(✪‿✪)ノ排程中晝發文 #國際法法理建國 Q&A

Q193 :負責戰後託管的機構，不是聯合國託管理事會麼? 其當然有權依聯合國憲章安排進程。舊金山和約我沒記錯是授權當事國與日本另訂條款，提到移交聯合國託管機制的也就是西南群島和南方各島，而台灣也從未於法理上與中華民國形成託管關係，還是你指「代管」是與託管無關的另一個概念?

A193:

台澎是軍事佔領，跟聯合國託管制度無關。

《舊金山和約》條文網路上查得到，你可以逐條看看：https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco

你提到的在這：

Chapter II. Territory
Article2

(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of April 2, 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.

日本政府放棄國際聯盟委任統治相關的一切權利、權利名義與要求，同時接受聯合國安全理事會於1947年4月2日所採取有關日本前述太平洋島嶼委任統治地之託管統治安排。

Article 3
Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29° north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.

日本政府同意美國對北緯29度以南之西南群島（含琉球群島與大東群島）、孀婦岩南方之南方各島（含小笠原群島、西之與火山群島），和沖之鳥島以及南鳥島等地送交聯合國之託管統治制度提議。在此提案獲得通過之前，美國對上述地區、所屬居民與所屬海域得擁有實施行政、立法、司法之權利。

-

不過也藉這機會跟大家說明：

1.中華民國政權是依照盟軍《一般命令第一號》中的安排，為盟軍全體成員到台澎接受日軍投降，並在台澎戰後最終處置確定前，以盟軍「代」理人身分為盟軍全體成員實施佔領及「管」理。
盟佔授權依據《一般命令第一號》是 1945.9.2 發佈，聯合國是在 1945.10.24 成立。因此，中華民國政權依據《一般命令第一號》為盟軍實施的佔領代管當然與聯合國託管制度無關。

2.《舊金山和約》中明白提到託管的，是第三條。其內容為日本同意該條所列領土交付聯合國託管制度託管，並以美國為託管國。在依聯合國託管制度託管完成託管前，由美國行使行政立法司法三權（施政權，也可說是治權的內容）。然而，美國並未使相關地區成為聯合國託管地，而是在治理一段時間之後，將其施政權交還給日本。

3.日本在《舊金山和約》第２條，放棄她對在第一次世界大戰後受國際聯盟託付的「委任統治地」所具有的一切權利、權利名義及請求，並「接受」聯合國安全理事會於 1947 年 4 月 2 日以第 21 號決議對該地區所做的安排。這些地方並不是因為《舊金山和約》而成為聯合國託管地，而是早在 1947 年 7 月 18 日就已依據安理會前述決議成為聯合國託管地，並由美國擔任託管國。

-
#延伸閱讀
👉🏻Q&A18台澎為什麼不是聯合國託管地？：https://www.facebook.com/258660130833607/posts/4060458890653693/?d=n

台澎是在《舊金山和約》Chapter II. Territory
Article2

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

日本放棄對台澎所具有的權利名義（title），相關的一切權利（right），及一切的主張請求（claim）。

-
👉🏻 同盟國是什麼？同盟國與ROC政權之間的關係？ https://wp.me/pd1HGm-kX

👉🏻這篇有提到「代管」是法理建國派論述時的簡稱：
內部自決權 vs 外部自決權、民族自決權 vs 住民自決權、自決權的行使 https://wp.me/pd1HGm-5S

因為中華民國政權代表盟軍來台受降，停戰接著就是進行軍事占領，直到簽署和平條約，能有最終處置。 因為是盟軍全體成員授權之下作為同盟國的代理人，簡稱代管，代理他人進行管理的意思。只是我們法理建國派每次要解釋這一段就很複雜。還有一個原因就是我們並不想讓人誤以為與聯合國「託管」有關！
「#終止代管自決建國」的口號8個字解壓縮後就是 《台澎法理建國指南》的所有內容。

「#終止代管自決建國」所代表的就是：終止在二戰盟軍授權中華民國政權代表全體盟軍來台受降並且進行佔領管理的盟佔狀態，由原日籍台澎住民及其後代依國際法法理程序去日本殖民統治來行使住民自決權，在台澎領土上建立自己的主權獨立的國家。

（關鍵字搜尋🔍國際法法理建國，敬請期待明天的問與答）

希望大家可以看的資訊❣️

🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻［英語繁中字］為什麼台灣在國際上無法加入WHO？原因與解決方法：https://youtu.be/lss2OdMhi90
👉🏻部落格 https://journeyshin.wordpress.com
👉🏻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
👉🏻《台澎主權的未來請交給台澎人民決定》漫畫：
http://www.rotpnetwork.tw/TPSovDBYTP.php?LAN=TW

(✪‿✪)ノ排程中晝發文 #國際法法理建國 Q&A
Q107：所以尼應該去質問尼口中最痛恨的中華民國為什麼還在這裡，不是90天就該滾了嗎？其次，尼更應問問尼自己為什麼一直叫支持者參與這個非法在台七十五年的外來政權所辦的選舉及公投？這粉奇怪不系嗎？美國有把琉球人當成美國人嗎？美國有向琉球人徴兵，徴稅嗎？美國有屠殺琉球人嗎？

A107:

《舊金山和約》第 6 條　【佔領結束】
(a).自本條約生效之後，所有盟國佔領軍應儘速自日本撤出，此項撤軍不得晚於本條約生效後 90 日。若日本與盟國締結有關外國軍隊駐紮或保有於日本領土之雙邊或多邊協定者，不受本條規定所限。

這條只有提到對日本（這指和約生效後的日本，範圍不包括日本依和約放棄的領土）的佔領在和約生效後 90 天內必須結束。
➡️不包括日本依約放棄的台澎領土哦～
台澎領土，日本在第2條完全放棄了，所以不是這第6條說的對日佔領離開日本領土～～～～

要講美國離開日本領地，而中華民國沒有離開，這就是沒有認真看懂《舊金山和約》。

揭露一下聖峰打臉台灣民政府主張日屬美佔的法律意見書：
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g6xGs7JUi3WwTjTlv7EPSGPXl2vg6irV/view?usp=sharing

「韓國、福爾摩沙、千島群島、庫頁島、國際聯盟託管地、南極、南沙群島與西沙群島」和「琉球群島及小笠原群島」在舊金山和約中的差別有二:
1. 日本在和約中明文放棄對前者的權利、權利名義與請求權，但沒有對後者這麼做。
2. 日本在和約中明文同意將後者交付美國託管 (trusteeship)， 但對前者沒有。

換句話說，只有在《舊金山和約》中日本同意交付託管的島嶼才會被承認日本具有終極主權。而在舊金山和約中，日本同意交付託管 的只有第 3 條所提到的領土。對於第 2 條的領土日本則是以最徹底的拋棄模式拋棄領土主權。由於台灣是列在第 2 條並非第 3 條，所以，日本對台灣並沒有剩餘主權。

——

當你要談代管機構在治理時的手段，我們就來談盟佔其它成員怎麼做： https://reurl.cc/pmrgae

如果你要講那為什麼其他盟佔成員沒有跟中華民國一樣還賴在原地。這就要各別討論《舊金山和約》的處置，還必須探討這個領土原本的主權歸屬。

台澎小堅果🌰EP7直播說過了：
https://www.facebook.com/100047156705396/posts/275451574036731/

合法統治不代表不會殖民，殖民是手段，這是兩件事情。
外來政權用不用殖民手段是兩件事情，即使是有統治正當性跟是不是殖民是兩回事哦！
也有一種情況是有合法統治治理也有領土主權的國家，在國家內部殖民所代表的意義是對國家領土內部人民實施差別待遇，使其特定住民在政治上成二等公民。

最後治理機構要做什麼手段，這個是治理機構自行決定，不代表他沒做錯事。
舉例，你合法考到駕照，擁有合法開車上路的權利，不代表你違規就合法欸，你違規除非被吊銷駕照，不然你仍然可以開車上路，但你該繳的罰單還是要繳；就像經過公司董事會指定的總經理監守自盜。董事會指定他當總經理沒問題，這個人也能當總經理，但監守自盜則是犯法行為。

❣️總結：

只要台澎戰後最終處置沒有確定，中華民國政權為全體盟軍成員實施的佔領代管就可以繼續進行。代管什麼時候終止，就看台澎人何時覺醒行使自決權建國。

這題提問的水準就像在問經過董事會同意任命的總經理可不可以虧空公款一樣？（攤手）
具有法律上權限不表示做的事情就一切合法。什麼事情能做什麼事情不能做，取決於國際法上對佔領行為的規定。徵兵不行（但若徵兵台澎人只保護台澎還說得過去，但去保護中國領土金馬就不行。）徵稅可以，辦選舉可以，屠殺當然不行。可以做的不談，不可以做的，只要台澎還被中華民國政權治理，就不可能真正追究責任。

其餘補充Q&A4既然中華民國不是台澎合法政府那其法律都是非法嗎？https://reurl.cc/AgkOeQ

👉🏻中華民國政權要處理它盟佔期間的不符合國際法法理的事情，就是建國後來訴諸國際法院。

這篇也說過跨國大屠殺事件後續怎麼處理：
https://www.facebook.com/258660130833607/posts/4136986239667624/

延伸閱讀：
國際法的形成與運作 https://www.facebook.com/100047156705396/posts/271260054455883/

（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
👉🏻 《台澎主權的未來請交給台澎人民決定》漫畫
http://www.rotpnetwork.tw/TPSovDBYTP.php?LAN=TW

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.