閱讀戰後外交資料時,不解的項目之一是,中共不斷強調:日本對於台灣無任何權力。這點意見,從未獲得美日等國的附和。其中的曲折,或牽涉和約義務。
日本戰敗,帝國領土能處理或未處理的,通通規定在和約之中。如台澎、西沙等地,便屬於日本放棄但未規定地位歸屬的領土。
疑問是:日本放棄台澎後,就從此徹底撒手不管、不能管了嗎?答案,是否定的。
日本雖於和約中明言放棄台澎,但國際法領土移轉必須以條約形式明記。顯然,日本在和約中的單純放棄,並未完備領土移轉的形式與程序條件;因而,未來台澎地位一有決定,日本必須依據在和約所承諾過的意向,再度出面與「合法收受方」完成領土後續移轉的條約。以白話文說,日本必須出面「蓋章」來完成放棄的程序。這是和約的義務。而這個合法收受方,目前還沒成為共識。
要進一步深究的幾點:
一、除非出現「情事變更」事由,日本既然在和約中表達放棄台澎的意向,就不能再食言,這是國際法「禁反言」(Estoppel)原則;
二、由於需要日本「蓋章」的程序才能完成領土轉讓,因此日本對於台澎必須擁有「剩餘主權」(residual sovereignty),否則就不具蓋章者的身分;
三、處在最終處理前,日本及所有和約簽署國,都必須保衛此台澎「戰利品」完整無缺,不使發生被侵略、合併,或社會、經濟、文化程度減損等現象。意思是:放棄者、收受方與標的物的完整,缺一不可。
美、英、日等國對台澎曾行使過「維持現狀」的條約義務。2007年3月28日當時聯合國秘書長潘基文,在未與美國及其他安理會成員國會商下(可能僅與中國一方商量),以函件僭稱「根據聯合國大會第2758號決議案,聯合國認為台灣是中華人民共和國的一部分。」美國立即發出「對台灣地位的聯合國非正式文件」(U.S.
Non-Paper on the Status of Taiwan)[1]
駁斥。英、加等國,甚至日本都出聲附和。
在聲明中,美國雖強調基於三公報與〈台灣關係法〉的「一中政策」;但不再講「海峽兩岸的中國人」,而是「海峽雙方的人民」;並強烈釐清「雖然聯合國官員的指稱符合中國的立場,但它不是被包括美國在內的聯合國會員國普遍接受的立場」;「若聯合國秘書處堅持視台灣為中華人民共和國之一部分,或以用語暗指台灣屬於此地位,美國將被迫以國家立場撇清此一立場。」。潘基文聞訊道歉收回。
誰說和約義務已遠,法律現狀被改變了?
【姊妹文章】
2007年潘基文事件
〈美國對台灣地位的聯合國非正式文件〉U.S. Non-Paper on the Status of Taiwan
1. The United States reiterates its One China
policy which is based on the three US–China Communiqués and the Taiwan
Relations Act, to the effect that the United States acknowledges China's view
that Taiwan is a part of China. We take
no position on the status of Taiwan. We
neither accept nor reject the claim that Taiwan is a part of China.
美國重申其基於美中三公報與〈台灣關係法〉之「一個中國政策」,即美國認知中國所持台灣是中國一部份之觀點。美方對台灣地位問題不採取立場。我們不接受亦不拒絕有關台灣是中國一部份之主張。
2. The United States has long urged that
Taiwan's status be resolved peacefully to the satisfaction of people on both
sides of the Taiwan Strait. Beyond that,
we do not define Taiwan in political terms.
美國長期以來皆呼籲:台灣地位應以台灣海峽兩岸人民均滿意的方式和平解決。除此之外,美方不對台灣做政治界定。
3. The United States noted that the PRC has
become more active in international organizations and has called on the UN
Secretariat and member states to accept its claim of sovereignty over
Taiwan. In some cases, as a condition
for the PRC's own participation in international organizations, Beijing has
insisted the organization and its member states use nomenclature for Taiwan
that suggests endorsement of China's sovereignty over the island.
美國注意到中華人民共和國在國際組織日益活躍,並要求聯合國秘書處及會員國接受中國對台灣擁有主權之主張。在一些場合,並將此主張作為中華人民共和國本身參與該國際組織之條件。北京一向堅持此國際組織與會員國應對台灣使用此等稱謂,以表示中國對台灣擁有主權。
4. The United States is concerned that some UN
organizations have recently asserted that UN precedent required that Taiwan be
treated as a part of the PRC and be referred to by names in keeping with such
status.
美國關切近來若干聯合國相關組織主張:依聯合國先例,台灣應被視為中華人民共和國之一部分,並以符合此等地位之名稱指稱台灣。
5. The United States has become aware that the
UN has promulgated documents asserting that the United Nations considers
"Taiwan for all purposes to be an integral part of the PRC." While this assertion is consistent with the
Chinese position, it is not universally held by UN member states, including the
United States.
美國知悉聯合國曾發佈文件主張:「台灣是中華人民共和國不可分割之一部份」。雖然此項主張符合中國立場,但「並非包括美國在內之聯合國會員國普遍接受之主張。」
6. The United States noted that the UN General
Assembly resolution 2758 adopted on 25 October 1971 does not in fact establish
that Taiwan is a province of the PRC.
The resolution merely recognized the representation of the government of
the PRC as the only lawful representation of China to the UN, and expelled the
representative of Chiang Kai-shek from the seats they occupied at the UN and
all related organizations. There is no
mention in Resolution 2758 of China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan.
美國注意到聯合國大會於1971年10月25日通過之第2758號決議,事實上並未確立台灣是中華人民共和國之一省。該決議僅承認:「中華人民共和國政府的代表為中國在聯合國組織的唯一合法代表,並立即把蔣介石的代表從它在聯合國組織及其所屬一切機構中所非法佔據的席位上驅逐出去。」2758號決議並未提及中國對台灣擁有主權的主張。
7. While the United States does not support
Taiwan's membership in organizations such as the UN, for which statehood is a
prerequisite, we do support meaningful participation by Taiwan's experts as
appropriate in such organizations. We
support membership as appropriate in organizations for which such statehood is
not required.
雖然美國並不支持台灣加入以國家資格為要件之聯合國等國際組織成為會員,但美國確實支持台灣之專家於適合的情況下,有意義的參與此類組織。美國支持台灣於適合的情況下,加入無需國家資格的組織。
8. The United States urged the UN Secretariat to
review its policy on the status of Taiwan and to avoid taking sides in a
sensitive matter on which UN members have agreed to disagree for over 35 years.
美國敦促聯合國秘書處檢討其對台灣地位之政策,並避免就聯合國會員過去35年來同意「各表異議」之敏感議題選擇立場。
9. If the UN Secretariat insists on describing
Taiwan as a part of the PRC, or on using nomenclature for Taiwan that implies
such status, the United States will be obliged to disassociate itself on a
national basis from such position.
若聯合國秘書處堅持視台灣為中華人民共和國之一部分,或以此用語指稱台灣屬於此地位,美國將被迫以國家立場撇清此一立場。
作者已經移除這則留言。
回覆刪除Blogger沒有私密留言,非常糟糕。
刪除大大要用電子信箱嗎?
閱完之後,感覺主角應該不是日本,而是美國對台灣主權留有條約的主權和義務
刪除以下是夏途島/以前的無諍金剛對雲程兄此篇的回應。夏大的立場一直跟雲程/椰子大不同,尤其在是對「主權」的理解。我轉貼的目的只是想把相關的議題集中,方便網友思辨。FB底下的回應也很有趣。
回覆刪除日本怎麼可能還會有剩餘主權?
我點進去之後,出現
刪除「很抱歉,目前無法提供此內容
你前往的連結可能已過期,或是你不屬於該頁面限定的分享對象。」
從日本的日本国との平和条約草案の解説(昭和26/8/4https://goo.gl/Umy9yT
刪除中發覺日本放棄的是領土的自主處份權跟與定義權
至於島上人民的處置只見於台北和約
抱歉,夏大文章沒有開"地球"分享。只有朋友可以看。雲程兄FB可以加他。
刪除非常感謝A大大
回覆刪除詳細說來,這屬於條約解釋的範圍。
出現條約解釋的爭議時,要去看換文、議事錄等,以確認真實意思。
因為從來沒有疑問,所以從未覺得那裡不對。
值得探究
再次感謝
好大一篇,不曉得版上大大的意見。
回覆刪除沈志華:中蘇友好條約、韓戰、對日媾和
作者已經移除這則留言。
回覆刪除Hi Hoon Ting,
回覆刪除Could you please direct me to an English language version of your Mon., Nov. 20, 2017舊金山和約的條約義務/放眼國際:領土地位變遷與台灣
http://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1153303
I found a Taipei Times editorial: HoonTing 雲程; Tue, Nov 21, 2017 “Taiwan’s status can’t be changed unilaterally”
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2017/11/21/2003682631
Your Liberty Times editorial puts the onus on Japan for “sealing” the decision on the ultimate international status of Taiwan through a future codicil to the September 8, 1951 Treaty of San-Francisco. But the content of the English language TT editorial piece does not match that of the Liberty Times, except when it stresses that "...the signatory nations of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and all belligerent parties of the Pacific War must respect that “… Taiwan’s status cannot be changed unilaterally.
Until and unless such a change is mandated by means of a treaty, nations must strive to maintain Taiwan’s status as an undetermined territory that nonetheless has independence and autonomy, as was the case on the day the treaty was signed. ...”
I believe that the Liberty Times/Taipei Times press group owes you, the author and their English language readership to publish a fainthfull English version of your Mon., Nov. 20, 2017 舊金山和約的條約義務/放眼國際:領土地位變遷與台灣.
Thank you for your comment and remind.
回覆刪除TT was both right and wrong.
TT was right that any party which intends to change Taiwan status unilaterally is prohibited by the SFPT and illegal as well.
TT was wrong, or not properly translated. The article meant to point out that it is the treaty obligation of the US, Japan, UK, Canada, among others to protect the status, or uti possidetis juris, of Taiwan. They can not sit there, do nothing and said "Hi Taiwan you should do more to please China. Sheis going to change your status unilaterally."
However, the theory is very complicated that not too many people, including the westerners like editors of TT, could understand or imagine.
Still a long road to go.