|
TOKYO
HIGH COURT, JUNE 12, 1980
DESIGNATION OF THE CASE
Judgment of June 12, 1980, Tokyo High Court, case
No..(gyo-ko, administrative) 27 of 1977.
Appeal from Tokyo District Court, Judgment of April 27, 1977.
APPELLANT:
Appellant: Lem King-Bing
Attorney for Appellant: Hisao Arata, et al.
APPELLEE:
Appellee: the State (Japanese Government)
Attorney for Appellee: Takashi Yoshida
|
東京高等法院，1980 年 6 月 12 日
案件名稱
1980 年6 月12 日判決，東京高等法院，案號：(gyo-ko，行政) 1977
年第27 號。
來自東京地方法院的上訴，1977 年 4 月 27 日的判決。
上訴人：
上訴人：林金彬
上訴人律師：Hisao Arata 等。
被上訴人：
被上訴人：國家（日本政府）
被上訴人代理人：吉田隆
|
|
OPINION
OF THE COURT
1. According to the evidence (omitted), it can be recognized that the
appellant was born on September 5, 1929, as the third son of the Taiwanese
parents (Lim Dai-Ying and Lim So-Sui), and is recorded in the family register
of Taiwan, and that he had resided in Taiwan until he landed in Japan on July
3, 1962. There is no other evidence influencing the above recognition.
From the above confirmed facts, the appellant acquired Japanese nationality
by birth.
|
法院的意見
1。根據證據（略），可以認定上訴人出生於1929年9月5日，為台灣籍父母（林大英、林素瑞）的第三個兒子，並記在戶籍上。台灣人，並且他在1962 年7月3 日登陸日本之前一直居住在台灣。沒有其他證據影響上述承認。
綜上所述，上訴人因出生而取得日本國籍。
|
|
2. The
court will consider whether the appellant lost his Japanese nationality or
not.
(1) In accordance with the Shimonoseki Treaty conducted on April 17, 1895,
Taiwan and Penghu were ceded to Japan and the inhabitants there, with the
exception of inhabitants who did not wish to acquire Japanese nationality and
left Taiwan within two years, acquired Japanese nationality (Article 5 of the
Shimonoseki Treaty). Subsequently, by Imperial Ordinance No. 289 of 1899, the
prior Nationality Law of Japan was enforced in Taiwan, but there was a sharp
distinction made between Japanese and Taiwanese. For example, with regard to
the family register, the Japanese were under application of the Family
Register Law, but the family register for the Taiwanese was different from
that for the Japanese (Statute No. 2 of 1927, Imperial Ordinance No. 361 of
1932 and Ordinance of the Government General of Taiwan No. 8 of 1933). . . .
. . As set forth above, under Japanese sovereignty Taiwan was one of
the territories which had a different legal system.
|
2.法院將考慮上訴人是否喪失日本國籍。
(1) 根據1895年4月17日簽訂的〈馬關條約〉，台灣及澎湖割讓給日本及其居民，但不希望取得日本國籍的居民除外兩年內離開台灣，取得日本國籍（〈馬關條約〉第五條）。隨後，根據1899年第289號天皇敕令，先前的日本國籍法在台灣實施，但日本人和台灣人之間有明顯的區別。例如，在戶籍方面，日本人適用〈戶籍法〉，但台灣人的戶籍與日本人的戶籍不同（1927年成文法第2號、1932年天皇令第361號）及〈台灣總督府條例〉1933
年第8號）。 。 。 。 。 。如上所述，在日本主權下，台灣是具有不同法律制度的領土之一。
|
|
(2) The
Treaty of Peace with Japan provides in Article 2(b) that "Japan
renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores." The
Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China provides to the same
effect in Article 2 that "(i)t is recognized that under Article 2 of the
Treaty of peace with Japan . . ., Japan has renounced all right, title and
claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly
Islands and Paracel Islands."
Both of the above treaties do not provide what state Taiwan and Penghu
(hereinafter Taiwan), over which Japan waived territorial rights, should
belong to . . . . .
However, at the date of the conclusion of the Treaty of Peace with Japan,
there actually existed two political powers, the Government of the Republic
of China and the Government of the People's Republic of China, which asserted
their dominion over continental China and Taiwan, and there were differences
of opinion among the Allies about the question of which political power
should participate in the above mentioned treaty, with the result that
neither political power become a signatory state of the treaty. On April 28,
1952, the date of the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace with Japan,
Japan concluded with the Republic of China a bilateral treaty, the Treaty of
Peace between Japan and Republic of China, which was based on Article 26 of
the Treaty of Peace with Japan and recognized in Article 2 Japan's
renunciation of all right, title and claim to Taiwan . . . . . .
However, in both the said treaty and the Treaty of Peace with Japan upon
which the said treaty was based, it is not definitely provided when
inhabitants who had Japanese nationality lost it. But, in due consideration
of the purport of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and
Articles 21 and 14(a)2(I)(a) of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, and so as not
to bring about the grave situation in which the inhabitants who lost Japanese
nationality become stateless persons, the court thinks it proper that at the
date of the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the
Republic of China (August 5, 1952), the said inhabitants lost their Japanese
nationality.
|
(2) 〈對日和平條約〉第 2 條 (b) 款規定「日本放棄對福爾摩沙和澎湖列島的一切權利、所有權和要求」。〈日本與中華民國和平條約〉第二條也同樣規定：「根據〈日中和平條約〉第二條，承認這一點。」。 ……日本業已放棄對台灣（福爾摩沙）和澎湖（澎湖列島）以及南沙群島和西沙群島的所有權利、所有權和主張。”
上述兩項條約都沒有規定日本放棄領土權的台灣和澎湖（以下簡稱台灣）應屬於哪個國家。 。 。 。 。
然而，在中日和約締結之日，實際上存在中華民國政府和中華人民共和國政府兩個政權，同盟國對中國大陸和台灣主張主權，而同盟國之間對於哪個政權應參加上述條約的問題上存在意見分歧，導致兩個政權都沒有成為條約的簽署國。1952年4月28日，即〈中日和平條約〉生效之日，日本與中華民國根據〈日本和中華民國和平條約〉第二十六條締結雙邊條約，即〈日本與中華民國和平條約〉。與日本簽訂和平條約，並在第二條中承認日本放棄對台灣的所有權利、所有權和主張。 。 。 。 。 。
但是，無論是該條約或該條約所依據的〈對日和平條約〉，都沒有明確規定擁有日本國籍的居民何時喪失日本國籍。但是，要適當考慮〈開羅宣言〉、〈波茨坦公告〉以及〈對日和約〉第21條和第14條(a)2(I)(a)條的主旨，以免造成嚴重事態。由於失去日本國籍的居民成為無國籍人，法院認為，在〈日本與中華民國和平條約〉生效之日（1952年8月5日），該居民喪失日本國籍是適當的。
|
|
(3) As
to the case before us, Article 10 of the Treaty of Peace between Japan and
the Republic of China provided that for the purposes of the said treaty
nationals of the Republic of China should be deemed to include inhabitants of
Taiwan; so it is apparent that the appellant, who was then an inhabitant of
Taiwan, was regarded as her national or a
person who had her nationality. In this
instance, it is true that there exists limitation,
for the purpose of the said treaty, but it is definitely provided that inhabitants of Taiwan should be regarded as nationals
of the Republic of China. Therefore, as the
natural precondition of the Japanese nationality or who had legal
status as Taiwanese were deemed to renounce
at least their Japanese nationality at the date of the coming into force of
the said Treaty.
|
(3) 就本案而言，〈日本與中華民國和平條約〉第十條規定，就該條約而言，中華民國國民應被視為包括台灣居民；很顯然，上訴人當時是台灣居民，被視為台灣國民或擁有台灣國籍的人。在此情況下，為該條約之目的確實有限制，但明確規定台灣居民應視為中華民國國民。因此，作為日本國籍或具有台灣人合法身分的自然前提，在該條約生效之日起，應被視為至少放棄日本國籍。
|
|
(4) It
must be interpreted that persons who lost Japanese nationality in accordance
with the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China because of
their legal status as Taiwanese are those who acquired legal status as
Taiwanese under Japanese domestic law as a result of the cession of Taiwan
and Penghu to Japan in accordance with the Shimonoseki Treaty, and their
descendants. In concrete terms, those who lost Japanese nationality are those
who were recorded in the family register of Taiwan and those who were
formerly Japanese but were removed from the family register of Japan because
they became married to or were adopted by Taiwanese before the date of the
coming into force of the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of
China . . . . . .
In the case before us, as stated above, the appellant had the legal status as
a Taiwanese because his parents were both Taiwanese and be is recorded in the
family register of Taiwan. Therefore, he lost his Japanese nationality at the
date of the coming into force of the said Treaty.
|
(4) 必須解釋為，根據〈日本與中華民國和平條約〉，因其台灣人的合法身份而喪失日本國籍的人，是指根據日本國內法取得台灣人合法身份的人。根據〈馬關條約〉將台灣和澎湖割讓給日本而產生的法律及其後代。具體來說，失去日本國籍的人是指那些在日本與中華民國和平條約生效前，在台灣戶籍上登記的人，以及原是日本人但與台灣人結婚或被台灣人收養而被從日本戶籍中除名的人。。 。 。 。 。 。
本案中，如上所述，上訴人具有台灣人的合法身份，因為他的父母都是台灣人，並且記在台灣戶籍上。因此，他在該條約生效之日就失去了日本國籍。
|
|
(5) The
Government of Japan recognized the Government of the People's Republic of
China as the sole legal government of China in the Joint Communiqué of the
Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China
signed on September 29, 1972 (paragraph 2 of the said Joint Communiqué). This
means disaffirmation of the Government of the Republic of China. As a result
of this, it must be construed that the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the
Republic of China should lose its significance of
existence and come to an end
through the normalization of diplomatic relation between Japan and the
People's Republic of China based on the Joint Communiqué.
In paragraph 3 of the above Joint Communiqué, the government of Japan
declared that it fully understood and respected
the stand of the People's Republic of China that Taiwan was an inalienable
part of the territory of the People's Republic of China and it firmly
maintained its stand that Taiwan was not its territory. The purport of the
former sentence of the above paragraph is different from that of the Treaty
of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China; so the question arises
whether the fact that the nationality of a part of the inhabitants in Taiwan
was changed in accordance with the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the
Republic of China is affected by the Joint Communiqué of the Government of
Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China: It is true that,
as stated above, after the acceptance of the Potsdam Proclamation, Japan had recognized Taiwan as a territory of the
Republic of China which had asserted her dominion over it; but in 1972
Japan changed her stand and understood and respected that Taiwan belonged to
the People's Republic of China. There is a
consistency in that Japan all this time has recognized Taiwan not to belong
to herself. Japan recognized, in the Treaty of Peace between Japan and
the Republic of China, that those of Taiwan who
had had Japanese nationality should be deemed nationals of the
Republic of China. This is a natural consequence
of Taiwan ceasing to be a territory of Japan. Therefore, in
consideration of domain, those inhabitants never regained Japanese nationality,
setting aside the question whether or not those who lost Japanese nationality
shall be deemed to acquire nationality of the People's Republic of China on
the ground of the Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the
Government of People's Republic of China.
Furthermore, it is impossible to interpret paragraph 3 of the above Joint Communiqué
to the effect that only the territory shall belong to the People's Republic
of China with those of the inhabitants of the territory who formerly had Japanese
nationality regaining Japanese nationality. To sum up, the above Joint
Communique has no influence upon the Japanese nationality that the appellant
has lost.
|
（5）日本政府與中華人民共和國於1972年9月29日簽署〈日中兩國政府聯合公報〉並在上述聯合公報第二款中承認中華人民共和國政府為中國的唯一合法政府。這等於是對中華民國政府的否定。因此，必須解釋說，〈日本與中華民國和平條約〉應隨著日本與中華人民共和國邦交正常化之聯合公報為基礎而失去其存在的意義而結束。
在上述〈聯合公報〉第3段中，日本政府聲明，充分理解並尊重中華人民共和國國關於台灣是中華人民共和國領土不可分割的一部分的立場。而日本政府堅持台灣不是日本領土的立場。前項之主旨與日本與中華民國和平條約之主旨不同；那麼，根據〈日本與中華民國和平條約〉改變部分台灣居民國籍的事實，是否受到〈日中聯合公報〉的影響呢？中華人民共和國：誠然，如上所述，日本在接受〈波茨坦公告〉後承認台灣是中華民國的領土，中華民國並宣稱對台灣擁有主權；但1972年日本改變立場，理解並尊重台灣屬於中華人民共和國。日本一直以來都承認台灣不屬於日本，這是一貫的。日本在〈日本與中華民國和平條約〉中承認，擁有日本國籍的台灣人應視為中華民國國民。這是台灣不再是日本領土的自然結果。因此，考慮到版圖的因素，那些居民從未恢復日本國籍，暫且不論那些失去日本國籍的人是否應根據〈日中兩國政府聯合公報〉的規定被視為取得中華人民共和國國籍。
此外，不可能將上述〈聯合公報〉第三段解釋為僅使領土歸屬於中華人民共和國，而領土上曾經擁有日本國籍的居民恢復日本國籍。總而言之，上述〈聯合公報〉對上訴人失去的日本國籍沒有影響。
|
|
(6) In
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights there is a provision that "no
one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to
change his nationality" (Article 15 (2)).
It is appropriate to construe "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of
his nationality" to mean "No one shall be deprived of his
nationality without due process and due reasons." It is excessively
severe and narrow to interpret "arbitrarily" as meaning
"one-sidedly by the state." As stated above, the lost of Japanese
nationality by the Taiwanese occurred as the change of nationality
accompanying a cession of territory resulting from the war, and a change of
nationality accompanying a cession of territory is ordinarily provided,
explicitly or implicitly, in treaties. So it must be construed that the
purport of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not prohibit such a
comprehensive change of nationality as an arbitrary deprivation of nationality.
Therefore, it is not contrary to the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights that the Taiwanese lost their Japanese
nationality in accordance with the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the
Republic of China, because it was conducted with due
process and due reasons.
Furthermore, in the Constitution of Japan it is provided that the conditions
necessary for being a Japanese national shall be determined by law, but there
is no provision in the Nationality Law about the change of nationality
accompanying a cession of territory and, as stated above, there is no
established customary international law. Therefore, those conditions are to
be provided explicitly or implicitly by treaties.
In the case before us, Japan did not afford inhabitants of Taiwan an opportunity
to select their nationality. But the Republic of China, or the ceder, as it
is called, promulgated a law respecting the regaining of her nationality by
the inhabitants in Taiwan.
|
（6）〈世界人權宣言〉有一條規定：「任何人的國籍不得任意剝奪，也不得剝奪改變國籍的權利」。 （第 15 條第（2）款）。
將「任何人的國籍不得任意剝奪」解釋意為「未經正當程序和正當理由，不得剝奪任何人的國籍。」是恰當的。對「任意」的解釋為「國家單方面」，是過於嚴厲和狹隘的。如上所述，台灣人喪失日本國籍是由於戰爭導致的割讓國籍的變更而伴隨發生的，而伴隨割讓國籍的變更通常在條約中或明或暗地規定。因此，必須解釋〈世界人權宣言〉的宗旨並不禁止作為任意剝奪國籍的全面國籍變更。因此，台灣人依據〈中華民國和平條約〉喪失日本國籍並不違反〈世界人權宣言〉，因為這是經過正當程序和正當理由的。
此外，〈日本憲法〉規定，成為日本國民的必要條件由法律規定，但〈國籍法〉中並沒有關於伴隨日本領土割讓而變更國籍的規定。並且如上所述，不存在既定的國際習慣法。因此，條約應明確或暗示地規定這些條件。
在我們面前的案例中，日本沒有提供台灣居民選擇國籍的機會。但中華民國，也就是所謂的割讓者，頒布了一項尊重台灣居民恢復國籍的法律。
|
|
. . . .
|
。 。 。 。
|
|
(8) The
appellant testified in personal inquiry that, because the Republic of China
was a political power of those who had came from the Chinese continent and
did not represent the will of the Taiwanese, the Treaty of Peace between
Japan and the Republic of China did not bind him -- the Taiwanese -- and he
had as yet not lost his Japanese nationality. But the purport of the
testimony of the appellant is, from the standpoint of Japan, a matter
belonging to the domestic affairs of another state. The matter of nationality
is generally determined uniformly by nature and cannot be varied according to
the political doctrine or feeling of individuals. There is no need to dwell
upon it. And there is no reason why Japan should have the duty of protecting
the appellant as a Japanese national until the establishment of a political
power supported by him.
|
（8）上訴人在個人詢問中作證，由於中華民國是中國大陸人的政權，並不代表台灣人的意志，該條約〈日本與中華民國間的和平條約〉並沒有約束他——台灣人——而且他還沒有失去日本國籍。但從日本的角度來看，上訴人證詞的意義是屬於他國內政的問題。國籍問題一般是由性質統一決定的，不能根據個人的政治學說或感情而改變。無需深入討論此事。並且日本沒有義務在建立由上訴人支持的政權之前保護他作為一名日本國民的義務。
|
|
3. The
above is the reason of judgment of this court. . . . . As is
apparent from the above judgment, among the claims of the appellant, the
claim to confirm his Japanese nationality is unreasonable, and the claim for
compensation for damage, which is based on his Japanese nationality, cannot
be justified.
|
3.以上是本院的判決理由。 。 。 。 。從上述判決可見，上訴人的訴訟請求中，確認其日本國籍的主張不合理，而以其日本國籍為由主張損害賠償的主張也不成立。
|
|
excerpted from --
The Japanese Annual of International Law [No. 25, 1982],
p. 170 - 178
|
https://www.taiwanbasic.com/insular/tokyo-1980.htm
|
沒有留言:
張貼留言
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