TRA下「台灣治理當局」的ROC與任何接替的當局 雲程 Defining the ROC, the governing authorities on Taiwan, and Its Successor Authorities Under the TRA Framework by HoonTing

【雙魚之論】
We can gain profound insights into Taiwan’s international status through the writings of John J. Tkacik Jr., which is precisely why I highly recommend his work.

Regrettably, regarding his suggestion to counter Beijing’s mantra of “Taiwan independence means war” with the proposition that “war also means Taiwan independence,” Taiwan’s internal political stance has undergone a significant shift. We transitioned from Chen Shui-bian’s conditional “Four Noes and One Without” in 2000—which guaranteed no declaration of independence, no change of national title, no incorporation of the “State-to-State” theory into the Constitution, and no referendum on independence or unification, provided the CCP had no intention to use force—to Ma Ying-jeou’s quiet shift in 2008 toward the unconditional “Three Noes” (No unification, No independence, and No use of force). While Tkacik’s proposal offers an excellent strategy for legal warfare, it is a somber reality that the opinions of the Taiwanese people are often overlooked by the international community.
Tkacik’s article exposes a fact we have long analyzed: under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), the definition and even the formal designation of the “governing authorities on Taiwan”—as specified in Sections 2, 10, and 15—is “the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979.” In other words, the "governing authority on Taiwan" known as the Republic of China is a legal entity whose jurisdiction is strictly “limited to Taiwan, Penghu, and other areas as mutually agreed upon.” This entity arose from the legal framework of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) Article 23 (regarding the “Principal Occupying Power”) and the recognition of “belligerency” under the laws of war via the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty. It is by no means derived from the Republic of China established in Beijing in 1912 by the mandate of the Qing Emperor—that version of the ROC was terminated by the founding of the People’s Republic of China on October 1, 1949.
While examining how the Taiwanese government should respond to Chinese aggression, Tkacik explains the term “any successor governing authorities (including political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof).” Such legitimacy must be determined by the United States. Even if Taiwan were invaded, a puppet government established with Chinese backing would not qualify to inherit the assets or status of the aforementioned Republic of China—specifically, it would lack any claim to “all rights, titles, and claims” associated with that entity.

從譚慎格的文章中我們可以學到很多有關台灣地位的知識，這是我非常推薦他的原因。
較為遺憾的是，文章所提以「戰爭也意味著台獨」抗衡北京的「台獨意味著戰爭」主張，其實我們台灣內部經歷過從2000年陳水扁有前提的「四不一沒有」——只要中共無意對台動武，本人保證在任期之內，不會宣佈獨立，不會更改國號，不會推動兩國論入憲，不會推動改變現狀的統獨公投，也沒有廢除國統綱領與國統會的問題；到馬英九在2008年悄悄變更的無前提的「不統、不獨、不武（No unification, No independence and No use of force），也有人提及——雖然譚慎格的建議是個法律戰的好方案，但可惜台灣人的意見不受國際所重視。
譚慎格在文章中揭露了我們早已解析的事實：在〈台灣關係法〉中，「台灣治理當局」的定義甚至正式名稱就是第2、第10、第15條的「一九七九年一月一日以前美國承認為中華民國的台灣治理當局」（the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979）。意即，稱為中華民國的台灣治理當局，是美國透過〈舊金山和約〉第23條以「主要佔領國」身分與〈中美共同防禦條約〉之戰爭法中「交戰團體」承認的法理而產生的一個「範圍限定於台灣、澎湖，與其他雙方同意的地區」的治理當局，絕非源自1912年大清皇帝所授權成立於北京的中華民國——那個中華民國已經在1949.10.01終結於中華人民共和國。
譚慎格趁檢討中國侵略時台灣政府應如何應變之際，解釋了「任何接替之治理當局（包括其政治分支機構、機關及附屬機構）」（any successor governing authorities (including political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof)）。必須是由美國認定才具有合法性，即使台灣被侵略之後，在中國的扶持之下成立的傀儡政府依然不具有繼承前述中華民國資產與身分，即「所有權利、權利根據與要求」的資格。