1944.05.04 菲利普中尉文書—3/5 Taimocracy翻譯

 1944.05.04 菲利普中尉文書—3/5　Taimocracy翻譯

Naval School of Military Government and Administration--p. 6

Change of Sovereignty in Ethiopia

衣索比亞的主權改變

10.             The question of changes in sovereignty in Ethiopia during the British military occupation requires consideration of two questions:  英國軍事佔領期間，衣索比亞主權的變化問題需要考慮兩個問題：

First, where did the sovereignty reside at the commencement of the occupation?  首先，在佔領開始時，主權在哪裡？

Second, what change, if any, occurred from the first situation when the British ousted the Italian regime which they had recognized and turned the country back to Haile Selassie?  其次，與英國推翻他們承認的義大利政權並將該國重新歸還給衣索比亞皇帝Haile Selassie的第一種情況相比，發生了什麼變化（如果有的話）？

11.             The Italians on the completion of the war against Ethiopia announced the annexation of the whole of its territory and issued a proclamation conferring upon King Victor Emanuel III the title of Emperor of Ethiopia which was Haile Selassie's title.  Italy then sought recognition of her claim to have become by the customary rules of international law, the rightful successor to sovereignty over Ethiopia, as a result of conquest and annexation.  Haile Selassie left Ethiopia to plead his case before the League of Nations, but never abdicated his throne or renounced his sovereignty.  He argued that the League members should nor recognize a situation contrary to the Covenant, and that the Italians had not effectively occupied the territory, claimed annexed, because of the effective resistance on the part of a number of his chiefs.  對衣索比亞的戰爭結束後，義大利宣佈吞併衣索比亞全部領土，並發佈公告，授予國王Victor Emanuel III衣索比亞皇帝的稱號，即Haile Selassie擁有的稱號。義大利隨後根據國際習慣法，尋求承認為衣索比亞主權的合法繼承者，這是征服和兼併的結果。Haile Selassie 離開衣索比亞前往國際聯盟為自己辯護，但從未退位或放棄主權。 他爭辯說，聯盟成員也不應該承認違反〈盟約〉的情況，並且由於他的一些酋長的有效抵抗，義大利人未有效佔領其聲稱被吞併的領土。

12.             Whether or nor possession had been effectively taken of the whole of the territory by the Italians was a question of fact.  As long as there remained in Ethiopia a considerable area of territory not effectively occupied by Italian forces there could be no transfer of sovereignty.  However, it might be assumed that recognition of Italian sovereignty by Great Britain, France and other states would imply at least that Italy had conquered the territory.  義大利人是否有效地佔領了整個領土是一個事實問題。只要衣索比亞仍有相當大的領土未被義大利軍隊有效佔領，就不可能移交主權。然而，可以假設英國、法國和其他國家承認：義大利的主權至少意味著義大利已經征服了該領土。

 

Naval School of Military Government and Administration--p. 7

13.             Italy's conquest and forcible annexation of Ethiopia were in violation of obligations as a party to the Covenant of the League of Nations and to the Pact of Paris.  The League of Nations adhered to a policy of non-recognition of the title to Ethiopia acquired by conquest, as did a large group of states including the United States, USSR, China, Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Argentina, Brazil and most of the other American states.  However, Great Britain, France and other individual states did recognize the sovereignty of Italy "de facto" and "de jure".  義大利征服和強行吞併衣索比亞違反了作為〈國際聯盟盟約〉和〈巴黎公約〉締約方的義務。國際聯盟堅持不承認透過征服獲得的衣索比亞稱謂之政策，包括美國在內的許多國家也是如此，蘇聯、中國、澳大利亞、紐西蘭、南非聯盟、荷蘭、瑞典、芬蘭、阿根廷、巴西和大多數其他美國國家。然而，英國、法國和其他個別國家，確實承認義大利「事實上」和「法律上」的主權。

14.             It is concluded that Italy's sovereignty over Ethiopia was established as a matter of fact, but was illegal in international law as expressed in the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Pact of Paris.  Such a "de facto" situation contrary to law and not acquiesced in by other states could only be rectified by international legislation or consent of the other states who were parties to the treaty and thereby have a legal interest in the matter.  結論是，義大利確立對衣索比亞的主權是個事實問題，但如〈國際聯盟盟約〉和〈巴黎公約〉所述，在國際法上是非法的。這種違反法律且未被其他國家默許的「事實上」情況，只能通過國際立法或其他條約締約方的同意來矯正，從而在此事中具有合法利益。

15.             Great Britain's recognition of Italy's sovereignty over Ethiopia was a political, diplomatic matter with but little legal effect on the validity of Italy's sovereignty "de Jure" because that was determinable by the rules of international law and not by any action of Great Britain alone.  It was little more than political recognition of the fact that the state exists.  Furthermore, it may be argued that it was a legal obligation by virtue of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Pact of Paris for Great Britain not to recognize Italy's conquest of Ethiopia.  英國承認義大利對衣索比亞的主權，是一個政治和外交問題，對義大利「法理上」主權的有效性幾乎沒有法律上的影響，因為這是由國際法規則決定的，而不能僅由英國的任何行動決定。這只不過是政治上承認「此國家存在」的這一事實。此外，可以論述：英國根據〈國際聯盟盟約〉和〈巴黎公約〉，負有不承認義大利征服衣索比亞的法律義務。

16.             Great Britain’s subsequent liberation and occupation of Ethiopia enabled her to exercise "de facto" government over the territory.  Under

 

Naval School of Military Government and Administration--p. 8

international law, Haile Belassie, the old sovereign by the rules of "postliminium" would regain full sovereignty over the territory upon his return without waiting until the end of the war.  However, the British maintained a military government in Ethiopia until the complete subjugation of the Italian forces and their allies in the country, and eventually on January 31, 1942 reached a final agreement with Haile Selassie.  Many of the conflicting claims and difficulties during the British occupation might have been avoided by making the agreement before the return of the rightful sovereign.  However, the British apparently had put themselves on the spot by their previous denial of the Emperor's sovereignty, contrary to law.  英國隨後解放和佔領衣索比亞，使英國能夠對該領土行使「事實上的」統治。Haile Belassie是國際法「恢復原狀」（postliminium）規則下的舊君主，可在返回後立即重新獲得對該領土的完全主權，無需等到戰爭結束。然而，英國在衣索比亞維持了軍事統治，直到義大利軍隊及其在該國的盟友被完全征服，並最終在 1942 年 1 月 31 日與Haile Belassie達成了最終協議為止。英國原本可以透過與歸來前的合法主權者先達成協議，以避免英國佔領期間的許多相互衝突的主張和困難。然而，英國人顯然已先違反法律的否認皇帝的主權。