(✪‿✪)ノ排程中晝發文 #國際法法理建國 Q&A

Q96: 有人主張中華民國1949年底滅國了，這樣的說法正確嗎

A96:

主張1949中華民國滅國？是指流亡滅國然後又建國，建了不知道什麼的東西？

1949年台澎領土主權還是屬於日本的喔！國際法規定國與國之間戰爭的結束是要簽訂「和平條約」，因此日本投降後停戰了，進入戰勝盟軍的盟佔時期，最終在《舊金山和約》48個國家與日本簽訂決議處理戰後責任歸屬。台澎領土在《舊金山和約》生效就是領土主權歸屬未定。若沒簽約到《舊金山和約》的國家可與日本簽訂子約，其條件不能優於母約（舊金山和約）。

那這裡就有個問題了，如果1949年的中華民國是另一個國家，不是中國，這代表這個國家從來沒有對日宣戰，也沒跟日本打過仗，那是要簽什麼鬼和約？

沒有承認中華民國是中國代表，那是要簽什麼《中日和約》？日本跟什麼國簽條約？

不要跟我說日本跟台灣國簽約喔，去把原文中日和約仔細看，基本英文能力不用太好，也看得懂。

如果跟日本簽《中日和約》的那個東西不是中國，而且還是1949之後才出現的國家，那1941年以前中國跟日本簽的條約關它屁事？幹嘛在《中日和約》第４條扯到這些？

最後，中華民國是中國流亡政權，1912年建立政權不是建國👉🏻https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?vanity=rotpnetwork&set=a.2763561250403580

—————
以下補充一下《中日和約》⚠️文長可略

中日和約（Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China）
（🔗 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Peace_between_Japan_and_the_Republic_of_China）

先從《舊金山和約》開始談起，第 26 條：”...... Should Japan make a peace settlement or war claims settlement with any State granting that State greater advantages than those provided by the present Treaty, those same advantages shall be extended to the parties to the present Treaty.” 意即：如果日本跟沒簽《舊金山和約》的盟國成員簽約，條件優於《舊金山和約》的話，其他盟國成員全都可以一體適用。

因此，沒簽署到《舊金山和約》的中國（中華民國政權），與日本在1952年4月28日簽署《中日和約》，此約於 1952年8月5日生效。

《中日和約》是《舊金山和約》的子約，子約效力無法超越母約，母約沒把「台澎領土主權」移轉給任何國家，子約也辦不到。換句話說，若條件更優渥，則同盟國成員皆可享受其條件。所以，如果日本真的有辦法依照《中日和約》將台澎領土主權移轉給中國（中華民國政權）的話，那依照《舊金山和約》第 26 條的規定，台澎領土主權現在會變成45個最終批准和約國家共有喔！

中華民國政權作為當時的中國代表，若想透過子約《中日和約》得到台澎領土主權是不可能的，因為《舊金山和約》對台澎處置就是主權歸屬未定。

再來，實際上沒簽約到《舊金山和約》的中國代表ROC，與日本簽訂《中日和約》，當時就是承認接受《舊金山和約》的安排，台澎主權歸屬未定的事實，表示中國代表ROC也同意《開羅宣言》中「臺澎主權歸屬」的部分要依《舊金山和約》處理。

這就表示中英美三國都同意以《舊金山和約》的規定取代《開羅宣言》中關於台澎領土主權的約定，台澎領土主權自然應依《舊金山和約》的規定來認定，也就是處於「未定」的狀態。

以下舉例大家比較有疑慮的部分：
《中日和約》第4條：”It is recognized that all treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before December 9, 1941, between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war.”
有人主張因為第4條之前簽約的馬關條約就失效，正確應該來說是停止這個條約的狀態。但領土主權不會透過，你停止了這個狀態以後就會達到領土主權移轉的效果。國際法不存在割讓條約終止後，自動回復給原本領土主權國的狀態，因為割讓條約是已經完成的事情，條約只剩下法律的形式而已。更何況大清帝國對台澎領土主權的掌控實際上只有西半部而已。

領土主權移轉必須簽訂另一個條約；馬關條約失效回歸到原本的狀態，這是不對的，舉個例子：「A國 跟 B 國打仗，A 國輸，A 國把甲地割讓給 B國；B 國跟 C 國打仗，B 國輸，B 國把甲地再割讓給 C國；後來A 國又跟 B 國打仗，這次A國反敗為勝打贏了。雙方將之前割讓甲地給 B 國的條約廢除。如果廢除割讓領土主權的條約會讓領土主權回歸原位，那甲地領土主權會回歸 A 國嗎？但明明領土在 C 國手上，是要如何回到 A國呢？難道 A 國、B 國或聯合AB國要再去跟 C 國打一場，而且還要打贏才能把甲地搶回來？這樣戰爭永遠打不完了。
所以，依照法律的安定性原則，廢除條約讓領土主權回歸是不可能的。」

《中日和約》第10條：”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 descendants 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); and juridical persons of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all those registered under the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).” 意即：「就本約而言，中華民國國民應認為（英文版：shall be deemed to，即「應視為」）包括依照中華民國在臺灣及澎湖，所已施行或將來可能施行之法律規章、而具有中國國籍之一切臺灣及澎湖居民及前屬臺灣及澎湖之居民及其後裔；中華民國法人應認為包括依照中華民國在臺灣及澎湖所已施行或將來可能施行之法律規章所登記之一切法人。」

對日本而言台澎人本來就不是中華民國國民，但日本在《中日和約》第10條寫台澎人被視為（shall be deemed to）中華民國國籍，特別寫出來是因為原本領土主權擁有的國家，土地上人民也會是國民，但因為中華民國沒有台澎主權，因此特地寫出來。

另外，中華民國政權外交部在 1952 年作成的〈議定中華民國與日本國間和平條約總報告書〉🔗 https://www.facebook.com/794597360633322/posts/1405108306248888/?d=n中，也明白承認中日和約無法解決臺澎主權未定問題：「查金山和約僅規定日本放棄臺灣澎湖而未明定其誰屬，此點自非中日和約所能補救。」由此可知，即使是中華民國政權外交部也知道台澎主權歸屬問題根本無法依《中日和約》來處理。

戰敗國日本針對「日華和約第四條之約定是否使臺澎主權回歸中國」之問題，於1964年2月29日在「第０４６回国会予算委員会第１７号」，由「日本條約局局長-中川融」表示：「日華和平條約第四條，雖然有岡田先生所指出的條款，簡單來說，這條規定雙方承認開戰前日華間所締結的條約均因戰爭結果而歸無效。但是，因為有些條約的涵蓋範圍廣，所以現在會受以前締結的條約影響。也可以說，有些條約的內容會沿用至今。當然這些條約的內容已消失，甚至也有『一次就結束』的條約，諸如台灣割讓等條約，便是『完成割讓台灣』一事即達成目的，之後僅具備形式上的效力。由於這是『已經執行完畢』的條約，就算事後廢棄，亦僅是形式上的廢棄，『已經執行完畢的事項無法因此而回到未執行前的狀態』，此類條約廢棄的效果，在國際法上為非常重要的問題，國際法學者的一致見解亦如上所示，若非如此，則國際間將無法安定；割讓領土後因戰敗而使其全部恢復原狀，之前的割讓條約無效，這是不可能的。」

「內閣總理-池田勇人」也表示： 「我們說得很清楚。我方在對日和約中放棄了（台澎主權）。這不是我們可以置喙的。所以，我們只是依據對日和約的規定，在遵守規定的同時締結了新的日華和平條約。即使是依據日華和平條約，也不能做出違背『依舊金山和約之決定日本已放棄（台澎主權）』的事。即使有做出決定，我們也不是以『中華民國具有對台主權』的想法簽條約，這點條約局局長也多次提到。我們現在也是在這樣的想法下運用日華條約。」

-
最後再提《中日和約》在1972年9月29日日本轉承認PRC政權是中國代表時，這張和約就法律上已實質停止了唷！因為簽訂《中日和約》時有寫上適用對象範圍就是中華民國代表的中國，所以對日本來說台灣人也不用再「被視為」中華民國國籍的人了。

-
以下引用「臺澎國際法法理建國連線」法普：🔗 https://www.facebook.com/rotpnetwork/posts/3749287158497646
在進行法律效力的解釋時，有一個很重要的基本解釋原則叫做「明示其一，排除其他」。也就是說，假設今天有好幾個項目可以寫在法律文件裡，但只有其中部分被提及，此時表示對建立這份法律文件的當事者來說，他們決定排除掉那些沒寫進去的項目。

如果仔細觀察《開羅宣言》、說要實施《開羅宣言》的《波茨坦宣言》，以及《舊金山和約》的內容的話，會發現在《開羅宣言》裡提到的讓朝鮮獨立有出現在《舊金山和約》裡，但在《開羅宣言》裡提到將台澎主權移轉給中華民國卻「沒有」出現在《舊金山和約》裡。那麼，在運用前述的「明示其一，排除其他」的法律解釋基本原則之後，就可以知道，《舊金山和約》全體當事國雖然有在讓朝鮮獨立上達成共識，但對讓台澎領土主權移轉給中華民國並沒有達成共識。要不然為何不像「朝鮮獨立」那樣明白寫出來？

由此可知，《舊金山和約》絕非單純為《波茨坦宣言》的內容背書，如同橡皮圖章的存在。事實上，從美國在 1950年12月27日出具的外交函文可知，美國認為《開羅宣言》、《波茨坦宣言》等戰時宣言應該要受到考量更完全的和平條約的拘束，而不是顛倒過來，讓只有少數國家參與的戰時意向聲明凌駕於各參戰國皆能參與、表示意見的和平條約。

US Aide-mémoire 1950.12.27:
"The Cairo Declaration of 1943 stated the purpose to restore "Manchuria. Formosa and the Pescadores to the Republic of China." That Declaration, like other wartime declarations such as those of Yalta and Potsdam, was in the opinion of the United States Government subject to any final peace settlement where all relevant factors should be considered. The United States cannot accept the view, apparently put forward by the Soviet government, that the views of other Allies not represented at Cairo must be wholly ignored."
意即：「1943 年的開羅宣言提到將「滿洲地區、福爾摩莎及澎湖還給中華民國」。依據美國政府的看法，該份宣言，就和雅爾達及波茲坦等戰時宣言一樣，必須受到將所有相關因素皆納入考量後作成的任何最終和平條約的限制。」
（🔗 臺澎國際法法理建國連線 ）

也可見1954年12月1日關於舊金山和約及台北和約對台澎主權歸屬的處理方式，以及台澎與金馬法律地位的差異，美國國務卿 John Foster Dulles 表示：【嚴】格按法律來說，福爾摩莎及澎湖群島的主權從未確定過。這是因為對日和約僅涉及讓日本放棄對這些島嶼的權利與（主權）權源。但對日和約並未決定其未來的（主權）權源，這在中華民國與日本訂定的和約中也沒有決定。因此，這些島嶼（福爾摩莎與澎湖群島）的法律地位和始終是中國領土的離岸島嶼（金門與馬祖）的法律地位是不同的。

Remarks at News Conference on the Purpose of Treaty with R.O.C. (Dec. 1, 1954), in DEP'T ST. BULL., Dec. 1954, at 896.
“[T]echnical sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores has never been settled. That is because the Japanese peace treaty merely involves a renunciation by Japan of its right and title to these islands. But the future title is not determined by the Japanese peace treaty, nor is it determined by the peace treaty which was concluded between the Republic of China and Japan. Therefore, the juridical status of these islands, Formosa and the Pescadores, is different from the juridical status of the offshore islands [Quemoy and Matsu] which have always been Chinese territory.” 意即：「舊金山和約與台北和約都未決定台澎主權歸屬。台澎法理地位與金馬不同。」

（關鍵字搜尋🔍國際法法理建國，敬請期待明天的問與答）

延伸閱讀❣️
👉🏻台澎人做著夢中夢中夢： https://reurl.cc/8yqAdj
👉🏻法理建國派的目標：https://reurl.cc/ZQynqW
👉🏻［英語繁中字］台灣在國際上不被承認的原因與解決方法：https://youtu.be/lss2OdMhi90
👉🏻聖峰演講影片Youtube ：
https://youtu.be/-a_qHXh_URM
👉🏻聖峰演講實錄Podcast：
https://anchor.fm/rotpnetwork-shin-hong-ng/episodes/2019-03-29-ep8kln
👉🏻Apple podcast：https://reurl.cc/a5qZjQ
👉🏻 《台澎法理建國指南》電子書：
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yFXTxYOtkqrwEyV11w0kQyKujxEZsU8N/view?usp=sharing

Jenna Cody :

Is Taiwan a real China?
No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has been.

This’ll blow your mind too: that it never has been doesn’t matter.

So let’s start with what doesn’t actually matter.

Until the 1600s, Taiwan was indigenous. Indigenous Taiwanese are not Chinese, they’re Austronesian. Then it was a Dutch colony (note: I do not say “it was Dutch”, I say it was a Dutch colony). Then it was taken over by Ming loyalists at the end of the Ming dynasty (the Ming loyalists were breakaways, not a part of the new Qing court. Any overlap in Ming rule and Ming loyalist conquest of Taiwan was so brief as to be inconsequential).

Only then, in the late 1600s, was it taken over by the Chinese (Qing). But here’s the thing, it was more like a colony of the Qing, treated as - to use Emma Teng’s wording in Taiwan’s Imagined Geography - a barrier or barricade keeping the ‘real’ Qing China safe. In fact, the Qing didn’t even want Taiwan at first, the emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization”. Prior to that, and to a great extent at that time, there was no concept on the part of China that Taiwan was Chinese, even though Chinese immigrants began moving to Taiwan under Dutch colonial rule (mostly encouraged by the Dutch, to work as laborers). When the Spanish landed in the north of Taiwan, it was the Dutch, not the Chinese, who kicked them out.

Under Qing colonial rule - and yes, I am choosing my words carefully - China only controlled the Western half of Taiwan. They didn’t even have maps for the eastern half. That’s how uninterested in it they were. I can’t say that the Qing controlled “Taiwan”, they only had power over part of it.

Note that the Qing were Manchu, which at the time of their conquest had not been a part of China: China itself essentially became a Manchu imperial holding, and Taiwan did as well, once they were convinced it was not a “ball of mud” but actually worth taking. Taiwan was not treated the same way as the rest of “Qing China”, and was not administered as a province until (I believe) 1887. So that’s around 200 years of Taiwan being a colony of the Qing.

What happened in the late 19th century to change China’s mind? Japan. A Japanese ship was shipwrecked in eastern Taiwan in the 1870s, and the crew was killed by hostile indigenous people in what is known as the Mudan Incident. A Japanese emissary mission went to China to inquire about what could be done, only to be told that China had no control there and if they went to eastern Taiwan, they did so at their own peril. China had not intended to imply that Taiwan wasn’t theirs, but they did. Japan - and other foreign powers, as France also attempted an invasion - were showing an interest in Taiwan, so China decided to cement its claim, started mapping the entire island, and made it a province.

So, I suppose for a decade or so Taiwan was a part of China. A China that no longer exists.

It remained a province until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after the (first) Sino-Japanese War. Before that could happen, Taiwan declared itself a Republic, although it was essentially a Qing puppet state (though the history here is interesting - correspondence at the time indicates that the leaders of this ‘Republic of Taiwan’ considered themselves Chinese, and the tiger flag hints at this as well. However, the constitution was a very republican document, not something you’d expect to see in Qing-era China.) That lasted for less than a year, when the Japanese took it by force.

This is important for two reasons - the first is that some interpretations of IR theory state that when a colonial holding is released, it should revert to the state it was in before it was taken as a colony. In this case, that would actually be The Republic of Taiwan, not Qing-era China. Secondly, it puts to rest all notions that there was no Taiwan autonomy movement prior to 1947.

In any case, it would be impossible to revert to its previous state, as the government that controlled it - the Qing empire - no longer exists. The current government of China - the PRC - has never controlled it.

After the Japanese colonial era, there is a whole web of treaties and agreements that do not satisfactorily settle the status of Taiwan. None of them actually do so - those which explicitly state that Taiwan is to be given to the Republic of China (such as the Cairo declaration) are non-binding. Those that are binding do not settle the status of Taiwan (neither the treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei definitively say that Taiwan is a part of China, or even which China it is - the Treaty of Taipei sets out what nationality the Taiwanese are to be considered, but that doesn’t determine territorial claims). Treaty-wise, the status of Taiwan is “undetermined”.

Under more modern interpretations, what a state needs to be a state is…lessee…a contiguous territory, a government, a military, a currency…maybe I’m forgetting something, but Taiwan has all of it. For all intents and purposes it is independent already.

In fact, in the time when all of these agreements were made, the Allied powers weren’t as sure as you might have learned about what to do with Taiwan. They weren’t a big fan of Chiang Kai-shek, didn’t want it to go Communist, and discussed an Allied trusteeship (which would have led to independence) or backing local autonomy movements (which did exist). That it became what it did - “the ROC” but not China - was an accident (as Hsiao-ting Lin lays out in Accidental State).

In fact, the KMT knew this, and at the time the foreign minister (George Yeh) stated something to the effect that they were aware they were ‘squatters’ in Taiwan.

Since then, it’s true that the ROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan, however, that hardly matters when considering the future of Taiwan simply because they have no choice. To divest themselves of all such claims (and, presumably, change their name) would be considered by the PRC to be a declaration of formal independence. So that they have not done so is not a sign that they wish to retain the claim, merely that they wish to avoid a war.

It’s also true that most Taiwanese are ethnically “Han” (alongside indigenous and Hakka, although Hakka are, according to many, technically Han…but I don’t think that’s relevant here). But biology is not destiny: what ethnicity someone is shouldn’t determine what government they must be ruled by.

Through all of this, the Taiwanese have evolved their own culture, identity and sense of history. They are diverse in a way unique to Taiwan, having been a part of Austronesian and later Hoklo trade routes through Southeast Asia for millenia. Now, one in five (I’ve heard one in four, actually) Taiwanese children has a foreign parent. The Taiwanese language (which is not Mandarin - that’s a KMT transplant language forced on Taiwanese) is gaining popularity as people discover their history. Visiting Taiwan and China, it is clear where the cultural differences are, not least in terms of civic engagement. This morning, a group of legislators were removed after a weekend-long pro-labor hunger strike in front of the presidential palace. They were not arrested and will not be. Right now, a group of pro-labor protesters is lying down on the tracks at Taipei Main Station to protest the new labor law amendments.

This would never be allowed in China, but Taiwanese take it as a fiercely-guarded basic right.

*

Now, as I said, none of this matters.

What matters is self-determination. If you believe in democracy, you believe that every state (and Taiwan does fit the definition of a state) that wants to be democratic - that already is democratic and wishes to remain that way - has the right to self-determination. In fact, every nation does. You cannot be pro-democracy and also believe that it is acceptable to deprive people of this right, especially if they already have it.

Taiwan is already a democracy. That means it has the right to determine its own future. Period.

Even under the ROC, Taiwan was not allowed to determine its future. The KMT just arrived from China and claimed it. The Taiwanese were never asked if they consented. What do we call it when a foreign government arrives in land they had not previously governed and declares itself the legitimate governing power of that land without the consent of the local people? We call that colonialism.

Under this definition, the ROC can also be said to be a colonial power in Taiwan. They forced Mandarin - previously not a language native to Taiwan - onto the people, taught Chinese history, geography and culture, and insisted that the Taiwanese learn they were Chinese - not Taiwanese (and certainly not Japanese). This was forced on them. It was not chosen. Some, for awhile, swallowed it. Many didn’t. The independence movement only grew, and truly blossomed after democratization - something the Taiwanese fought for and won, not something handed to them by the KMT.

So what matters is what the Taiwanese want, not what the ROC is forced to claim. I cannot stress this enough - if you do not believe Taiwan has the right to this, you do not believe in democracy.

And poll after poll shows it: Taiwanese identify more as Taiwanese than Chinese (those who identify as both primarily identify as Taiwanese, just as I identify as American and Armenian, but primarily as American. Armenian is merely my ethnicity). They overwhelmingly support not unifying with China. The vast majority who support the status quo support one that leads to eventual de jure independence, not unification. The status quo is not - and cannot be - an endgame (if only because China has declared so, but also because it is untenable). Less than 10% want unification. Only a small number (a very small minority) would countenance unification in the future…even if China were to democratize.

The issue isn’t the incompatibility of the systems - it’s that the Taiwanese fundamentally do not see themselves as Chinese.

A change in China’s system won’t change that. It’s not an ethnic nationalism - there is no ethnic argument for Taiwan (or any nation - didn’t we learn in the 20th century what ethnicity-based nation-building leads to? Nothing good). It’s not a jingoistic or xenophobic nationalism - Taiwanese know that to be dangerous. It’s a nationalism based on shared identity, culture, history and civics. The healthiest kind of nationalism there is. Taiwan exists because the Taiwanese identify with it. Period.

There are debates about how long the status quo should go on, and what we should risk to insist on formal recognition. However, the question of whether or not to be Taiwan, not China…

…well, that’s already settled.

The Taiwanese have spoken and they are not Chinese.

Whatever y’all think about that doesn’t matter. That’s what they want, and if you believe in self-determination you will respect it.

If you don’t, good luck with your authoritarian nonsense, but Taiwan wants nothing to do with it.

(✪‿✪)ノ排程中晝發文 #國際法法理建國與 Q&A

Q52：臺獨撚真是無賴，明明《中日和約》已寫明《馬關條約》已因日本戰敗而失效，故此臺灣的主權即時歸還給清國的繼承國中華民國。臺獨撚偏偏死撐說沒有另外立約明言臺灣的主權由日本轉讓予中華民國。那你被迫立約讓出房子抵債，日後法院宣判契約無效，你也不能收回房子，因為要和對方再立約把擁有權轉回給你。但不平等條約已經失效了，對方已不再合法擁有那房子，憑甚麼還要我再跟他簽約明言把房子轉讓給我？這種情況下，條約失效，主權歸還原擁有國或其合法繼承國是最正確的做法。

A52:
無賴的是中華民國超譯王的你：）
你分不清楚台獨跟法理建國派的差別，我覺得很遺憾，你先看這篇吧～Q&A29獨立是什麼？建國獨立跟獨立建國不一樣嗎？：https://reurl.cc/Q7Wlpp
-
《中日和約》是《舊金山和約》第26條說的，如果沒跟日本簽到《舊金山和約》的國家，可與其簽子約，但條件不得逾越母約，若條件更優渥，則同盟國成員皆可享受其條件。

換句話說，中華民國政權作為當時的中國代表，若想透過子約《中日和約》得到台澎領土主權是不可能的。因為《舊金山和約》對台澎處置就是主權歸屬未定。

來看看你說的《中日和約》第4條：”It is recognized that all treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before December 9, 1941, between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war.”
馬關條約失效，正確應該來說是停止這個條約的狀態。但領土主權不會透過，你停止了這個狀態以後就會達到領土主權移轉的效果。
國際法不存在割讓條約終止後，恢復給原本領土主權國的狀態。

更何況大清帝國對台澎領土主權的掌控實際上只有西半部而已，這題說過了～Q&A25台灣的地理範圍有哪些？哪個是領土主權未定？：https://reurl.cc/V3R5gA

領土主權移轉必須簽訂另一個條約；馬關條約失效回歸到原本的狀態，這是不對的，Q&A6舉過的例子，自己去看～Q&A6馬關條約失效台澎會回歸給大清帝國嗎？二戰例子很多國家不遵守國際法不是嗎？https://reurl.cc/ragRGO
-
我們來看看戰敗國日本怎麼說～
針對「日華和約第四條之約定是否使臺澎主權回歸中國」之問題，1964.02.29 #日本條約局局長 中川融表示：「日華和平條約第四條，雖然有岡田先生所指出的條款，簡單來說，這條規定雙方承認開戰前日華間所締結的條約均因戰爭結果而歸無效。但是，因為有些條約的涵蓋範圍廣，所以現在會受以前締結的條約影響。也可以說，有些條約的內容會沿用至今。當然這些條約的內容已消失，甚至也有一次就結束的條約。諸如台灣割讓等條約，便是完成割讓台灣一事即達成目的，之後僅具備形式上的效力。由於這是已經執行完畢的條約，就算事後廢棄，亦僅是形式上的廢棄，已經執行完畢的事項無法因此而回到未執行前的狀態。此類條約廢棄的效果，在國際法上為非常重要的問題，國際法學者的一致見解亦如上所示，若非如此，則國際間將無法安定。割讓領土後因戰敗而使其全部恢復原狀，之前的割讓條約無效，這是不可能的。」

1964.02.29答覆是否能依據《中日和約》之內容認定台澎主權歸屬？
#內閣總理 池田勇人 表示： 「我們說得很清楚。我方在對日和約中放棄了（台澎主權）。這不是我們可以置喙的。所以，我們只是依據對日和約的規定，在遵守規定的同時締結了新的日華和平條約。即使是依據日華和平條約，也不能做出違背『依舊金山和約之決定日本已放棄（台澎主權）』的事。即使有做出決定，我們也不是以『中華民國具有對台主權』的想法簽條約，這點條約局局長也多次提到。我們現在也是在這樣的想法下運用日華條約。」-第０４６回国会予算委員会第１７号

另外，中華民國政權外交部在 1952 年作成的〈#議定中華民國與日本國間和平條約總報告書〉中，也明白承認中日和約無法解決臺澎主權未定問題：「查金山和約僅規定日本放棄臺灣澎湖而未明定其誰屬，此點自非中日和約所能補救」。如果真如部份人所說，台澎主權因為《馬關條約》依據《中日和約》第四條的規定廢止而回歸中華民國，不就表示台澎主權歸屬問題能依《中日和約》解決？那中華民國政權外交部又怎麼會表示「此點自非中日和約所能補救」呢？

由此可知，即使是中華民國政權外交部也知道台澎主權歸屬問題根本無法依《中日和約》來處理。

（Q&A42:中華民國可以透過中日和約取得台澎領土主權嗎？https://reurl.cc/8yNaE7）

最後再提，《中日和約》在日本1972.9.29轉承認PRC是中國代表時，這張和約就法律上已實質停止了唷！因為簽訂《中日和約》時有寫上適用對象範圍就是中華民國代表的中國。所以對日本來說台灣人也不用再「被視為」中華民國國籍的人了。
你也不用再拿《中日和約》來替中華民國政權背書。

如果你思考出來最正確的做法是把中華民國課本當作信仰，那你真的需要多多關注我的問與答唷！

（關鍵字搜尋🔍國際法法理建國，敬請期待明天的問與答）

The CCP’s national security law in Hong Kong extends beyond the tragic fate of over 7.5 million people. It shows the entire world that the Chinese Communist Regime would forsake its own economy, and rather violate international treaties, than grant Hong Kong its freedom.

In this latest episode, we use Norse mythology’s “Ragnarök” as an analogy for the ultimate showdown between the gods of good and evil, that leads to the apocalypse. However, after Ragnarök, the earth is restored and established anew.

Hong Kong is a war-zone between the evil CCP oppressors and the kind, brave civilian protestors. If Hong Kong falls, what will happen to it and the rest of the world? How is freedom of Hong Kong related to us— all of us? Our host Ben Hedges walks us through the protests during 2019-2020 and gives an in-depth analysis of how Hong Kong parallels Ragnarök.

在中共不顧全球輿論，強行立法下，港版國安法於六月底正式通過。中共為何要在香港強行立法？這對香港乃至全球有何影響？在「老外看香港」最新專題裡，我們採訪了香港、美國、加拿大、英國多位政要和專家，主持人郝毅博並以北歐神話「諸神黃昏」（Ragnarök）做比喻，為大家帶來完整分析，敬請收看！

#香港國安法 #一國兩制 #HongKongProtest

?訂閱老外節目：https://bit.ly/SubscribeLaowai
?捐助我們： http://bit.ly/ToLaoWai

-
?像你爸媽一樣追蹤老外臉書：
✅https://www.facebook.com/benhedgesntd
✅https://www.facebook.com/laowaintd
-
Credits:
Shutterstock Images: https://shutr.bz/2u8Zdp8
Music: Audioblocks.com, epidemicsound.com
Stock Video: Videoblocks.com

©️ 版權所有