關於”台灣地位未定論”...

我不是贊成台獨,但我想了解台獨基本教義派所主張的"台灣地位未定論"的依據何在?

4 Answers

Rating
  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    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.

  • dodo
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    1945年8月15日,日本天皇裕仁發表接受《波茨坦公告》的停戰詔書,宣布無條件投降。難道日本天皇可以言而無信嗎??還要計較《波茨坦公告》有無法律效力嗎??重點是日本必須遵守《波茨坦公告》吧!

    《波茨坦公告》第8條:「開羅宣言之條件必將實施,而日本之主權必將限於本州,北海道,九州,四國及吾人所決定其他小島之內」。

    另外,《波茨坦公告》有美國杜魯門總統簽字,美國必須遵守!

    《舊金山條約》無法否定《日本投降文書》!

    台灣歸還給中華民國在"日本投降文書"就已經搞定了!"舊金山條約"當然無須多言!

    2013-05-13 02:30:26 補充:

    《中華民國》與《中華人民共和國》皆無簽字舊金山和平條約!蘇聯也未簽署!

    中共可以不甩《舊金山和平條約》!

    《舊金山和平條約》無否定或取代降伏文書(日本降書)!

    所以降伏文書(日本降書)的條約效力是不會自動失效的!

    中日和約(台北和約)與《舊金山和平條約》一樣只表示日本放棄台灣之

    一切權利,但是無說明"台灣主權"之歸屬!

    只有降伏文書(日本降書)可證明"台灣主權"歸屬中華民國!

    台灣地位已定!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    日本軍國主義者提出的構想,目的是試圖可以再從台灣身上榨取利益,試圖解弱華人在亞洲的勢力.

    沒想到連日本都沒人相信的東西,拿到台灣來還有一堆人搖著尾巴在對著他流口水.

  • 1 decade ago

    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。

    台灣地位未定,有賴原住民自決

    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。

    台灣地位未定論的始作俑者為日本戰後首任首相吉田茂,繼承者是佐藤榮作。在台灣,主張台灣地位未定論者認為,第一,開羅宣言只是「宣言」,法律位階不比後來的舊金山和約、中日和約;第二,中日和約只規定日本放棄台灣與澎湖的一切權利與權利名目,但未言明要交還給誰。基於上述兩點,台灣地位尚未「被決定」。

      這兩個立場在學理上都有其盲點,對歷史的認識更是不足。第一,就國際法而言,1969年維也納條約法公約第二條第一項即規定,條約是國家間締結而以國際法為準的國際文書協定,不論其載於單一項文書或兩項以上相互有關文書內,亦不論其特定名稱為何。所以開羅宣言的法律效力是不會比中日和約、舊金山和約來得低的。再者,開羅宣言、波次坦公告以及日本降書三者是有法律接續效力的,日本降書第一條即說接受美中英三國政府在波次坦所發表後又經蘇聯加入所公告列舉之條款;而波次坦公告第八條即說開羅宣言之條件必須實施。所以只要日本投降文件至今有效,開羅宣言與波次坦公告也是有效的。

      第二,所謂1952年舊金山和約與中日和約只規定放棄台澎權利權源與要求,並無言明歸還給誰,因由產生台灣未定論。但1972年日本片面毀約,與中共建交,宣佈1952年的中日和約無效,既然台灣未定論的源頭中日和約已被認為無效,則台灣地位未定論自然無存在的理由。

      從歷史觀之,所謂台灣未定論其實挾帶著日本想要再度奪取台灣的野心。吉田茂是一個心機城府均極深的政治人物,1945年日本被美軍佔領到舊金山和約簽訂,日本是個被佔領的國家,為了維護戰後日本利益可謂權謀盡出。吉田茂與麥克阿瑟互動時,表面上畢恭畢敬,暗地裡是反抗,以日本利益為主。1951年的舊金山和約,當時因簽訂合約而恢復獨立國家地位的日本竟以當時中國分裂為由,主張國府與中共均不邀請簽定和約,讓日本選擇要跟哪一方簽約,我國作為對日抗戰的最主要國家竟落得如此下場,實令人激憤。而這就是吉田茂的狡詐之處,故意不邀請中國任一代表出面,為的就是想要藉中國分裂的時機對中國敲詐勒索,讓日本免去對中國巨額賠款。果不其然,蔣介石當時亟欲獲得國際上他領有台灣的正當性,因此在1951年10月15日由新聞局發表放棄日本的賠款,而且發動美國的中國遊說團(China Lobby),利誘華府參議員,比如從故宮中拿點古物送他們什麼的,希望他們向日方施壓,要求日本必須跟中華民國簽約,因此最後吉田茂才發出吉田書簡,拖到規定生效的最後一天,選擇台北簽訂中日和約,但國府也被迫放棄對日索償巨額賠款的權利以換得中華民國在國際上繼續代表全中國的正當性。一個和約中戰勝國竟無法要求賠償,這是史無前例的荒謬事。而這也是吉田茂的狡猾處,如果站在日本的角度來看,不能不說他是個「偉大高明」的政治家,但站在深受戰爭之害而最後勝利的我們,卻是憤恨難平的。如果戰勝國後來從戰事中得到的利益不合開戰成本的話,則與戰敗國有何差別呢?

      而舊金山和約與中日和約只規定放棄台澎權利權源與要求,並無言明歸還給誰的字眼,事實上是日本作為日後強盛時再奪回台灣的一個伏筆,吉田茂後來本人也說,日本政府只把領土權放棄,歸屬尚未決定,而曾在台灣總督府任職的台灣專家井出季和太對台灣歸屬問題就這樣主張:「以美國軍事基地為條件,用聯合國委任統治為名義,移交日本來民政管理是最為合理的安排。」日本想要再度占領台灣,讓台灣再度成為日本殖民地的野心,就這樣赤裸裸地表現出來。諷刺的是,現在居然還有人想要藉台灣地位未定論來謀求「台灣主體性」,對歷史認知之錯誤、幼稚,莫過於此。

    Source(s): 淡江大學教授林呈蓉
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.