Anonymous
Anonymous asked in 藝術與人文歷史 · 1 decade ago

大1歷史期末考考題

"台灣地位未定論"問題產生ㄉ歷史根源??你認為"台灣地位未定論"ㄉ態度為何???

1 Answer

Rating
  • 蝌蚪
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    先生你不會是歷史系的吧,問這個,你是沒念書吧,這個吵很兇呢。我回第一個,第二個是你本人感覺,我不回

    提到戰後台灣的歸屬問題,一般人多半會想

    起《開羅宣言》與《波茨坦宣言》的聲明內

    容,然此二宣言發布時,日本尚未投降且合

    法擁有台灣,真正決定戰後台灣歸屬問題的

    國際法是1951年的《舊金山條約》。台灣地

    位歸屬問題一直是台灣主權與外交憂戚相關

    的重要議題,值此「兩國論」與「一中各表

    」的唇槍舌戰在兩岸間如火如荼的進行之際

    ,「台灣歷史之窗」特別邀請淡江大學歷史

    系副教授林呈蓉為我們分析此一歷史懸案的

    來龍去脈及其影響。

    Mention the issue of the jurisdiction of since the

    end of the Second World War and most people will

    think of the contents of the Cairo Declaration or

    the Potsdam Declaration, yet at the time when these

    two declarations were announced, Japan had yet to

    surrender to the Allies, and it still had legitimate

    possession of Taiwan. The document which truly

    decided the question of Taiwan's jurisdiction after

    the war was the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty,

    recognized by international law. The issues of

    Taiwan's status and under whose jurisdiction Taiwan

    should come are important topics closely related to

    Taiwan's sovereignty and diplomatic woes, and while

    the war of words rages across the straits over the

    "special state-to-state relationship" and "one

    China, according to individual interpretation,"

    Taiwan News has invited deputy professor Lin

    Cheng-jung from Tamkang University's department

    of history to analyze the roots and subsequent

    development of this unsettled issue of history,

    and future prospects.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    對日合約遲未簽訂

    1945年8月15日,隨著日本向盟軍宣告無條件

    投降,長期以來熙攘紛亂的第二次世界大戰

    終告結束。雖然早在1947年3月,盟軍最高司

    令官麥克阿瑟將軍即主張應儘早締結對日和

    約,但是在當時美蘇對立關係白熱化、以及

    海內外各種情勢的消長下,對日講和工作一

    直延宕,直到1950年才開始緊鑼密鼓地動起

    來。其中一個關鍵因素即是1950年6月25日所

    爆發的朝鮮戰爭,它促使強權美國試圖爭取

    日本成為太平洋反共陣線的成員,因此更加

    積極推動對日和約的工作。

    Delays in concluding and signing a peace treaty

    with Japan

    On August 15, 1945, following Japan's declaration

    of unconditional surrender to the Allied Forces,

    the long and eventful Second World War came to an

    end. Although the Allied Powers' Supreme Commander,

    General MacArthur, had, as early as March 1947,

    advocated concluding a treat with Japan as soon

    as possible, U.S.-Soviet antagonism was heating

    up to boiling point at this time, and with the

    ebb and flow of various situations within the U.S.

    and overseas, the task of concluding peace with

    Japan was continually put off until 1950, when

    preparations finally started in earnest. One key

    factor in this was the Korean War, which broke

    out on June 25, 1950, and pushed the powerful U.S.

    to try to persuade Japan to become a member of the

    Pacific anti-communist front. Consequently, the

    U.S. increased their active advances for a peace

    treaty with Japan.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    中國合法政權之變化

    1951年9月5日,在英、美等強權主導下,二

    次大戰中的同盟國成員在舊金山召開了對日

    和平會議。雖然主導中國軍區的蔣介石軍事

    委員長,在戰爭期間擔任盟軍亞洲地區最高

    統帥;而終戰那一年的10月25日,蔣氏也派

    員來臺,以代表盟軍舉行「中國戰區台灣省

    」受降典禮,並暫時接管日本總督府離開之

    後的台、澎地區,但是中國代表卻被排除在

    對日和平會議之外。箇中原因在於,二次大

    戰結束後不久,中國內部國民黨與共產黨之

    間的軍事衝突重新啟動,這種情勢到了1949

    年10月以後顯然進入了另一階段,即共產黨

    政權在北京正式舉行了「中華人民共和國」

    的開國典禮,相反地蔣介石所代表的國民黨

    政權卻在中國全面性地潰敗,並輾轉流亡到

    法律地位尚未被確定的台、澎地區。而中國

    內戰的結果,也導致同盟國之間對於代表中

    國合法政權立場與態度,分歧不一。

    China's legitimate changes in political power

    On September 5, 1951, under the leadership of such

    super powers as the United Kingdom and the U.S.,

    the members of the Second World War Allies convened

    in San Francisco for a conference on peace with

    Japan. Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, leader of

    the Chinese military region, had been the Supreme

    Allied Commander in the Asia Region during the

    war; on October 25 1945, Chiang sent representatives

    to Taiwan, and represented the Allied Forces at the

    ceremony accepting Japan's surrender of "the Chinese

    Theater's Taiwan Province," and temporarily took over

    control of Taiwan and the Penghu region after the

    departure of the Japanese Taiwan Governor's Office.

    However, Chinese representatives were excluded from

    the San Francisco Peace Conference. One of the

    reasons for this was that not long after the end of

    the Second World War, military conflicts had broken

    out afresh between the Kuomintang (KMT) and the

    Chinese Communist Party (CCP) inside China, and

    this situation clearly entered a new phase after

    October 1949, when the CCP regime held a formal

    ceremony in Beijing for the founding of the "People's

    Republic of China," while the KMT regime, represented

    by Chiang Kai-shek made a comprehensive retreat from

    China, ending up in exile in Taiwan and Penghu, a

    region whose legal status had not been decided. The

    outcome of the civil war in China resulted in a lack

    of consensus among the Allies as to which regime was

    the legitimate representative of China.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    另一方面,兩個各自主張是代表中國合法政

    權者同時存在,以及國際間在中國問題上無

    法達成共識,對戰敗國日本而言自然也造成

    了某種程度的困擾,因為中國受日本的侵略

    最為長久且深刻,倘若中日之間無法藉此機

    會簽訂和平協定,則中日戰爭無法正式終結

    ,而戰後的各種後續處理工作也會被延宕而

    無法進行。

    Another aspect was that while two regimes which both

    claimed to be the legitimate representatives of China

    existed, there was no way that an international

    consensus on the China question could be reached,

    and this situation naturally created a certain level

    of difficulty for the defeated Japan, because China

    was deeply affected by having been invaded by Japan,

    and if there was no way to conclude and sign a peace

    treaty between China and Japan, then the Sino-Japanese

    war would not formally come to an end, and all kinds

    of post-war follow-up work would also have to be put

    off.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    各國立場不一,日本自行決定

    在同盟國成員中,基本上蘇聯站在共產國際

    的立場,絕對支持中共政權成為中國唯一合

    法政府;另外,在西方陣營中,英國為了其

    在香港、九龍的權益,早早便與中共政權建

    交,並認為對日和約中中國的代表權應由參

    加遠東委員會各國的三分之二多數所承認者

    來代表簽署;美國則對於正在侵略朝鮮的中

    共政權,堅持主張反對其共同參與簽署的立

    場。到底日本方面應該與哪一個中國政權簽

    署和平條約,在以英、美兩國為首而與其他

    各盟國成員的相互折衝下,乃決定由日本自

    行選擇一方的政府,並以將來另行個別簽訂

    和平條約的方式處理。

    With each nation taking a different position, Japan

    makes its own decision

    Among the Allies, the Soviet Union took the Comintern

    position, with absolute support of the PRC regime as

    the only legitimate government of China. Among the

    Western camp, Britain built diplomatic relations with

    the PRC very early on, in view of its interests in

    Hong Kong and Kowloon. Britain also thought that the

    whoever represented China in signing the peace treaty

    with Japan should be approved by more than two thirds

    of the nations which took part in Far East Committee.

    The U.S. were against the PRC regime, which was in the

    process of invading Korea, taking part in and signing

    a treaty. So while Britain, the U.S. and the other

    members of the Allies bickered among one another,

    the question of which government of China Japan ought

    to sign a peace treaty with was decided by Japan, and

    handled in the way that future signings of other

    peace treaties would be dealt with.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    日本政府在當時的各種內外壓力下,不得不

    選擇以蔣介石政權所代表的國民黨政府,作

    為締結和平條約的對象。不過,在美、日的

    共同認知下,該和約並非將國民政府視為代

    表中國唯一合法的政府,因此該和約將僅適

    用於國民政府當前或將來其所統治下之區域

    At that time, the Japanese government was under

    pressure from all kinds of internal and external

    sources, and had no choice but to choose the KMT

    government, represented by Chiang Kai-shek's regime,

    with whom to conclude a peace treaty. However, with

    U.S. and Japanese mutual recognition, the treaty did

    not really view the Nationalist government as

    representing the only legitimate government of

    China, and so this treaty simply applied to the

    regions under the control of the Nationalist

    government at that time or in the future.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    台灣地位未定,有賴住民自決

    於是在臺灣地位歸屬上,根據《舊金山對日

    和平條約》第二條規定「日本放棄對台灣、

    澎湖群島的所有權利、權限與請求權」。其

    所埋下的伏筆是,台灣最終的歸屬尚未被決

    定。理論上,將來台灣問題之解決,應該依

    照聯合國憲章的目的與原則,在住民自決的

    原則下,透過公民投票的方式,詢問該地區

    住民的意願導向,才能下結論。

    Taiwan's status undecided, dependent on the self-

    determination of its residents

    As a result, the question of Taiwan's status and

    jurisdiction, Article 2 of the San Francisco Peace

    Treaty stipulates that "Japan renounces all right,

    title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores."

    Foreshadowed here is the fact that the final

    question of whom Taiwan belongs to remains

    undefined. Theoretically, the future resolution

    of the Taiwan issue should be carried out,

    according to the aims and principles of the UN

    Charter, and under the principle of self-

    determination by its inhabitants, by means of a

    public referendum, which would ask about the

    direction desired by the inhabitants of the

    region, before a verdict can be reached.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1952年4月28日,國民政府與日本之間根據

    《舊金山和平條約》的規定,簽署了《中日

    和平條約》。中日和平條約在領土問題的處

    理上,係就其第二條之規定,僅再次確認《

    舊金山和平條約》的聲明,即「茲承認依照

    公曆1951年9月8日在美利堅合眾國舊金山市

    所簽訂之對日和平條約第二條規定,日本業

    已放棄對於台灣、澎湖群島、以及南沙群島

    及西沙群島之一切權利、權限與請求權」。

    於是,台灣最後的歸屬問題在中日和平條約

    的內文中依然沒有被觸及。

    On April 28, 1952, in accordance with the stipulations

    of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Treaty of Peace

    between the Republic of China and Japan (also known as

    the Treaty of Taipei) was signed between the

    Nationalist government and Japan. The Treaty of

    Taipei, in dealing with the question of territory,

    stipulates in its Article 2 a reconfirmation of the

    statement in the San Francisco Treaty, saying: "It

    is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of

    Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco

    on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the

    San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right,

    title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the

    Pescadores) as well as the Spratley [sic] Islands and

    the Paracel Islands." So the question of whose

    jurisdiction Taiwan ultimately comes under is still

    not touched upon in the content of the Treaty of

    Taipei.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    然而,提及戰後台灣的歸屬問題,人們多半

    會想起《開羅宣言》與《波茨坦宣言》的聲

    明內容。雖然1943年《開羅宣言》中確曾提

    及日本應該將「滿州、台灣、澎湖群島歸還

    給中華民國」;並在1945年《波茨坦宣言》

    中要求日本無條件投降,且再次強調「《開

    羅宣言》之條款必須實施」,然而這些「宣

    言」僅止於戰爭中的立場或表述,雖有宣誓

    的作用存在,卻不具有任何法律效力。

    However, mention the issue of whose jurisdiction

    Taiwan has been under since the end of the war,

    and most people will think of the contents of the

    statements of the Cairo or Potsdam Declarations.

    Although the 1943 Cairo Declaration does mention

    that all of the territories "such as Manchuria,

    Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to

    the Republic of China" by Japan; the 1945 Potsdam

    Declaration demanded that Japan surrender

    unconditionally, and once again emphasized that

    "The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be

    carried out." However, these "declarations" only

    state positions and wishes during the war, and

    although function of the declarations remains,

    they do not have any legal potency.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    歷史懸案的兩個結論

    《舊金山和平條約》以及《中日和平條約》

    對於台灣的法律地位,皆沒有明確的規定,

    導致台灣的歸屬問題就這樣懸而未決地延宕

    至今日。每當中國對台灣文攻武嚇或台灣在

    外交拓展上遇到瓶頸時,「台灣地位未定論

    」自然會被提出來討論。但是從此一歷史懸

    案的來龍去脈中,可以明確地推衍出兩個結

    論:

    The two inferences to be made from this unresolved

    case from history

    Neither the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the

    Treaty of Taipei clearly stipulate the legal status

    of Taiwan, with the result that the question of

    whose jurisdiction Taiwan should come under has

    never to this day been resolved. Each time China

    launches a war of words on Taiwan, or Taiwan hits

    some bottleneck in developing diplomatic relations,

    the "theory that the status of Taiwan is still

    undecided" comes up for discussion as a matter of

    course. But from the beginnings and subsequent

    development of this historical unresolved case, we

    can clearly infer two conclusions:

    (一)伴隨時空環境的轉變,中國所要面對

    的已非僅止於國民黨單一政權統治下的台灣

    ,而是含括代表台灣在地政權執政下的台灣

    。以當前的情況而論,台灣的歸屬問題將逐

    漸演變成兩個來自中國的勢力,即從未統治

    過台灣的中華人民共和國政權,和因流亡而

    寄生在台灣島上的泛國民黨政權,與台灣島

    上住民所自主結構而成的在地本土政權,三

    者之間的領土爭奪戰。

    (1) In the wake of changes in both time and space,

    the Taiwan China is up against is no longer limited

    to the Taiwan under the political control of the KMT,

    but now includes the Taiwan ruled by a government

    which is representative of Taiwan. With the current

    situation, the question of whose jurisdiction Taiwan

    comes under has gradually evolved into two forces,

    both of which came from China -- the PRC government,

    which has never governed Taiwan, and the KMT

    government, which parasitically attached itself to the

    island of Taiwan as a result of going into exile - and

    a third force, the local, native government,

    autonomously constructed by the residents of the

    island of Taiwan. It's a territorial struggle between

    these three.

    (二)以美國為首的西方陣營勢力,在台灣

    的歸屬問題上,有意無意地埋下了一個伏筆

    ,成為預留空間。因為從歷史、地理角度觀

    之,台灣絕對是亞太地區繁榮、安定的關鍵

    所在。海峽兩岸若以和平統一的方式來終結

    台灣的歸屬問題,則另當別論。但是,倘若

    台灣是被中國以武力的方式所兼併,姑且不

    論島內的反彈、衝突如何,對整個亞太地區

    ,包括美國、日本、韓國與東南亞諸國而言

    ,則代表「中國威脅論」將會直接浮上檯面

    。因為長久以來扮演緩衝空間角色的台灣已

    經不在了。

    (2) The Western forces, headed by the U.S.,

    intentionally or unintentionally sowed the

    seeds for future problems with Taiwan's

    jurisdiction, creating an undetermined space.

    Because viewed from historical and geographical

    angles, Taiwan is a prosperous and stable key

    location in the Asia-Pacific region, if the two

    sides of the Strait were to unify peacefully to

    conclude the question of whose jurisdiction

    Taiwan comes under, then that would be another

    issue. But if Taiwan was annexed by China using

    military force, let's not for the moment go into

    the question of the reaction and clashes that

    would arise within Taiwan, as far the countries

    of the entire Asia-Pacific region, including the

    U.S., Japan, Korea and Southeast Asia would be

    concerned, this would represent the "China threat

    theory" coming directly to the surface, because

    the Taiwan which has long played the role of buffer

    zone would have ceased to exist.

    2005-06-15 15:26:23 補充:

    反正整個問題有三:

    開羅、波茨坦不具效力,但聯合國是同意波茨坦的,另外獨派說聯合國憲章有使台灣獨立字眼出現。

    然後第二個問題:

    中國當時以中國或遠東戰區總司令受降是接受投降,不是接管,所以只有台灣當時被中國收回去了,但大陸前日就以受降令中所寫認為那是証據

    當年其實美欲以台籍和孫立人推翻蔣政權未果所以本來有這論調後來也就不見了

    中國代表權問題,中共取代中華民國為代表時他是認為連中華民國原領土代表權全部接收,所以不同意台灣地位未定論

    最後上面所引網址:http://www.twhistory.org.tw/20010910.htm

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.