台澎主權未定，鐵證如山，邏輯完備。

1955年2月04日，英外交部長 Sir Antony Eden 在國會答詢關於開羅宣言，波茨坦宣言，與台灣主權。陳艾可譯，陳易宏修。若有爭議處，請參考英文原文。

英國國會會議紀錄案號 HC Deb 04 February 1955 vol 536 cc159

Shinwell 議員問外長：是否會把對於中國東南海岸法律和條件的事實的陳述放入官方報告？

外長 Anthony Eden 爵士回答：

福爾摩莎和澎湖，是於1895年經由下關條約，由中國割讓給日本的。

在1943年11月的開羅宣言中，聯軍聲稱他們的目的是：“應當將日本自中國竊取的領土如...台灣和澎湖，歸還中華民國”

困難發生在於：有兩個團體都宣稱代表中國，及聯軍間對兩造地位的認知分歧。

1945年7月的波茨坦宣言，設下了對日本的和平條件之一，就是開羅宣言要付諸施行。1945年9月，福爾摩莎的行政治理，在聯軍最髙統帥指示下，由日本人轉到中國人手中。

但這並非割讓領土，也不涉及主權移轉。與蔣介石的這個安排基本上是軍事佔領，以等待進一步的協議。這個安排並不代表台灣從此屬於中國領土。

在1952年4月的和約中 (譯註：舊金山和約與台北和約)，日本正式放棄所有對福爾摩莎及澎湖的權利，名份及聲索。但這仍然不代表台澎領土轉移至中國主權下，不管是中華人民共和國或中國國民黨當局 (譯註：此時英國已正式外交承認PRC。不承認ROC，所以撤銷政府稱謂，不稱中華民國，稱中國國民黨當局)。

中國國民黨當局控制的毗鄰中國海岸的外島 (譯註：金門馬祖列島)，與福爾摩莎及澎湖地位不同，毫無疑問的它們是中華人民共和國國的領土 (譯註：此時英國已正式外交承認PRC。不承認ROC，所以也不承認ROC對金馬的主權聲索)。

但如果中華人民共和國政府企圖以武力在這些島嶼 (譯註：金門馬祖列島) 上行使其權力，在目前的環境下，都會引起危及和平及安全的情勢，這會是國際所關切的。

Formosa and the Pescadores (Treaties)

HC Deb 04 February 1955 vol 536 cc159-60W 159W

Mr. Shinwell asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: Whether he will include in the OFFICIAL REPORT a factual statement on the legalistic and treaty aspects of the situation on the South-East China coast.

Sir Anthony Eden:

Formosa and the Pescadores were ceded to Japan by China in the Shiminoseki Treaty of 1895. In the Cairo Declaration of November, 1943, the Allies stated that it was their purpose "that all the territories which Japan has stolen from the Chinese such as … Formosa and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.…" This Declaration was a statement of intention that Formosa should be retroceded to China after the war. This retrocession has, in fact, never taken place, because of the difficulties arising from the existence of two entities claiming to represent China, and the differences amongst the Powers as to the status of these entities.

The Potsdam Declaration of July, 1945, laid down as one of the conditions for the Japanese Peace that the terms of the Cairo Declaration should be carried out. In September, 1945, the administration of Formosa was taken over from the Japanese by Chinese forces at the direction of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers; but this was not a cession, nor did it in itself involve any change of sovereignty. The arrangements made with Chiang Kai-shek put him there on a basis of military occupation pending further arrangements, and did not of themselves constitute the territory Chinese.

Under the Peace Treaty of April, 1952, Japan formally renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores; but again this did not operate as a transfer to Chinese sovereignty, whether to the People's Republic of China or to the Chinese Nationalist authorities. Formosa and the Pescadores are therefore, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, territory the de jure sovereignty over which is uncertain or undetermined.

The Nationalist-held islands in close proximity to the coast of China are in a different category from Formosa and the Pescadores since they undoubtedly form part of the territory of the People's Republic of China. Any attempt by the Government of the People's Republic of China, however, to assert its authority over these islands by force would, in the circumstances at present peculiar to the case, give rise to a situation endangering peace and security, which is properly a matter of international concern.

ref: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1955/feb/04/formosa-and-the-pescadores-treaties

ref: https://www.facebook.com/JPTaiWanimg/posts/429547823813650?comment_id=429553280479771&reply_comment_id=429607810474318