台灣主權研究 (一)(二)(三)(四)、(五)

海牙無政府組織網站的全文

The fantasy in the complex riddle of the "Taiwan question" is that the "Republic of China" (ROC) is holding Taiwan's territorial sovereignty. In fact, an argument can be made that as a result of the Pacific War, the United States acquired Taiwan under the principle of conquest.
在「台灣問題」這個複雜的謎題中,唯一有幻想的是流亡政府中華民國,錯誤以為自己擁有台澎的領土主權,還將錯誤訊息以教育方式誤導台灣人民。事實上,美日太平洋戰爭的結果,只有美國可以主張:「美國已經因戰爭征服台灣,而獲得台灣」。

The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves ……

美國政府立場為:美國「得知」,在台灣海峽兩邊的所有中國人都自認為只有一個中國(台灣人除外),台灣是中國的一部分。美國政府對這一立場不提出異議。美國重申對由中國人自己和平解決臺灣問題的關心。

Myriad scholars and researchers have pondered the true meaning of these convoluted phrases in the Shanghai Communique of 1972. In fact, the real intention of this phraseology is to put the non-sovereign entity of Taiwan on a "flight path" for a future unification with the PRC.
很多學者與研究人員多年來,一直思考1972年上海公報的這些模糊且語焉不詳的詞句。事實上,這個公報的目的,無非是想把非主權獨立的台灣,置放在一個將來可以與中華人民共和國「合併」的航道。

Taiwan's March 2006 decision to eliminate its "Reunification Council" shows a strong desire to deviate from this pre-determined "flight path," and hence is a matter of grave concern to the US Executive Branch, especially the Oval Office and the Dept. of State. Contrastingly, many members of Congress support Taiwan's decision to eliminate its Reunification Council and to proceed along a more democratic path for its future development.
中華民國流亡當局於2006年3月企圖宣佈終止「國家統一委員會」的運作,這個動作已經向美國政府強烈的表示:「中華民國政府想要離開這個一九七二年上海公報所既定的航道」,因此,美國的行政部門,特別是對白宮與國務院來說認為是非常嚴重的問題;相反地,美國有許多國會議員非常支持台灣終止國統委員會的動作,試著幫台灣往更民主化的道路去發展。

Although the US President and the Congress are frequently 180 degrees apart in their views on how to deal with Taiwan, at the present time the US President is using his plenary power over foreign affairs to deal with the "Taiwan question," and so he controls US policy on this issue.
美國總統與國會,兩者雖然對於處理台灣問題在看法上常常是有絕然不同的政策,但是,現在美國總統是在運用美國憲法賦予他控制外交事務的權力,來處理台灣問題,因此,表面上美國總統就全盤掌握美國對台灣的政策。

The members of Congress have not yet comprehended that the decision to put Taiwan on a "flight path" for unification with the PRC is a deprivation of the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment "due process protections" to the Taiwanese people. That is something that the Congress should be sorely concerned about.
美國國會議員尚未全盤瞭解到,把台灣放在一個將來與中華人民共和國「合併」是危險的航道,這是完全剝奪台灣人民在美國憲法上第五修正案有關「正當法律程序」之保障。其實美國國會議員應該主動地關心這個議題。

What are due process protections? A fundamental requirement of due process is "the opportunity to be heard." It is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Were the Taiwanese people consulted during the drafting of the Shanghai Communique? The answer is No.
「正當法律程序」之意義何在?所謂「正當法律程序」的基本要求是被聆聽的機會。這個機會必須在適當的時機,適當的方式,讓台灣人自主表達意見被聆聽的機會。台灣人要嚴正指出:上海公報在草擬之時,美國政府有給台灣人民發表的機會嗎?答案是「根本沒有」。

US Constitutional Protections for the Taiwanese
美國憲法應該給台灣人民的保障

Are the Taiwanese people entitled to US Constitutional protections? They certainly are. During the period of WWII in the Pacific, Taiwan was acquired by the United States based under the principle of conquest.
台灣人民有權利得到美國憲法保障嗎?絕對有這個權利!根據美國憲法的規定,美日太平洋戰爭期間,台灣是因被美國軍事征服。

In the post-war Senate-ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT), Japan renounced the territorial of Taiwan, but no recipient nation was designated. Hence, Taiwan has remained under the jurisdiction of the United States (the "conqueror" and the "principal occupying power") up to the present day. The civil rights and political status of the inhabitants of Taiwan are a subject over which the US Congress has legislative authority, but so far no Congressmen have woken up to this fact.
在戰後,美國參議院所通過的舊金山和平條約第二條裡,日本政府放棄台灣領土管轄權,但是並沒有指定一個「收受國」,因此台灣至今仍留在美國(即「征服者」和「主要佔領權國」雙重身分)的管轄權下一直到現在。對於台灣地區民間人權與政治地位,確實應該是美國國會的管轄權,但是一直到現在,沒有任何美國國會議員有勇氣去面對與領悟這個事實。

This is further explained as follows. The 1901 US Supreme Court case of Downes v. Bidwell confirmed previous Supreme Court rulings on the subject to say that, "The power to make acquisitions of territory by conquest, by treaty, and by cession is an incident of national sovereignty."
對於台灣戰後,在美國憲法地位有重要判例:1901年美國最高法院判決Downes v. Bidwell案對於更早的相關判決做一次重新確認,也就是說:「美國政府有權力因征服、條約或割讓而獲得新領土,是國家主權的附帶條件。」

All military attacks against Taiwan during the WWII period were made by US military forces, so it is clear that as a result of the Pacific War the United States has acquired Taiwan under the principle of conquest. The disposition of Taiwan must be conducted according to the laws of war.
美日太平洋戰爭的期間,所有攻打台灣的行動都是美軍單獨所為。顯然美國已經因戰爭征服而獲得台灣為一個海外領土。基於此,台灣、澎湖領土之「處置」只能依據戰爭法去處理的,不適用其他的國際法,例如聯合國憲章等。

Up until the coming into effect of the SFPT on April 28, 1952, the Commander-in-Chief dealt with the Taiwan question based on his war powers over occupied territory. Military occupation is conducted under "military government," and as "the occupying power" as spoken of in the laws of war, the United States delegated the military occupation of Taiwan to the Chinese Nationalists.
在舊金山和平條約一九五二年四月二十八日生效以前,美國總統(即,美國軍隊的總司令)處理台灣問題是基於總統對佔領地的「戰爭權」。軍事佔領是在「軍事政府」之下所進行的,所以,美國是被依據戰爭法所認定的「主要佔領權國」的身份,這點在舊金山和平條約被證實,美國隨即委託了蔣介石中華民國軍隊來處理對台灣的佔領事宜。

In the SFPT, Japan gave up some rights to the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan, but no recipient was named. Hence, the United States' acquirement of Taiwan was confirmed, but Taiwan remains subject to the President's war powers under United States Military Government.
在舊金山和平條約裡,日本政府放棄對台灣管轄權,但是並沒有指定一個收受國。因此,美國「獲得」台灣為一個軍事後的占領領土,得到國際條約再次的確認。但是台灣仍受限於「主要佔領權」國,美國總統依美國憲法的「戰爭權」規定,掌握「美國軍事政府」對台灣的管轄權。

The constitutional basis for this methodology is easily verified by reading Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which was an important reference used at the US Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. All of the territories Blackstone lists as dominions are the sovereign territory of the Crown: colonies, acquisitions and conquests, and so on.
美國運用憲法的法理基礎,可以從Blackstone先生的名著「英國法典評釋」而得到檢驗證實。這本書在美國費城一七八七年制憲大會裡是一個重要的參考書籍。Blackstone先生所列的一切英國統治區域,都是屬於英國皇家的主權,包括殖民地、各種方式而獲得的領土、已征服領土等等。

 

US Congressional Authority over Taiwan
美國國會有權對台灣管轄

Importantly, for acquired territory, "Congress shall have powers to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations . . . . . " in accordance with the territorial clause of the US Constitution (Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2). In the history of territorial acquisitions by the United States, the civil rights and political status of native persons therein have always been deemed to be subject to determination by the US Congress.
美國憲法中很重要的規定是,對於已經因戰爭「獲得」的領土,「國會有權……制定一切必要的法規和章則」,這是依據美國憲法的領土條款之第四條第三項第二款之規定。在美國獲得新領土的歷史中,在所有的條約都認定:「當地人民之人權與政治地位都是美國國會來給予認定的」,對於台灣人民而言,美國國會當不至於違反憲法之規定。

Downes v. Bidwell also confirmed that "fundamental constitutional rights" apply in all US overseas territories. The Fifth Amendment protections to life, liberty, property, and due process of law are fundamental rights under the US Constitution.
美國高院的Downes v. Bidwell案例再確定一個重要的事實,那就是美國憲法的「基本人權保障」是適用於所有美國海外領土。美國憲法中的基本人權保障,規定在第五修正案之生命、自由、財產與正當法律程序中
The ROC and the One China Policy
中華人民共和國與中華民國的「一中政策」糾葛

Many people claim that the ROC in Taiwan is unfairly restricted from participating in international organizations because of the internationally accepted "One China Policy." Numerous highly-paid political commentators are quick to point out that the "One China Policy" is a fantasy, since Taiwan is a growing and developing democracy.
很多人認為「中華民國在台灣」欲參加國際組織是受到不公平的待遇,其實主因是台灣不是中華民國之領土,而這是違背國際公認的「一個中國政策」。許多步研究歷史與戰爭法的政治評論家卻經常指出「一個中國政策」是一種幻覺,因為台灣是一個蓬勃發展中的民主「國家」,這是典型將台灣與中華民國混淆不清的學者。

However, "One China" is not a fantasy. The only fantasy in the complex riddle of the "Taiwan question" is that the "Republic of China" (ROC) is holding Taiwan's "territorial sovereignty."
其實「一個中國政策」並不是一個幻覺,是表示中華人民共和國是唯一代表中國的國家,但是台灣是台灣,中國是中國;在戰後「台灣問題」的複雜謎題中,唯一的幻想(幻覺)是「中華民國擁有台灣、澎湖的領土主權」。

Again, this is easily analyzed from the viewpoint of military jurisdiction under the US Constitution. After liberating Taiwan in the Pacific War, the United States delegated the military occupation of Taiwan to the Chiang Kai-shek (the Chinese nationalists). In the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty, the territorial sovereignty was not awarded to the ROC. So in fact, Taiwan territory is still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The SFPT clearly specifies that the United States is the "principal occupying power." For a territorial cession, the military government of the principal occupying power does not end with the coming into effect of the peace treaty.
這個議題可以很容易從美國憲法中的軍事管轄權得到答案。在美日太平洋戰爭期間,美國是唯一軍事攻打日本四島與台灣的國家,事後,美國把台澎地區的佔領事宜委託蔣介石集團來處理。在戰後的舊金山和平條約裡,台澎地區的領土主權並沒有過戶給中華民國。因此台澎地區仍在美國軍事政府管轄之下。舊金山和平條約很清楚的指出:「美國是主要佔領權國」。對領土割讓事件而言,主要佔領權國之軍事政府並不會因為和平條約生效而結束。

After considering these facts, it is clear that the One China Policy as espoused by the United States is correct, but China is China and Taiwan is Taiwan. The ROC on Taiwan is merely a subordinate occupying power (beginning October 25, 1945) and a government in exile (beginning December 1949).
在充分理解上述事實真相以後,我們很容易了解美國政府所主張的「一個中國政策」是對的,但是中國是中國,台灣是台灣。中華民國在台灣只不過是一個「次要佔領權」(1945.10.25起)與一個「流亡政府」(1949.12中旬起)。

In other words, the ROC is not the legitimate government of Taiwan. This is the real reason why the US government refused President Chen's request for transit rights through the mainland US cities of San Francisco and New York during his early May 2006 trip to Paraguay and Costa Rica. As more and more people in Taiwan have begun to complain to the Commander-in-Chief and the US Dept. of State in the last six months, the officials of the Executive Branch are choosing to distance themselves from the rebel ROC regime in every way possible.
換言之,中華民國並不是台灣之合法政府。對於2006年5月初陳總統飛往巴拉圭與哥斯大黎加的路程中,他要求經過美國的舊金山與紐約,而美國政府拒絕,這個才是真正的理由所在。在最近半年越來越多的台灣人民向美國總統與美國國務院提出抗議,美國行政部門的官員就選擇用各種方式與中華民國流亡政府劃清界線,錯誤了解台灣地位,將害死全台灣人民,不可不慎。
The USA-Taiwan-China Relationship
台灣、美國、中國的奇妙三角關係

The People's Republic of China often boasts that it is the sole legitimate government of China, and as the successor government to the ROC, it has ownership of Taiwan territory. However, this argument quickly evaporates when we realize that the ROC does not own the "territorial sovereignty" of Taiwan. This was forcefully clarified by former Secretary Powell on October 25, 2004 in a press conference in Beijing, when he said, "Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation."
中華人民共和國經常宣稱其是中國唯一的合法政府,而基於「繼承中華民國政府」的國際法原則,其當然擁有台灣領土主權。但是,我們清楚瞭解中華民國並沒有擁有台灣的領土主權的時候,中國的主張很快就蒸發掉了。前國務卿鮑爾在二零零四年十月二十五日於北京的記者會上,很清楚的釐清這點。他說:「台灣不享有國家的主權。」二零零六年五月副國務卿佐力克宣稱:「台灣不是一個國家」。

Commentators in the international media have yet to begin to discuss all of these legal complexities surrounding the USA-Taiwan-China relationship. Meanwhile, the record shows that the US Executive Branch has trampled on the constitutional rights of the native Taiwanese people for over fifty years in the name of political expediency, and continues to do so here in 2006.
到今天為止,台灣媒體的評論家,學識尚不足以有能力探討台灣、美國與中國的三角關係的複雜法律面。基於政治上的暫時利益,以及執政者的私心,美國行政部門已經踐踏台灣人民的人權五十多年,不幸的是,二零零六年還是一樣的老戲重演,難道台灣人還要忍耐?

According to the Taiwan Relations Act, the terminology of "Republic of China" is not recognized under US law after January 1, 1979. Since Taiwan has never been officially incorporated into the territory of the Republic of China, strong arguments can be made that the mass naturalization of native Taiwanese persons as "Republic of China citizens" in January 1946 is without legal basis, in fact it is a war crime perpetrated by the Chiang Kai-shek regime.
依據台灣關係法,「中華民國」這個稱謂,美國法律在一九七九年一月一日以後不再使用或給予承認。又基於台灣、澎湖地區尚且不是中華民國領土的事實,當然一九四五年十月二十五日「不是臺灣光復節」,一九四六年一月十二日中華民國行政院,強行集體規劃台灣人民為「中華民國國籍」,不但是毫無法理基礎的,而且是蔣介石集團的一項永遠的戰爭犯罪行為。

Clearly, the best way for the Taiwanese people to insure that they can continue to develop along the democratic path is to get the handling of the "Taiwan question" out of the Executive Branch, and into the US Congress. Under the territorial clause of the Constitution, the members of Congress do indeed have jurisdiction over the civil rights and political status of native persons in Taiwan. That means that the members of the US Congress can give the Taiwanese people what they really want – authorization to call a Constitutional Convention and draft a new Taiwan Constitution under United States administrative authority.
顯然地,對於保障台灣人民能繼續依據民主原則來發展,最好的辦法是把台灣問題的處理從美國行政部門(白宮、國務院等)的手中轉移出來到美國國會。依據美國憲法的領土條款,美國國會議員對於台灣人民的人權與政治地位確實有管轄權。這個意思也是說,美國國會議員有權力給台灣人民其所最渴望的,那就是授權台灣人民在美國管轄體系之下召開制憲大會,擬定一份新的台灣憲法或基本法

Dr. Roger C. S. Lin researchers in international treaty law and the laws of war. Dr Lin has a Ph.D. in international law from Meijo University in Nagoya. He is reside in Taiwan.
林志昇是專門研究國際條約法與戰爭法。林志昇是有Meijo University的國際法博士研習,居住在台灣。

 台灣主權研究 (一)(二)(三)(四)、(五)

台 灣 (民) 政 府
林 志昇 秘書長

檢視次數: 1517

© 2018  

台灣民政府 中央會館 Central Government Headquarters
新竹州桃園郡33391龜山鄉員林坑路100-1號  (03) 355-6363
No.100-1 Yuanlinkeng Road, Guishan Township, Taoyuan County Hsinchu state. 33391, Taiwan

  管理小組

成員徽章  |  報告問題  |  服務條款