美國法律學者保羅的證詞

美國有關同盟佔領台灣島及實施軍政之美軍事聯繫會議1651訓令﹕

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...


同盟軍政有關佔領台灣島計劃 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...


美國軍政佔領台灣島與澎湖列島有所不同 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...


軍政期間不得更改土地歸屬 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...


台灣島島民屬日本國籍 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am... 


 台灣島屬日本領土 被佔領 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...


 they therefore propose that the powers which are still legally at war with Japan should immediately concern themselves withthe threatened turmoil in this part of the Japanese Empire which is still awaiting final disposition at a peace settlement; under Article 107

 of the United Nations Charter,88 this question is reserved for action by the powers which are at war with Japan.


http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...


http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...


-1 The United States, as a principal victor of the war in the Pacific and as the sole occupying power of Japan has great responsibility in the disposition of Formosa;


http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...


they therefore propose that the powers which are still legally at war with Japan should immediately concern themselves with the threatened turmoil in this part of the Japanese Empire which is still awaiting final disposition at a peace settlement; under Article 107

 of the United Nations Charter,88 this question is reserved for action

 by the powers which are at war with Japan.美國建議戰勝國家開國際會議,探討日本帝國尚未於和約得到最終處理處份領土,該議題屬聯合國憲章107條所保留,為聯合國以外之戰勝國,得以片面決議事項。


http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...


 In this connection, you will of course recall that the U.S. has a juridical position in that these islands have never been ceded by Japan to China. Japan has renounced its own right and title to the islands, but their future status was deliberately left undetermined,

and the U.S. as a principal victor over Japan has an interest in their ultimate future. 美國尚擁有改該領土之相關權利,因美屬唯一日本戰勝者,乃日本唯有棄權主張,因此美具有法理權利,因日本尚未轉移該群島自日本到中國。


http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...

In this connection it may be noted that Japan never ceded sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores to China. Japan re-nounced its own sovereignty but left the future title undefined. Thus the United States as principal victor of Japan has an unsatis-

fied interest in these former Japanese islands.日本從未轉移該群島(台灣島)給中國。日本棄權了自己主張主權,但把未來歸屬未定。因此,美身為日本戰勝者,有該領土尚未處理完畢之利益在。


被同盟佔領(同盟最高指揮權在美國,參照﹕JAPANESE GOVERNMENT v. COMMERCIAL CAS. INS. CO.101 F.Supp. 243 (1951) http://www.leagle.com/decision/1951344101FSupp243_1284 

“Since the cessation of actual hostilities in September, 1945, between 

the Allied Powers and the Japanese, Japan has been occupied by the Allied 

Powers and the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers has had complete 

supervision and direction of the Japanese Government. The United States 

was one of the Allied Powers participating in the appointment of the Supreme 

Commander and agreeing to his authority.

We take judicial notice also that the armed forces of the United States 

did not enter Japan as conquerors to levy and exact tribute or to ravish 

and lay waste the homeland of a defeated people. It has been declared policy 

of the United States to rehabilitate and re-establish Japan as one of the 

nations of the world to the end that it should ultimately take its place 

among the family of democratic nations, where the natural rights and dignity 

of man are protected and preserved. Japan was and has continued to be occupied,

 not for purposes of subjugation, annexation or destruction. The occupation 

has been, essentially, provisional and temporary; Japan has continued as 

a sovereign with its rights and powers of sovereignty limited only by the 

directives of the Supreme Commander. For the purposes of this motion, we accept the facts pertaining to the contract  in suit and to this litigation, set forth in the complaint as well as in  the letter of the Department of State, dated October 4, 1951, (copy of which 

is annexed hereto, 101 F.Supp. 250).”


“DEPARTMENT OF STATE WASHINGTON”In reply refer to L/FE October 4, 1951

My dear Mr. Schuster:

Reference is made to your letter of September 12, 1951 relating to the case 

entitled "The Japanese Government, plaintiff, against Commercial Casualty 

Insurance Company and Andrew G. W. Frederick, doing business as Frederick 

Mahogany Company, defendants". You request certification for presentation 

to the Court of certain facts.

In reply, you are informed that at the time of the commencement of this action, the Japanese Government  was a sovereign government recognized as such by the Government of the United  States;

that the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) was appointed, authorized 

and directed by the Allied Powers concerned with the occupation of Japan 

to direct and control the acts and conduct of the Japanese Government and 

of Japanese nationals; that the United States Government was one of the Allied Powers and participated  in the appointment of, direction and authorization to SCAP as above set 

forth; that all hostilities between the Government of Japan and the Allied Powers 

including the Government of the United States ceased in September, 1945.”)


參照http://redbook.gao.gov/8/fl0038381.php (係包括美麗島及日本對華貿易由

美負責  MAJOR L. A. LEGER, F.D., U.S. ARMY:

THERE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY INDORSEMENT OF MARCH 22, 1949, YOUR REQUEST OF  FEBRUARY 7, 1949, FOR DECISION AS TO WHETHER PAYMENT IS AUTHORIZED ON A  VOUCHER SUBMITTED THEREWITH IN FAVOR OF BOEKI CHO (BOARD OF TRADE, JAPANESE  GOVERNMENT). THE SAID VOUCHER IS STATED IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,880,082.88, 

CHARGEABLE TO THE APPROPRIATION "GOVERNMENT AND RELIEF IN OCCUPIED AREAS,  WAR DEPARTMENT, 1947."  


美國陸軍邁向美政府詢問被佔領區域是否包含台灣群島

“ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION NOW FURNISHED IT APPEARS THAT THE ORIGINAL  FIRM OFFER FOR SOYA BEANS WAS MADE IN THE FORM OF A LETTER FROM ESS/FT DIVISION, SCAP, DATED MARCH 7, 1947, TO MR. E. A. BAYNE, SPECIAL ADVISER TO THE CHINESE  GOVERNMENT, WHICH STATED:


"REFERENCE IS MADE TO OUR CONVERSATIONS CONCERNING THE SHIPMENT OF SUGAR  AND SOYA BEANS FROM FORMOSA AND CHINA TO JAPAN. ”)


美國係存在之獨立主權國家。中華民國並不獨立於美國外交政策允許以外之存在。


美國訓令同盟總司令發佈一般一號,這是將領的軍政訓令,該訓令命令同盟之中國戰區總司令官(個人),派人到日本帝國台灣島。當時中國戰區總司令之再命令,完全引用屬「一般命令訓令語言」(本人蔣委員長受同盟總司令命令,任命以下司令由美國帶去日本台灣島,接受投降及人民財產安全、軍政設施云云)。。。

參照蔣委員長說「他不是依據中華民國任何身份來台灣島,而是國際人格,是屬同盟中國戰區總司令」,參照﹕

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...


Generalissimo recalled that he took over Formosa as Allied Commander of Chinese theater pending peace -treaty while General MacArthur took over Japan and other areas ,as SCAP; now Chinese government was here, but he hoped despite this fact Struble would not feel he coming to foreign territory in visiting Formosa. 蔣委員長聲稱其來美麗島,係基於同盟中國戰區總司令身份,以便等待和約簽屬,如同美將領佔領了日本其他地區,因屬同盟中國戰區總司令,雖然中國政府現在流亡到台灣島無誤,總司令希望美國海軍將領,不會覺得他來了外國領土,當他來台灣島之時。


軍隊裡面長官於部下關係,並非適用一般和約或民法所稱代理,而是最高者依據戰爭法等,負擔相關各別長官指揮責任(比如美可被控告違反228監督指揮義務,參照﹕

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/grl10858-duarte-v-dade.html, 

“In a recent case, the Supreme Court of the United States, in referring  to the military government of Porto Rico, said that the limitations upon  the powers of the military governor must be looked for in the instructions  given to the governor by his superiors, which were founded on the ‥general  rules of international law, and from fundamental principles known wherever  the American flag flies.〃 (Ochoa vs. Hernandez y Morales, 230 U.S., 139,  57 L. ed., 1427.) The Hague Conference Code of 1899 contains much that robs  martial law and military government of their terrors. Assuming that the 

President of the United States is bound by this international treaty, 。。。

.”軍政領導者,必須遵守國際法,美國國旗所飄流區域之基本國家原則,長官訓令基於國際法等)


不管您從小被錯誤法學教育洗腦,歷史課程洗腦,因國旗洗腦,因投票洗腦,因各別黨主張洗腦。。。事實上根本不存在一個叫做中華民國,在美國官方法理以外之獨立主權國家。。。儘管從前美國曾經予以「承認」,只是該前中華民國係基於流亡政府可以得到承認而已,並不是因為美國曾經承認中華民國屬台灣島之單獨,片面,獨立治理者。。。


美國是同盟間最高指揮權者,參照

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...


   The British Prime Jlinister (Attlee) to PresideWt Trumaqn No.6                                  [LONDON,] August 18, 1945.

  Thank you for your personal and Top Secret telegram number 4 21 containing general order number one 22 to General of the Army Mac-Arthur, which you have approved with the understanding that it is subject to change both by further instructions issued through The Joint Chi efs of Staff and in matters of detail by The Supreme Com-mander for the Allied Forces in the light of the operational situation as known by him.


For text of General Order No. 1, see directive by President Truman to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (MacArthur), August 15, p. 530.


http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&am...


Immediate contact will be made with the indicated commanders, or their desig-nated representatives, subject to any changes in detail prescribed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, and their instructions will be completely and immediately carried out.

  (a) The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China, (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China North of 16 degrees North latitude, shall surren-der to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.


(台灣不是投降給中華民國,不是投降給單獨國際人格者,而是投降給蔣委員長之代表,並受同盟總司令命令及他們(包括同盟總司令)訓令要充份實施)


蔣委員長聲稱係國際人格者,確同盟中國戰區總司令 http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...


中華民國要求日本人投降於同盟戰區總司令(as Allied

Commander-in-Chief in that area,) (http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&am...)﹕ Japanese forces in the theater of Generalissimo  Chiang Kai-shek's command shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiangy Kai-shek, as Allied Commander-in-Chief in that area, or to his designated representatives.

Instructions in that sense have been given to General MacArthur, the Allied Supreme Commander, and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek has been informed.

中國總理周恩來告知美國白宮國安顧問,聲稱:「提醒美國當局189558日,大清大皇帝已將台灣、台灣周邊群島、澎湖,永遠割讓給大日本帝國天皇,直到今日沒有任何改變。」

The difference about Taiwan is that because of China's defeat in 1894, China was forced to cede Taiwan to Japan.

 http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v17/d143

 PM Chou: The question of the UN I will discuss at some point later. Our central question of concern is Taiwan. The question of Taiwan is a question that was already solved after the Second World War, but then became a question outstanding.

The difference about Taiwan is that because of China's defeat in 1894, China was forced to cede Taiwan to Japan. That is similar to Sakhalin Island that was conceded to Japan after the war of 1905. And it was also like the question after the Prussian War of 1870 when Alsace-Lorraine was conceded to Germany. The First World War was concluded in 1918, and the Germans lost, and Alsace-Lorraine was restored to France,


林志昇空美案的重要論點

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_06-cv-01825/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_06-cv-01825-0.pdf

Plaintiffs have essentially been persons without a state for almost 60 years.

The last completely clear statement of authority over Taiwan came from General MacArthur in 1945. One can understand and sympathize with Plaintiffs desire to regularize their position in the world.

That Plaintiffs remain in an international limbo is not, however, because they have been ignored by the United States or the rest of the world.

林志昇控美案上訴法院之重要結論﹕中華民國在台灣是屬於流亡政府 http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1057396.html

 In 1949, China's civil war-a battle between Chinese nationalists and communists-ended; ?mainland China fell to the communists and became the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.), forcing Chiang Kai-shek to flee to Taiwan and re-establish the Republic of China (R.O.C.) in exile. ?Id.

 

二、美日通商條約附屬文12~14條,允許日本國會恢復台灣島島民享有其潛在之全面日本國籍,而該立法行政等行為,不會導致日本必須比照辦理其他外國人同等之最惠國待遇。

沒有任何日本學者主張二元國體概念,天皇係國體完整呈現,包括全部主權治理,係自日本國體,天皇委任內閣等實施施政權。目前日本憲法寫著天皇與百姓共享("with")主權。

所有權人於領土案例中,屬政府之權利,非一般百姓,況且,少許部份百姓可代為提出訴訟,有關薪水所有權分享,不相干領土主權,因此,案例無適用之處,無說服力。

領,不是依據托管方式,係軍事暴力之實施(法理所稱paramount force),因此,才有類似托管之義務,因非屬真實主權者,因此,更需要如同善意托管管理員辦事,雖然主權者依據英美概念,屬應善意托管公共利益事項。

佔領軍不是沒有義務確立領土歸屬事項之地主身份等經濟利益開發事項,參照

http://philippinelaw.info/jurisprudence/grl10858-duarte-v-dade.html,

佔領軍需要尊重在地上傳統領域(參照 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/212/ 449/ http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1907/mar1907/gr_2869_1907.html)

日本備忘錄給美國務院http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS193141v02.p0344&id=FRUS.FRUS193141v02&isize=M&q1=japan&q2=sinnan&q3=1939

  1939年日本宣佈已合併(incorporate),非宣稱主張claim主權而已。。。

不見得同盟群體同意認知日本已取的台灣主權,因此要求棄權,因quitclaim為政治表演不是沒有(如台北條約並未轉移主權自日本,日本當時也無權片面戰役,如http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS1951v06p1&entity=FRUS.FRUS1951v06p1.p1367&q1=japan&q2=terrs&q3=formosa

word "terrs" shld not be employed in way to imply Formosa is for

purposes of Treaty already legal Dept China. Such action wld make

difficult any possible future UN action; also it is not believed to be

matter to be determined only by bilat Sino-Jap arrangement.5

 ACHESON“美國務卿,台北條約所稱領土不得包含台灣島為已轉移中華民國之所稱領土,因尚屬非中國法理領域,此外日本與中華民國間本無權依據雙邊協定處份台灣島)

 


一、美認知到,對於日本北方四島的現狀概念,也積極鼓勵日本國內愛國積極分子訴求美國歸還台灣島於日本天皇, 畢竟台灣島於舊金山和約內是屬於尚未轉移的領域無誤。http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS195557v23p1&entity=FRUS.FRUS195557v23p1.p0094&q1=kurile&q2=formosa&q3=encourage any United States action supporting Japan's claim to the Kuriles might appear to reflect on our position under the San Francisco Treaty in the Ryukyus and might affect the status of Formosa, which Japan also renounced under the treaty; encouragement of Japanese irreden- tism in the north might also encourage it in the south;

二、中國共產黨南京外事辦公室主任要求美大使館公開台灣島未定論述﹗

原來台灣未定論述,中共周恩來是非常清楚之國際法事實﹗

and the People’s Republic of China authorities asked the US to publicly declare that the islands of Formosa and the Pescadores were not yet legally Chinese territories:  http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&entity=FRUS.FRUS1949v09.p0361&id=FRUS.FRUS1949v09&isize=M&q1=formosa&q2=restore&q3=plebiscite  

Fugh drew inference from Huang's subsequent remarks that latter

hoped that I could be persuaded to recommend to Department that

public statement be made about legal aspects of island and thus dis-

courage Generalissimo from establishing base there. I do not recall any

such implication in our conversation and find suggestion paradoxical

coming from Commies.“


三、日本總理1961年,於美國白宮記者會聲稱:「台灣島最終歸屬尚屬未定,敬請美國召開同盟間戰勝者會議,決議台灣島最終歸屬處份等事項。」

 

Prime Minister of Japan request in 1961 for international conference to determine ultimate final future status of Formosa: The Prime Minister suggested that the Republic of China must somehow be brought to view this matter in proper perspective. He recalled that the legal status of the island of Formosa was not determined at the San Francisco Peace Conference, at which Japan merely renounced her sovereignty. He repeated a suggestion he had made to Ambassador Stevenson, that a conference of those nations which attended the San Francisco Conference be called to determine the legal status of Formosa.

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v22/d337

美國大使詢問:「美國佔領日本島嶼,結束佔領時,台灣島民應該由何方簽發旅行文件給島民﹖」

http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=turn&id=FRUS.FRUS195254v14p2&entity=FRUS.FRUS195254v14p2.p0169&q1=ryukyus&q2=irredentist

Ambassador Sebald: 3 As matters stand now, the Japanese have

residual sovereignty over the Nansei Islands. There are many unre-

solved questions as to what this means. For example, who issues

travel documents, etc?

四、中國總理周恩來聲稱:「要求美總統承諾結束佔領台灣島時,不會允許日本光復失地,不允許台灣獨立運動由美推動而發展,也希望美國阻止台灣日本共榮邦聯產生﹗並希望美不再公開台灣地位未定﹗」

The place he is sitting in now, the status of that island, remains undetermined. From this point of view it can be said his government is hanging in mid-air.”

“What I ask now is that you affirm that you don't want Japanese armed forces to go into Taiwan and this must be affirmed only while your armed forces are in Taiwan.”

 

http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v17/d143




檢視次數: 90

This is a website for the people of Formosa and the Pescadores by the people of Taiwan Civil Government organizations.

Links

台灣民政府

  1. 台灣民政府官網
  2. 台灣民政府舊官網
  3. 台灣民政府組織建構圖
  4. 台灣公民權利法案
  5.  Facebook (臉書)
  6.  Twitter (推特) -
  7.  YouTube (優兔;你的電視)
  8.  Google+ (G+ 專頁)
  9.  Plurk (噗浪)
  10.  Tumblr
  11.  Pinterest

活動

最新動態

© 2017   Created by admin.   管理小組

成員徽章  |  報告問題  |  服務條款