legal Advisor, U.S. Department of State, on “The Status of Taiwan ,” July 13, 1971
以下群策會翻譯
備忘錄
1971年7月13日
受文者：東亞司／中華民國科（EA／ROC）——查爾斯．席爾維斯特（Mr. Charles T. Sylvester）
發文者：法律顧問室／東亞（L／EA） ——羅勃．史塔（Robert I. Starr）
主 旨：台灣的法律地位
貴單位要求一份分析台灣的法律地位問題，以便向國會提出說明的完整備忘錄。本文之附件應可滿足上述需要。附件之內容主要取自1961年2月3日之Czyzak備忘錄，內中無敏感資訊，也未引述機密文件。
副本：法律顧問室——沙朗思（Mr. Salans）
L: L／EA:RIStarr:cdj:7／13／71 EX.28900
台灣的法律地位
韓戰爆發之前
從十七世紀中期至1895年，福爾摩沙（即台灣）和澎湖群島一直屬於中華帝國的疆域。1895年中國與日本簽訂馬關條約，中國將台灣和澎湖群島割讓給日本。1
在1943年發表的開羅宣言中，美國、英國和中國聲明「所有日本竊自中國的領土如……台灣和澎湖群島，均應歸還給中華民國」。2 1945年7月26日，美、英、中三國政府發表波茨坦公告，宣稱「開羅宣言的條款將予履行，日本主權將只限於九州、四國、本州、北海道及由我方決定之次要島嶼」。3 1945年8月8日，蘇聯也簽字承認〈波茨坦公告〉。日本天皇1945年9月2日發佈詔書，接受波茨坦公告的條件，並於同一天簽署了降書，降書中聲明日本政府「和其繼承機構」一定履行開羅宣言的各項條款。4
依據盟軍最高指揮部指示所發的日本皇軍總部第一號一般命令，日本在台灣的日軍指揮官向蔣介石委員長投降，蔣介石係以「代表美國、中華民國、英國和蘇聯」的身份受降。從此之後，中華民國政府一直佔有台灣和澎湖群島並行使主權。
在二次大戰後那段期間，美國的觀點可用代理國務卿艾契遜於1947年4月11日致函參議員柏爾所提的看法作為代表。艾契遜在信中說，把台灣主權轉移給中國「尚未正式完成手續」。
經過長時間的內戰，中國共產黨把中華民國政府驅離中國大陸。1949年10月1日，中國共產黨宣佈建立中華人民共和國，中華民國政府退守台灣，並於1949年12月初將台北定為臨時首都。
不久之後的1950年1月5日，美國總統杜魯門發佈的聲明中引述聯合國安全理事會1949年12月8日的決議（Res. 291〈IV〉），呼籲所有國家不要（Ａ）企圖在中國領土製造割據勢力或成立外國控制的政權；（Ｂ）企圖在中國領土獲取特殊權利或特殊利益。他說：
有關台灣的現狀就是適用於前述原則的一個明確實例……。
美國對台灣或任何其他中國領土沒有掠奪的野心。美國不想從台灣獲得特殊權利或利益，或在台灣建立軍事基地。美國政府不會走上捲入中國內戰的路線。5
韓戰
1950年6月25日，朝鮮半島爆發韓戰，導致台灣地位變成迫在眼前的問題，杜魯門總統下令第七艦隊協防台灣，同時也呼籲台灣的中華民國政府停止對大陸採取行動。此外他還聲明：「台灣未來的地位必須等到太平洋恢復安全、與日本簽訂合約或經過聯合國考慮之後才能決定」。6
1950年8月25日，美國向聯合國安理會說明其立場如下：
美國的行動對未來台灣地位的政治解決顯然沒有成見。台灣的實際地位就是它係來自盟軍在太平洋戰勝日本所獲得的領土；就跟其他類似的領土一樣，台灣的法律地位要由國際行動決定其前途之後才能確定。中國政府應同盟國之要求，在台灣島上接受日軍投降。這就是目前中國人佔有台灣的理由。7
1950年9月20日，美國發函聯合國8，要求把台灣地位問題排入聯合國大會第五次會議的議程。在9月21日的一封說明函中，美國引述〈開羅宣言〉和〈波茨坦公告〉及〈日本降書〉，做出以下陳述：
將台灣正式轉移給中國之前，須先完成與日本之和議或其他正式的適當手續。
說明函並陳述說：
美國政府已清楚表示，美國針對台灣所採取之措施不會損害或影響台灣之長期政治地位；美國對台灣沒有領土野心，且並不尋求對台灣的特殊地位或特權。美國並且相信，台灣與島上近八百萬居民之前途應透過依循聯合國憲章的和平手段解決。9
對日和約
1951年9月4日至8日，商討對日和平的會議在舊金山召開，會中達成並簽訂對日和平條約。中國沒有代表參加這個會議，因為與會國家無法就台灣和中國大陸哪一方代表中國政府解決爭議。反映此爭議的是和平條約第二條的（B）項：
（B）日本宣佈放棄對台灣和澎湖群島的所有權利、權限和請求權。10
美國參加舊金山和會的代表杜勒斯對第二條條文評論如下：
有些同盟國建議，該條款不該只根據波茨坦公告界定日本的主權，而是該明確指定每個日本前領土的最終歸屬。這樣的安排理論上來講比較明確，但是因為大家對領土歸屬尚無協議，勢必會引發問題，結果不是我們根據波茨坦公告的投降條件讓日本得到和平，不然就是盟國為了日本準備放棄且必須放棄的領土爭執不休，以致日本無法獲得和平。聰明的辦法顯然是先就有關日本的部份處理和約，其他有疑問的部份留待未來國際解決。11
英國代表的評論如下：
「舊金山條約也規定日本放棄對台灣和澎湖群島的主權。條約本身並未決定這些島嶼的未來」。12
蘇聯拒絕簽署舊金山和約，她反對的內容包括對台灣和澎湖群島的條款：
「……本約內容明顯侵犯把中國不可分割的領土——台灣、澎湖群島、西沙群島和其他土地——歸還給中國的無可爭議的權利……和約內容只提到日本放棄對這些領土的權利，卻蓄意不提這些領土未來的命運」。13
從舊金山會議中的以上和其他發言明顯可見，雖然和約條款對日本的宣佈放棄構成適當的表達，但並未考慮對台灣和澎湖群島的未來地位做最後的決定。
美國參議院外交關係委員會亦持這種觀點。在1952年2月14日一份有關舊金山和約的報告中，該委員會陳述：
「切記第二條的條文只提到放棄，並未規定該由哪個國家或哪些國家得以對日本放棄的領土繼承佔有權和主權」。
「在討論和約期間有些同盟國表示，第二條不該只規定日本放棄這些領土的主權，且應明白指示每一領土該如何處理。然而本委員會相信，這樣做會使事態更加複雜並拖延和約的達成。照這個情況看來，最好是讓和約馬上生效實施，把庫頁島南部和千島群島等地區的最終處置留給未來解決」。14
雖然中國並非舊金山和約的締約國；不過中國與日本於1952年4月28日
在台北另行簽訂一份和約15，和約中第二條規定：
茲承認依照1951年9月8日在美國舊金山市簽訂之對日本和平條約……，日本已放棄對台灣、澎湖群島之一切權利、權限和請求權……。
中華民國外交部長葉公超向立法院解釋這個條款時表示，舊金山和約「並未規定把這些島嶼歸還給中國」。他還說：
因為這些領土原本就屬於我們，目前又在我們的控制之下，且日本已經在中、日和約中根據舊金山和約宣佈放棄這些領土，因此它們事實上已經歸還給我們。16
在另外一個時間，葉公超部長談到「舊金山和約也沒有論及台灣和澎湖群島未來的條款」。17 當時是立法院就中日和約進行質詢，有立法委員問說：「台灣和澎湖群島的地位是什麼？」他回答說：
台灣和澎湖群島原本是中國的領土。由於日本已放棄對台灣和澎湖群島的主權，只有中國有權接收。事實上，這兩個地方正由我們控制，它們也是構成我們疆域的一部份。然而微妙的國際形勢使得它們不屬於我們。在現行情況下，日本沒有權利把台灣和澎湖群島轉移給我們，即使日本有意如此，我們也不能接受……在中日和約中，我們有條款規定，台灣和澎湖群島的居民，包括法人，都屬於中國國籍。將來當台灣和澎湖群島歸還我們時，這一條款或許可用來彌補破綻。18
中美共同防禦條約
中國共產黨在1954年7月發動宣傳攻勢，宣稱要「解放」台灣，同年9月，中共對金門和其他外島發動軍事攻擊。在這個背景之下，美國與中華民國在1954年12月2日簽訂共同防禦條約。19 條約第五條的第一段說：
每一締約國承認對在西太平洋區域內任一締約國領土之攻擊，將危及其本身之和平與安全。茲並宣告將依其憲法程序採取行動，以對付此一共同危險。
第六條稱，為適用於第二條及第五條之目的，所有「領土」等辭，就中華民國而言，應指「台灣與澎湖群島」。在本條約附帶的換文中則陳述說：「中華民國有效控制條約第六條中所描述之領土……以及其他領土」。
在美國參議院外交委員會針對中美共同防禦條約的一份報告中，談到台灣和澎湖群島真實地位的問題：
根據美國和其他強國在1951年9月8日簽訂的和平條約，日本放棄「對台灣和澎湖群島的一切權利、權限和請求權」。條約中並未指明把這些權利、權限和請求權轉讓給哪個國家。中華民國雖非締約國，但條約本身已承認，對台灣和澎湖群島並未做最後處置……
……他（國務卿杜勒斯）告訴本委員會，第五條所指涉的「任一締約國之領土」乃是仔細選擇的用語，旨在避免指明任何涉及主權的層面。
本委員會認為，本條約的實施將不會改變或影響台灣和澎湖群島的現行法律地位。這項條約顯然完全吻合美國自二次大戰結束以來對此議題的一切作為，而且不會為我們與這些領土間的關係帶來任何新的基本因素。藉由行動和暗示，我們已接受國民政府作為台灣的合法政權。
為避免對本條約此一層面有任何誤解的可能，本委員會決定在報告中納入以下聲明：
參議院了解，本條約所有內容在解釋上不會影響或改變其所適用的領土之法律地位或主權。20
1955年2月9日，參院外交委員會向參院提交這份報告時，參議員華特‧喬治提到台灣法律地位的問題：
在本委員會審查這項條約時出現一個觀點，即本約可能產生承認蔣介石擁有台灣和澎湖群島主權的效果。從一方面來說，條約中提到開羅宣言，而開羅宣言係表示，日本將失去她在太平洋的島嶼，而所有竊自中國的領土如台灣和澎湖群島，將歸還中華民國。從另外一方面來說，條約中也陳述一個事實，即日本放棄對台灣和澎湖群島的一切權利、權限和請求權，而這些權利並未轉讓給任何國家。在與國務卿杜勒斯充分探討此事之後，本委員會決定，這項條約對於台灣主權疑慮的解決並非有效工具。本委員會同意在報告中列入以下聲明：
參議院的了解是，對於目前這項條約的所有解釋，都不足以影響或修正條約第六條（SIC）中所提領土的法律地位或主權。
>>在講什麼合約就是簽名才算數，波茨坦宣言是有日本簽名？沒有嘛舊金山和約跟中日和約寫什麼就是什麼最明確一...
政府的每个表态都是有法律效力的。
帮你整理下时间线
开罗宣言要求日本把台湾，澎湖还给中国
波茨坦公告重申了开罗宣言必须获得执行
日本天皇宣布接受波茨坦公告，并且投降
中日和约日本声称自己已经放弃台湾和澎湖的一切权利
中共和日本签订的中日友好条约，日本政府再次重申遵守波茨坦公告
从法律层面来说，日本接受波茨坦公告的要求，把台湾澎湖归还给中华民国
并且声称自己已经放弃了其一切权利，而且在和中共建交的时候还重复了一遍
并且写进合约。
从现实层面来说，1945年民国已经从日本完整接收了台湾和澎湖的主权。
这也足够说明日本已经同意这么做。
至于美国国务院写什么并不重要。
>>在講什麼合約就是簽名才算數，波茨坦宣言是有日本簽名？沒有嘛舊金山和約跟中日和約寫什麼就是什麼最明確一...
上面那一大串如你看了就知道
要用法理來談，台灣主權沒解
中華民國能主張的就是佔領事實
佔領事實是什麼？就是土匪原則
“反正我都佔領了你愛咋咋地”
現在台灣國史館長陳儀深交出來的報告是
台灣地位未定論掀波 陳儀深：有效自決已確立台灣地位
2022-05-01 14:07 聯合報 記者丘采薇／台北即時報導
https://udn.com/news/story/6656/6280486
“台灣過去確實是未定論，但近年經過總統直選等民主投票，可視作已自決屬於台人”
這是啥意思？
就是台灣主權已經以自決原則屬於台人了，只是借中華民國這殼上市~
而本篇那篇英文原文啥意思？
是那個美國國際法專家認為
台灣主權未解，所以還是屬於盟軍佔領
而照舊金山和約，日本各列島屬於美國佔領
所以目前在台人自決前算是美國的，只是當年借給國民黨流亡
美國的責任是按照聯合國憲章七十三條
要依台人意願，協助台灣建立自由體制為止
就是台灣目前是受美國監護下的意思
不管怎樣，都是以舊金山和約出發的台灣主權未定
日本的立場呢？
日本是主張台灣未定論的
日本駐台代表還曾在馬英九執政時期不小心說出真心話
被馬英九抗議後辭職
日本驻台代表斋藤正树引咎辞职
童倩
BBC中文網日本特約記者
2009年12月1日
https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/china/2009/12/091201_japan_taiwan
日本駐台灣的官方機構——交流協會台北事務所代表齋藤正樹提出了辭職。
包括日本官方電視台NHK在內的消息說，齋藤在辭呈中以「個人理由」辭職，表示對他發表「台灣國際地位未定」的言論導致日台關係受損負責。
齋藤今年5月在台南一所大學的研討會上說：「在三藩市和平條約中日本放棄了對台灣的佔領權後，台灣的國際地位未定。」
雖然齋藤當天就表示撤回發言，並向台灣政府道歉，但依然引起台灣政府強烈抗議。
當時台灣外交部召見齋藤，表示不能容許否定中華民國對台灣主權的發言，此後台灣總統馬英九政權的高官還取消了與齋藤見面的預訂。
不過台灣民進黨內一些政客和主張台獨的勢力則紛紛發表歡迎齋藤發言的聲明，增加了台灣朝野政黨的政治對立。
>>政府的每个表态都是有法律效力的。帮你整理下时间线开罗宣言要求日本把台湾，澎湖还给中国波茨坦公告重申了...
政府每個表態都有法律效力
但白紙黑字簽署的和約最大
中日和約就只有放棄台灣澎湖主權
就法理層面來說，
舊金山和約跟中日和約就只有放棄台灣澎湖主權
且中日和約日本表明已放棄台澎主權，所以沒權力再移交任何人
這點就是我在很前面的葉公超報告書就提到了
〈議定中華民國與日本國間和平條約總報告 書〉，外交部「對日和約」案卷第５４冊
查金山和約 僅規定日本放棄臺灣澎湖而未認定其誰屬，此 點自非中日和約所能補救
台灣主權問題沒救
你崩潰什麼並不重要
除非你主張中日和約中方談判代表葉公超的意見沒你大
人家是中日和約中華民國方全權代表
你是誰？
至于美国国务院写什么并不重要。
所以你沒看嘛
寫的是舊金山和約各國代表的解釋
包含日本、中華民國、蘇聯、英國等等
你不看的話那我更可以說
你這不理性討論，
連文件都不看的崩潰一點都不重要
>>FAQ 2. 為什麼開羅宣言和波茲坦公告沒有效力？原因：單方面宣言沒有效力，日本天皇沒有參加或者在開...
但這是日本天皇的態度
最後含各戰勝國的決定，當然是戰後和約為主
所以舊金山和約就是只有日本放棄台灣澎湖主權
沒有移交給任何人
所以中日和約簽署後
葉公超才會報告寫這些內容
〈議定中華民國與日本國間和平條約總報告 書〉，外交部「對日和約」案卷第５４冊
查金山和約 僅規定日本放棄臺灣澎湖而未認定其誰屬，此 點自非中日和約所能補救
@讨厌包包的小粉红
果然是小粉紅，一點不假。
你自己都沒發現光是你自己說的話都有邏輯問題。
先跟中華人民共和國說遵守，然後說臺灣屬於中華人民共和國否認其存在的中華民國？
你的邏輯死掉了嗎？
而且文明世界的所有戰爭都是以「和約」（或稱條約）來決定最後的結果，白紙黑字寫得清清楚楚才不會有爭議。
請問舊金山和約是怎麼寫的？或者中日和約又是怎麼寫的呢？
真了不起，世界第一強國的立場和觀點，在你眼裡只是「並不重要」的程度。
中國趕英超美，統治太陽系指日可待。
果然是小粉紅，一點不假。
你自己都沒發現光是你自己說的話都有邏輯問題。
中共和日本签订的中日友好条约，日本政府再次重申遵守波茨坦公告
日本接受波茨坦公告的要求，把台湾澎湖归还给中华民国
先跟中華人民共和國說遵守，然後說臺灣屬於中華人民共和國否認其存在的中華民國？
你的邏輯死掉了嗎？
而且文明世界的所有戰爭都是以「和約」（或稱條約）來決定最後的結果，白紙黑字寫得清清楚楚才不會有爭議。
請問舊金山和約是怎麼寫的？或者中日和約又是怎麼寫的呢？
至于美国国务院写什么并不重要。
真了不起，世界第一強國的立場和觀點，在你眼裡只是「並不重要」的程度。
中國趕英超美，統治太陽系指日可待。
