台湾の法的地位未定新論
—中国は台湾領有の法的資格を有せず—
国際歴史論戦研究所上席研究員 河原昌一郎
第二次大戦後日本は台湾及び澎湖島の領有権は放棄しましたが、その帰属先告げていませんので、現在でも領有権の所在が確定しておらず、所在を確定するためには改めて国際会議開催等の何らかの手続きが必要です。
１９４３年１１月２７日のカイロ宣言では、「満洲、台湾及び澎湖諸島のように日本国が清国人から盗取したすべての地域を中華民国に返還する」とあり、ポツダム宣言では「カイロ宣言の条項は履行さるべきである」と規定されています。しかし、国際法上の権利の移転は、その条約に政府代表者が署名したうえで、議会が批准しなければ効果は生じません。ポツダム宣言の受諾はあくまでも同宣言の内容の履行義務を負ったということであって、領有権移転の法的効果が生じたということではありません。
もし移転が法的に行われていたなら、サンフランシスコ条約の第２条ｂ項の規定は意味がないことになります。
２条b項では、日本による台湾及び澎湖島の領有権の放棄を規定していますが、放棄された地は無主地となります。領有権を放棄された無主地について国際法上認められている法理が先占の法理です。無主地は、他の国家に先んじて支配を及ぼすことによって自国の領土とすることができるわけです。
台湾及び澎湖諸島が無主地になった時この地を占有していたのは中華民国（台湾政府）です。ただし、中華人民共和国（中国政府）がこの地の領有を主張していますので、平穏に台湾政府が「支配を及ぼす」状況にあったとはいいがたいので、台湾政府がこの地を領有したとするには疑義があるのです。
一方で、中国政府は、この地に「支配を及ぼす」前提となる占有すら行っていません。先占の法理からすれば中国政府には台湾を領有する法的資格は全くないものと言わざるを得ないのです。
さらなる議論については本文をお読みください。
・日本語原文： http://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Legal.pdf
・英訳文： http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Legale.pdf
令和４年１０月１３日 「史実を世界に発信する会」 会長 茂木弘道
＜回覧大歓迎＞
A New View on the “Legal Status of Taiwan is Undetermined” Argument
– China Does Not Have a Legal Right of Possession of Taiwan –
Kawahara Shoichi
Senior Researcher, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories
After World War II, Japan renounced its possession of Taiwan and Pescadores Islands but only renounced its right of possession and did not specify territorial jurisdiction. Even now, determination of who holds the right of possession of Taiwan and Pescadores Island is pending, which necessitates certain procedures, such as holding an international conference to determine who bears the right of possession.
The Cairo declaration, issued on December 1, 1943, states “all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to Republic of China” and the Potsdam Declaration, issued on July 26, 1945, in its Article 8 stated “The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.” However this does not immediately evoke legal transfer of right of possession of Taiwan and Pescadores Islands. Transfer of a right, based on international law, does not come into effect unless a treaty is signed by government representatives and ratified by its council. Acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration merely obligated Japan to carry out the obligations in it and does not evoke a legal transfer of the right of possession.
If acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration induced transfer of the right of possession, the relevant provision in the San Francisco Peace Treaty would have been pointless and the provision should not have been made.
The San Francisco Peace Treaty Article 2 Section b provided that Japan renounces the right of possession of Taiwan and Pescadores Island and the land of which the right of possession was renounced becomes terra nullius. The principle of law based on international law concerning terra nullius is occupatio, which means that a nation can acquire ownership of terra nullius as its territory by exercising control over it before other nations do. What “exercising control” means is arguable but let us say that it refers to the state in which sovereignty is peacefully and continuously exercised over terra nullius without objection from other nations.
These lands were occupied by the Republic of China (the Government of Taiwan) when they became terra nullius. However, the People’s Republic of China (the Government of China) claims to possesses the lands. The current situation can hardly be said to be peaceful “exercising of control” and there is doubt of whether the Government of Taiwan possesses Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands.
At the same time, the Government of China does not even occupy Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands; the Government of China is not “exercising control” over Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands. Based on occupatio, the Government of China has no legal right of possession of Taiwan.
URL: https://www.sdh-fact.com/essay-article/1973/
PDF: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Legale.pdf
MOTEKI Hiromichi, Chairman
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact