網頁

2015-11-14

福爾摩沙狀態的法律面向○ UK內閣(1955.02.11) 台灣法理建國連線翻譯

Comment
這是台灣法理建國連線翻譯的聯合王國內閣與1955.02.11關於福爾摩沙與澎湖地位的意見書。1955年,已經是韓戰停戰、對日和約與台北和約簽署、生效後,甚至也是華美防禦條約生效後的階段。
換言之,許多國民黨政權的主張並非事實也違背法理。


原文因夾帶評論(歸納),雖有標記但仍有疑慮會引起誤解。為此,版主將原文外的部分刪除,以利讀者閱讀。

UK政府的脈絡下,自稱為「中華民國」的「台灣治理當局」可以自行主張或決定台灣主權的歸屬(如屬於中國,或台灣獨立嗎)嗎?


福爾摩沙狀態的法律面向○ UK內閣(1955.02.11)   台灣法理建國連線翻譯

【說明】
本文http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D7657701#imageViewerLink是英國外交部送交閣員傳閱之機密文件 CAB 129/73/38 的翻譯。
這份文件是英國外交部依內閣會議中提出的建議所製作,主要內容是英國政府對台灣地位、國民黨政權在台、治台行為及金馬地位的法律觀點。

************************************************* 
CONFIDENTIAL Copy No.74
機密
C. (55) 38 u
11th February, 1955
1955
211
CABINET
 內
───────
FORMOSA
NOTE BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS

外相註記
I circulate for the information of my colleagues a note on the juridical aspects of the Formosa situation in accordance with a suggestion made at the meeting of the Cabinet on 31st January (C.C. (55) 8th Conclusion, Minute 2).
謹依 1 31 日內閣會議之建議,就福爾摩沙狀態之法律面向提供相關資訊供內閣同仁傳閱參考。
Foreign Office, S.W. 1.,  外交部
10th February, 1955.  1955210
───────────────────────
JURIDICAL ASPECTS OF THE FORMOSA SITUATION
福爾摩沙狀態的法律面向

Formosa and the Pescadores】福爾摩沙與澎湖
1.  Formosa and the Pescadores were ceded to Japan by China in the Peace Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895.  The validity of this cession can hardly be contested.  The Cairo Declaration of December, 1943, with its reference to Formosa as one of the territories which Japan had "stolen from the Chinese" was a retrospective moral condemnation of an international transaction which, at the time and long afterwards, was never questioned as being in any way contrary to international law.
福爾摩沙及澎湖於 1895 年依馬關條約由中國割讓給日本。此割讓的有效性難以挑戰。1943 12 月的開羅宣言將福爾摩沙指為日本「從中國竊取」的領土是對這個在當時及之後很久都未被質疑有任何違反國際法之處的國際交易的道德譴責。


2.  In the Cairo Declaration, the Allies stated that it was their purpose "that all the territories which Japan has stolen from China, such as .... Formosa and the Pescadores shall be restored to the Republic of China" This declaration was simply a statement of intention that Formosa should be retroceded to China after the war.  This retrocession has in fact never taken place because of the difficulties arising from the existence of two entities claiming to represent China and the differences among the Powers as to the status of these two entities.  The Potsdam Declaration of July, 1945, laid down as one of the conditions for the Japanese Peace Treaty that the terms of the Cairo Declaration should be carried out.  In September, 1945, the administration of Formosa was taken over from the Japanese by Chinese forces pursuant to the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and General Order No. 1 issued by the Japanese Government at the direction of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, dated September 2, 1945.  But this was not a cession nor did it in itself involve any change of sovereignty.  The arrangements made with Chiang Kai-shek put him there on a basis of military occupancy, responsible to the whole body of the Allies, pending a peace treaty with Japan or, if the status of Formosa was not finally settled by that treaty (which it was not), then pending an eventual settlement about Formosa—which has not yet taken place.  The arrangements did not of themselves constitute the territory Chinese.  In the Japanese Peace Treaty of April, 1952, Japan formally renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores, but again this did not operate as a transfer to Chinese sovereignty, whether to the Chinese People's Republic or to the Chinese Nationalist authorities.  It has been suggested that the Japanese Peace Treaty meant that the parties to the Peace Treaty, other than Japan, had become co-sovereigns of Formosa. This seems doubtful.  The Peace Treaty merely removed Japan's title without making any alterations in the existing arrangements for its administration.
在開羅宣言中,同盟國指出「所有日本自中國竊取的領土,如....福爾摩沙及澎湖,應歸還中華民國」是他們的共同意圖。此宣言只是一份指出福爾摩沙應於戰後歸還中國的意向聲明。但因為有兩個主張代表中國的實體存在,且同盟國成員對這兩個實體的地位有不同觀點,導致此項歸還事實上從未發生1945 7 月的波茨坦宣言將「開羅宣言的條款應該履行」定為日本和平條約的條件之一。在 1945 9 月,依據日本政府在盟軍總司令指示下於 1945 9 2 日發布的日本降伏文書及一般命令第一號,福爾摩沙的管理權由日本移交到中國部隊。但這並非領土割讓,其本身也不涉及任何主權變動。將蔣介石放在那裏(台灣)的安排是讓他到那裏負責為同盟國全體進行軍事占領,等待與日本簽署的和約。或如果和約未對福爾摩沙的地位作出最終處置(實際上沒有),則等待對福爾摩沙的最終處置-這也尚未發生這項安排並不會讓台澎成為中國的領土。在 1952 4 月(生效)的日本和平條約中,日本正式放棄對福爾摩沙及澎湖一切權利、權源與主張,但這同樣不能將主權移轉給中國,無論是移轉給中華人民共和國或中國國民黨治理當局。有人認為日本和平條約意味著除了日本之外,和平條約的當事國已經成為福爾摩沙的共同主權國。這說法有些疑問。和平條約只是除去日本的(主權)權源,但並未對治理權的既有安排做任何改變。


3.  Formosa and the Pescadores are, therefore, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, territory the de jure sovereignty over which is uncertain or undetermined.  In the meantime, Her Majesty's Government do in practice recognise the Chinese Nationalists as the authority administering Formosa; but they do not recognise them as the de facto government of Formosa, whether as part of China or on any other basis, since they do not regard Formosa, as such, as constituting a separate State.
因此,就吾國政府之觀點,福爾摩沙及澎湖是法理 (de jure) 主權未確定或未定的領土。目前,吾國政府確實在實務上承認中國國民黨政權是福爾摩沙治理當局;但並未基於福爾摩沙是中國的一部份或其他根據承認其(國民黨政權)為福爾摩沙的事實上 (de facto) 政府,因吾國政府並未將福爾摩沙視為另一個國家。


4.  The logical corollary of our view as to the basis on which the Chinese Nationalists occupy Formosa is that although they are entitled to be in Formosa, they exercise a limited authority there.  As we do not recognise the Nationalists as the Government of China, they are not, in our view, entitled to use Formosa for trying to get back into the mainland of China.  Their powers in respect of Formosa are, or should be, strictly confined to administering Formosa itself and not using it as a base for outside activities.
根據中國國民黨政權佔領福爾摩沙的基礎,則吾國在邏輯上的必然觀點為:儘管中國國民黨政權有權在福爾摩沙存在,但僅能在該地行使有限的權力。由於我們並不承認國民黨政權是中國政府,因此,就我們的觀點,該政權無權利用福爾摩沙來重返中國大陸。該政權對福爾摩沙的權力是,或應該是,嚴格限縮在治理福爾摩沙本身,且不得將其作為該政權對外活動的基地

5.  On the future of Formosa, Mr. Morrison when Foreign Secretary in the late Labour Government, took the line in the House of Commons on May 11, 1951, that it had now become "an international problem in which a number of nations apart from those signatory to the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations are closely concerned" and which could usefully be considered by the United Nations at the appropriate time.  The Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on February 1 of this year that " the problem of Formosa [had] become an international problem in which a number of other nations are closely concerned."
就福爾摩沙的未來,在 1951 5 11 日,當時工黨政府的外交部長 Morrison (Herbert Morrison) 於下議院中表示這個問題現在已經成為「開羅及波茨坦宣言簽署國之外許多國家密切關注的國際問題」,此問題可在適當時機交由聯合國考慮。首相在今年 (1955) 2 1 日於下議院表示「福爾摩沙的問題已成為其他許多國家密切關注的國際問題。」


The Coastal Islands】沿海島嶼
6.  The Nationalist-held islands in close proximity to the China coast are in a different category from Formosa and the Pescadores, since they are undoubtedly Chinese territory and therefore, in our view, part of the territory over which the People's Republic of China is entitled to exercise authority.  Any attempt by the Government of the People's Republic of China, however, actually to assert its authority over these islands by force would, in the circumstances peculiar to the case, give rise to a situation endangering peace and security, which is properly a matter of international concern.
在中國海岸附近由國民黨政權掌控的島嶼則和福爾摩沙及澎湖分屬不同類別。由於這類島嶼無疑是中國領土,因此,就吾國的觀點,其屬於中華人民共和國有權行使權力的領土。然而,有鑑此案例的罕見狀況,中華人民共和國政府任何企圖藉武力對這些島嶼行使權力的企圖將導致有害和平與安全的狀況,而此狀況無疑會受到國際關注

7th February, 1955.195527


2 則留言:

  1. 殖民地福摩薩當然獨立,沒有必須歸還中國的問題

    若開羅宣言是必須被執行,日本必須歸還中國領土的2個先決條件。【註1】
    先決條件(1).發生時間:必須是自1914年以來他還是中國的領土,未曾移轉。
    先決條件(2).發生原因:必須是偷竊的領土,自1914年以來偷竊的中國領土。

    論證一:
    比如滿洲:或許滿洲在1914年尚稱得上是大清國領土,他是被偷竊的領土。
    比如福摩薩:福摩薩在1914年是日本的殖民地,非被偷竊的中國領土。
    烏龍的比如:【親兄弟:比如相同父母的兒子、及相同兄弟姐妹的兒子】
    論證二:
    1895年大清國割讓福摩薩時,只佔有其1/3只能稱是拓殖地,稱不上殖民地。
    1945年聯合國成立,當時福摩薩是日本的殖民地,日本放棄,依聯合國憲章
    殖民地當然獨立,沒有必須歸還中國的問題。
    總結:
    1.福摩薩,(1)1914年已是日本的殖民地,(2)非被偷竊的中國領土。
    2.福摩薩是日本的殖民地(原先是中國的拓殖地),日本放棄,依聯合國憲章
    殖民地當然獨立。

    【註1】
    新聞公報《開羅宣言》

    “這三個偉大的盟國,打這場戰爭,是來約束和懲罰日本的侵略。
    他們(這三個偉大的盟國)不貪圖為他們自己,也沒想過領土的擴張。
    這是他們(這三個偉大的盟國)的目的,日本必須被剝奪,自1914年第一次世界大戰開始以來 在太平洋,她所奪得或佔領的所有島嶼;及(在中國)那樣的所有領土日本從中國偷竊的,比如滿洲,福摩薩和澎湖,必須歸還中國的共和國。

    回覆刪除

請網友務必留下一致且可辨識的稱謂
顧及閱讀舒適性,段與段間請空一行