對於Little-known fact on sovereignty的留言 Taimocracy翻譯 20190409

【Comment】

以下為對於Little-known fact on sovereignty的留言，翻譯後網友幫忙校正，卻仍然不滿意。請大家幫忙。

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2019/04/08/2003712987

主要留言者Jeffrey Geer是一位戰爭法的實務者，曾在伊拉克戰爭時受訓擔任民政治理官。似乎目前在韓國或日本教書的樣子。

因為多年前知道艾琳達提及軍事佔領是Jeffrey Geer首先提出的（而不是Richard Hartzell，雖然我是從RH那邊聽來的）這樣的話，所以請椰子大代為找尋Jeffrey Geer的聯絡方式。我曾經問過他幾個問題，很可惜，他講的我都不懂。深覺自己很慚愧，所以發憤自行研讀。

結果開展出與Jeffrey Geer不太相同的理論架構。Jeffrey Geer以佔領法與case law為主，這本是英美法的訓練結果。

我很高興，他夠在這文章留言。同樣的，他講的東西，我還是不太理解。八字不合？

倒是，請教網友 JSC 1651的原文與出處。感謝！

Jeffrey Geer JD

Yes, the SFPT principal occupying authority will instruct or direct the Japanese treaty conditions on its final surrender of Formosa and the Pescadores. The 1972-78 period should be illustrative of Japanese formal relations with the PRC (and SFPT-abrogation of the bilateral Treaty of Taipei). Beforehand, the Americans had signed their 1972 Shanghai Communiqué with the PRC (under the auspices of non-hostile relations of the Korean War Armistice) for purposes of SFPT directives to Japan.  The Trial of Henry Kissinger by Christopher Hitchens hints at such in its historic examination of the criminal patterns of misconduct by the globetrotting statesman in 1968-75 (e.g., Cyprus, Bangladesh).  Here, it would be wise to re-examine two legal treatises by Frank Chiang and Lung-chu Chen on the 1901 case of Neely v Henkel (Cuba) for a landmark ruling on the 1898 Treaty of Paris (articles 1, 2, 9).  Insular Cases: Lost Empire by B. Sparrow should expertly place these legal cases into historic treaty context for the post-war history of the SFPT.  Again, Formosa Betrayed by George Kerr frames the context of these SFPT legal elements for its post-treaty civil affairs administration of liberated territory for protection of "life and property."  The Taiwan illicit assets committee should be drooling over historical legal evidence for strict interpretation theory on Taiwan status (and an implied 228 civil affairs agreement of 1972 with PRC---even explicitly approved by Chairman Mao Zedong for this SFPT quasi-trusteeship of Taiwan).

是的，SFPT主要佔領當局將指示或指導日本最終交出福爾摩沙和澎湖群島的條約條件。1972-1978這段期間，應足以說明日本與中國的正式關係（以及SFPT  - 廢除雙邊〈台北條約〉）。為因應SFPT對日本的指示，美國人先與中華人民共和國簽署了1972年〈上海公報〉（在朝鮮戰爭停戰的非敵對關係的架構下）。克里斯托弗·希欽斯對亨利·季辛吉的審判提出，1968年至1975年（例如塞浦路斯，孟加拉國）環球政治家不當行為犯罪模式的歷史考察。在這裡，應重新審視Frank Chiang江永芳和Lung-chu Chen陳隆志在1901年〈Neely vs. Henkel〉（古巴）案中對1898年〈巴黎條約〉作出具有里程碑意義的裁決的兩份法律論文（第1,2,9條）。〈島嶼案例：失去的帝國〉的作者B. Sparrow應該熟練地將這些法律案件，置於SFPT戰後歷史的歷史條約背景下。同樣，由葛超智的〈被背叛的福爾摩沙〉用這些SFPT法律要素的背景，架構出條約後的解放領土之民政治理，以保護「生命和財產」。台灣的不當黨產委員會應該對台灣地位嚴格解釋理論的歷史法律證據急切渴求。（包括1972年美國與中國的〈228民事協議〉 – 這甚至是毛澤東主席明確批准的SFPT台灣準託管地位）。

Jane Du

Another secessionist author intentionally ignores the 1952 Treaty of Taipei where Japan declared that all nationals in Taiwan & Phenghu of Chinese decent are citizens of Republic of China.  IF TAIWAN ISLAND DOES NOT BELONG TO ROC, JAPAN WOULD EVICTED THOSE SQUATTERS THEN!

另一位分離主義作者故意無視1952年的〈台北條約〉，日本宣布台灣所有國民和堂堂正正的中國人都是中華民國公民。如果台灣島不屬於中華民國，那麼日本就應趕走那些入侵居住者！

Jeffrey Geer JD

In the bilateral Treaty of Taipei, Art 9: "For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendents who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores);" The Japanese-Formosans were just "deemed" to be ROC Nationals.  "Deem in law is used to treat something as if it were really something else or it has qualities it does not have." --Black's Law Dictionary.  The Japanese legislative record appears to agree with this issue, too.

在〈台北雙邊條約〉第9條中：「為本條約的目的，中華民國國民應被視為包括台灣（福爾摩沙）和澎湖（澎湖）的所有居民和前居民及其後代。根據中華民國在台灣（Formosa）和澎湖（Pescadores）已經或可能在此後執行的法律法規具有中國國籍的人;日本的台灣籍民被「視為」中華民國國民。「法律上的『視為』被用來對待某些東西，好像它真的是別的東西，或者它具有它所無的性質。」 - 布列克法律詞典。日本的立法記錄，似乎也同意這個問題。

Please see Chapter 7, Formosa Betrayed for the background on the JCS 1651 memorandum on the legal deviation from customary law of interim nationality in spring 1946.  There is no automatic legal acquisition of new nationality upon territorial cessions by treaty.  For a very clear example, Art 5, Treaty of Shimonoseki: "The inhabitants of the territories ceded to Japan who wish to take up their residence outside the ceded districts shall be at liberty to sell their real property and retire. For this purpose a period of two years from the date of the exchange of ratifications of the present Act shall be granted. At the expiration of that period those of the inhabitants who shall not have left such territories shall, at the option of Japan, be deemed to be Japanese subjects."  In its legal definition, "shall" means the imperative command or mandatory requirement. Here, shall is optional in the judgement of the Japanese, and the result was about 5000 Chinese moved back to Fujian (according to Japanese consular records).  The islanders with a habitual abode in Taiwan were subsequently granted Japanese nationality.

關於1946年春季，關於「習慣法的臨時國籍」偏離法律的JCS 1651備忘錄的背景，請參閱第7章〈被背叛的福爾摩沙〉。條約在領土割讓時，不會自動合法獲得新的國籍。一個非常明顯的例子是〈馬關條約〉第5條：「本約批准互換之後限二年之內，日本准中國讓與地方人民願遷居讓與地方之外者，任便變賣所有產業，退去界外。但限滿之後尚未遷徙者，酌宜視為日本臣民。」在其法律定義中，「應」是指命令性命令或強制性要求。在此，日本人的判斷是給予選擇性的，結果是大約5000名中國人回到了福建（根據日本領事記錄）。在台灣有慣常居所的島民，隨後獲得日本國籍。

The two year period is common practice.  The American treaty practice, however, is open-ended.  The 1898 Treaty of Paris states in Article 9: "The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress."  The Supreme Court, however, determined the civil rights of native islanders in Downes v Bidwell in 1901.  Under customary law, islanders will acquire the nationality of their ceded territory, but America must preserve the civil rights of their interim political status for the constitutional protections against presumptions that there are no rights to protect.  In addition, Neely v. Hankel (Cuban nationality) preceded the Downes ruling on Art 9 civil rights.

這「兩年期限」是常見的做法。然而，美國的條約實踐是開放式的。1898年〈巴黎條約〉第9條規定：「特此割讓給美國的原居民的公民權利和政治地位，應由國會決定。」然而，最高法院於1901年確定了〈Downes訴Bidwell〉的原居民的公民權利。根據習慣法，島民將獲得其割讓領土的國籍，但美國必須維護其臨時政治地位的公民權利使其獲得美國憲法保護，以免毫無權保護的假設。此外，〈Neely v.Hankel〉（古巴國籍）更早於Downes對憲法第9條民權的判決。

The residual sovereignty of Japanese nationality, however, did NOT apply to Okinawans under the US Civil Administration of the Rykyuku Islands (USCAR).  There is case law.  There was no legal reestablishment of Japanese nationality until the 1972 "reversion" from the Okinawan self-determination referendum.  It was possible because of the 1969 Nixon-Sato Communiqué, but the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué did not restore Chinese nationality to Formosans.  In fact, this implied 2-28 civil affairs agreement of 1972 (February 28) abrogated the bilateral 1952 Treaty of Taipei (e.g., ROC nationality deemed was removed), and the automatic operation of customary law is "interim treaty status" of Taiwan nationality.  Again, please refer to JCS 1651.

但是，日本國籍的「剩餘主權」並不適用於「美國琉球群島民政管理局」（USCAR）下的沖繩人。這是判例法。直到1972年沖繩自決公投「復歸」之前，才有重建日本國籍的法律依據。這可能是因為1969年的〈尼克森 – 佐藤公報〉，但1972年的〈上海公報〉沒有將福爾摩沙人”恢復”中國國籍。事實上，這隱含了1972年（2月28日）的〈2-28民事協議〉（＝〈上海公報〉）廢除了1952年的雙邊〈台北條約〉（亦即，移除「被視為的」中華民國國籍），習慣法的自動運作是，台灣國籍的「臨時條約地位」。同樣的，請參閱JCS 1651。

Japan has no real authority over Taiwan nationality.  The US State Department lawyers have attempted to thwart the legal claims of nationality.  In Lin v. US, the claim of US nationality non-citizen status was denied for lack of "actual control" over Taiwan territory.  Here, customary law is not mandatory for US nationality.  Again, their prerogative is not mandatory, but the nationality of interim status has not been erased from treaty.  This underlying nationality has not been erased, but fools will rush for the end zone with final status of American, Japanese, or Chinese nationality.  They jump to conclusions with so-called "conclusory statements" on the final status of Taiwan.  These Taiwanese activist fools cannot cease their charades with imaginary legal claims of the "imagi-NATION."  Residual interests of Japan might be limited to making representations to Spain (protecting power) of Japanese interests right at the end of WWII.  For universal jurisdiction, the Spaniards have a nexus with the residual interest of Japan in the Formosans of SPFT.  Again, refer to JCS 1651.  And again, the Taiwan illicit assets committee should be drooling over these prospects of Japanese-Formosan claims under the legal nexus with Spain for protection of life and property by its Protecting Power for "residual interests" of these (former) Japanese nationals on Formosa.  Under Spain's "Universal Jurisdiction" Article 23 of Organic Act No. 6/1985 states treaties signed by Spain (e.g., SFPT).

日本對台灣國籍沒有真正的權威。美國國務院的律師，試圖阻撓(台灣人?)對國籍的法律主張。在〈Lin林志昇訴US案〉中，由於缺乏對台灣領土的「實際控制」，「美國國籍非公民身份」的主張被否定。在這裡，習慣法對美國國籍不是強制性的。同樣的，他們的特權也不是強制性的，但臨時地位的國籍並未從條約中刪除。這種潛在的國籍並沒有被刪除，但是不明究理者會急於論斷擁有美國，日本或中國國籍。他們以「結論性陳述」直接得出：關於台灣最終地位的結論。這些台灣活動家不斷以片語隻字的加上想像力，來主張「想像的國家」。日本的「剩餘利益」可能僅限於在二戰結束時，向（作為日本的保護國）的西班牙提出申訴。對於普遍管轄權，西班牙人在SPFT的中與日本的「剩餘利益」有關係。再次，請參考提到JCS 1651。台灣不當黨產委員會應該再次討論台灣籍民，與西班牙在法律關係中提出的保護生命和財產保護生命和財產的這些前景，保護權是為了這些「剩餘利益」（福爾摩沙的日本國民。根據西班牙的「普遍管轄權」，第6/1985號組織法第23條規定了西班牙簽署的條約（例如SFPT）。

Organic Law No. 6/1985 of July 1, 1985, on the Judiciary (as amended up to Organic Law No. 8/2011 of July 21, 2011)

Ben Chen

HoonTing,
Article 2 (c) : "Japan renounces all rights, title and claim to Kurile Island, and ....".
Based on the theory of your last second paragraph, DOES Japan still have residual legal sovereignty over Kurile Islands to enable/entitle it to claim back some islands in the southern Kurile Islands, though RENOUNCIATION?

日本確實仍在因北方四島(群)問題和俄羅斯交涉 !

Based on your theory of the same paragraph, HOW substantial is the international law 'UTI POSSIDETIS' applicable to TAIPEI PEACE TREATY, which was sponsorred by PRINCIPAL OCCUPYING POWER?

第2（c）條：「日本政府放棄對千島群島、1905年9月5日獲得之庫頁島（南樺太）部分，以及鄰近各島嶼的一切權利、權利名義與要求。」根據你最後一段的理論，日本仍然擁有對千島群島的剩餘法定主權，使其能夠/有權在庫頁群島南部申請一些島嶼，儘管重新啟動？

根據您對同一段的理論，國際法“UTI POSSIDETIS”如何適用於TAIPEI PEACE TREATY，由PRINCIPAL OCCUPYING POWER主辦？