「日屬台灣」的對話：John Hsieh的意見◎雲程翻譯

2011/11/05閱讀時間約 25 分鐘

「日屬台灣」的對話：John Hsieh的意見◎雲程翻譯

【Remark】這是後續的對話由John Hsieh所回應，我事先未取得作者本人的同意而翻譯。假使作者決得不妥，請告知。經由這次對話，有助於理解日本對台灣剩餘主權以及是否與應如何實踐有了討論的契機。

Q1: In the current era, does Japan hold residual (territorial) sovereignty over Taiwan?
目前，日本握有台灣的剩餘主權嗎？

Japan District Court, High Court and Supreme Court dismissed the claim of the Japanese Nationality of Taiwan in 1980 and 1982. The Minister for Congressional Affairs at the Embassy of Japan in Washington D.C., Mr. Akira Chiba told the audience at the “60 years after the SFPT and its implications for Taiwan today?” seminar on September 10, 2011 at UC Berkeley that “Japan does not own or hold the residual sovereignty over Taiwan”.
日本地方法院、高等法院與最高法院在1980年與1982年駁回台灣人擁有日本國籍的主張。日本駐華盛頓大使館國會事務千葉明?（Akira Chiba）公使在2011年9月10日於加州大學柏克萊分校所舉行「60年後〈舊金山和約〉是否仍適用台灣？」的研討會中，告訴聽眾：「日本不擁有也不掌握台灣的剩餘主權。」
Taiwan was liberated from Japan by the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951. Article 1b. “The Allied Powers recognize the full sovereignty of the Japanese people over Japan and its territorial waters.” What is the territory of Japanese sovereignty? Chapter II of SFPT deals with that. Japan formally ratified the territorial provisions of the Potsdam Surrender Terms that constituted the only definition of peace terms to which, and by which and the Allied Powers as a whole were bound. Japanese sovereignty has been limited to Honshu , Hokkaido , Kyushu, Shikoku and some minor islands. Article 2b, “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.”, The renunciations contained in article 2 of Chapter II strictly and scrupulously conformed to that surrender term.
台灣被1952年的〈舊金山和約〉從日本解放出來。其第1b條說：「各盟國承認日本人民對於日本及其領海有完全的主權。」日本主權下的領土為何？〈舊金山和約〉第二章處理了此議題。日本正式批准〈波茨坦投降條款〉的領土條款，即和平條款的唯一定義，因此，盟國整體受其約束。日本主權限定在本州、北海道、九州、四國與其他小島。〈舊金山和約〉第2b條「日本放棄對台灣及澎湖列島的一切權利、權利根據及要求。」此一放棄包括在第二章第二條中，嚴謹地遵守了投降條款。

Japan does not hold the residual (territorial) sovereignty over Taiwan. The residual sovereignty only apply to those territories listed in the San Francisco Peace Treaty Article 3: the Ryukyus and other islands to the south and southeast of Japan.
日本並未掌有台灣的領土剩餘主權。剩餘主權僅僅適用到〈舊金山和約〉第3條琉球與日本西南的群島。
Q2: In the current era, in consideration of the provisions of the May 3, 1947, Japanese Constitution and other related Japanese laws, is the Japanese Emperor holding the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan?
目前，鑑於1947年5月3日的日本憲法的條款以及其他相關日本法令，日本天皇還握有台灣的領土主權嗎？

The Meiji Constitution was replaced by the Constitution of Japan (Showa Constitution) aka Peace Constitution which implemented on May 3, 1947. According to the constitution, the emperor is the state nominal owner, but can only a “purely ceremonial role”. Article 88: All property of the Imperial Household shall belong to the State. Article 98: This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the nation and no law, ordinance, imperial rescript or other act of government or part thereof, contrary to the provisions hereof, shall have legal force or validity. Article 1: The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and the unity of the people, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power.
〈明治憲法〉被戰後1947年5月3日生效的〈和平憲法〉所取代。根據〈和平憲法〉，天皇是國家的象徵，只有純粹儀式性功能。第88條說：所有皇室財產屬於國家。第98條說：本憲法為國家最高法律，法、律、敕令或任何政府命令牴觸本憲法條款者無效。第1條：天皇為日本國家之象徵、日本國民統合之象徵，其地位基於日本國民總意志之主權而存在。

According to the Japanese Constitution and the San Francisco Peace Treaty the Japanese Emperor does not hold the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan at all.

根據〈和平憲法〉與〈舊金山和約〉，日本天皇根本不掌有台灣的領土主權。

Q3: In the current era, can native Taiwanese persons legally claim "political participation rights" in Japan?
目前，本土台灣人有權在日本行使政治參與權嗎？

Chief Judge Susumu Yoshida pointed out at the judicial decisions of Lim King-Bing v. Japan (June 12, 1980, Tokyo High Court, Case No. (gyo-ko, administrative) 27 of 1977.) “The court thinks it proper that at date of the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China (August 5, 1952), the said inhabitants lost their Japanese nationality.” (The Japanese Annual of International Law, page 176 (No. 25, 1982)).
大法官吉田進?（Susumu Yoshida）在1980年6月12日東京高等法院Lim King-Bing控告日本政府案（(gyo-ko, administrative) 27 of 1977）的判決中指出：「法庭認為1952年8月5日〈日華和約〉生效日起，該住民喪失日本國籍。」（日本國際法年報第25號1982年，第176頁）

In the current era, the native Taiwanese persons are not even considered as Japanese nationals holding Japanese nationality of course they have no any legal support to claim the “political participation rights” in Japan.
目前，本土台灣人並不被視為日本國民也不掌有日本國籍，從而無權主張日本的參政權。

Q4: In the current era, in consideration of the provisions of the May 3, 1947, Japanese Constitution and other related Japanese laws, is the Japanese Emperor's Imperial Rescript of April 1, 1945 still legally valid?
目前，鑑於1947年5月3日的日本憲法條款及相關的日本法令，1945年4月1日的日本天皇敕令是否仍然有效力？

Japan renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores in the San Francisco Peace Treaty on September 8, 1951 and effective on April 28, 1952. Japan’s territory has been well regulated and restricted by the peace treaty. And the Japanese government has been consistently obeyed the renouncement of peace treaty.
在1951年9月8日簽署並於1952年4月28日生效的〈舊金山和約〉中「日本放棄對台灣及澎湖列島的一切權利、權利根據及要求。」日本的領土嚴格的被和約所限定。日本政府一貫遵守和約的放棄聲明。

According to the Constitution of Japan (Showa Constitution) article 98: “This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the nation and no law, ordinance, imperial rescript or other act of government, or part thereof, contrary to the provisions hereof, shall have legal force or validity. 2) The treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations shall be faithfully observed.,” obviously the Japanese Constitution of May 3, 1947 supersedes the Imperial Rescript of April 1, 1945.
根據〈和平憲法〉第98條：本憲法為國家最高法律，法、律、敕令或任何政府命令牴觸本憲法條款者無效。日本應遵守其所締結之條約與國家之協定。顯然，1947年5月3日之〈和平憲法〉地位優於1945年4月1日之〈天皇敕令〉。

Q5: For areas under military occupation, the US Supreme Court has recognized a doctrine of "territorial sovereignty held in trust." (Technically speaking, this is not "ownership.") The trustee is the (principal) occupying power. Could such a doctrine have any application to Taiwan's current situation?
對於佔領下的地區，美國最高法院已經認定了「受信託的領土主權」的信條。（技術上來說，這不是所有權。）受託者是（主要）佔領國。這樣的原則可以運用到台灣目前的狀況嗎？

The SFPT Article 2b did not put Taiwan in the US trusteeship system like those territories listed in Article 3. However, under the authorization of SFPT Article 26, neither the bilateral peace treaty of Japan and Republic of China nor the joint communiqué of Japan and the People’s Republic of China transferred the sovereignty of Taiwan.
〈舊金山和約〉第2b條並未如第3條的領土般將台灣置於美國託管制度下。而在〈舊金山和約〉第26條的授權，日華雙邊和約或日本與中華人民共和國正常化公報，都未移轉台灣主權。

The oral argument of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 08-5078 on February 5, 2009, the court asked Melissa Patterson, Esq. (DOJ): “If, in fact, the treaty, that language of treaty (Art 23 the principal occupying power) creates the United States as the de jure sovereign, can the United States walk away from that treaty? I don’t think they can.” “If a treaty is established that the United States is the de jure sovereign –would the Executive unilaterally change that? –Let me help you, the answer is no.”
2009年2月5日美國哥倫比亞特區上訴法院08-5078案的法庭辯論，法庭詢問美國司法部代理人Melissa Patterson, Esq. (DOJ)：「假使在事實上和約所使用的文詞（即第23條的主要佔領國）使美國擁有法理主權，這樣美國能袖手不管嗎？我並不認為如此。」「假使條約規定美國享有法理主權，行政部門能片面改變它嗎？讓我告訴你吧：不可以！」

The Taiwan Relation Act and the three Joint Communiqué of US and People’s Republic of China are closely tied to the US Taiwan policy the Status Quo of the Taiwan Strait. And they are under the scope authorization of SFPT Article 26. So, the real key to Taiwan issue is still the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

〈台灣關係法〉與美中三公報，和美台政策的台海現狀密切相關。這些都是〈舊金山和約〉第26條的授權。因此，台灣議題的關鍵是〈舊金山和約〉。

Q6: In Roger Lin v. USA, the judges on April 9, 2009, held that " America and China 's tumultuous relationship over the past sixty years has trapped the inhabitants of Taiwan in political purgatory." In Taiwan, if the Jan. 2012 elections proceed as planned and the DPP candidate wins, as the new President of the ROC, will Ms. Tsai be able to lead Taiwan out of its political purgatory?
在Roger Lin控告美國的案子，2009/4/9法官認為：「過去60年來美國與中國不平靜的關係，陷台灣住民於政治困境中。」在台灣，如果2012年1月的選舉如期舉行，而DPP候選人當選ROC總統，蔡女士能夠領導人民脫離這個政治困境嗎？

It depends on whether Ms. Tsai is the President of ROC or the Terminator of ROC. On May 25, 2010 Ms. Tsai claimed ROC is a government in exile, but on October 8, 2011 she said ROC is Taiwan no longer a foreign government. As long as Ms. Tsai positions herself as the President of Republic of China she goes nowhere but prolong the lingering years of the exiled government. She might improve the democracy in Taiwan but will not help Taiwan to pull out of the trap of political purgatory.
這要看蔡女士是中華民國總統或是中華民國的終結者而定。2010年5月25日，蔡女士稱中華民國是流亡政府，但2011年10月8日她說ROC是台灣，而不是外來政權。只要蔡女士認為她是中華民國總統，她就只能延長流亡政府的命運。她可以改善台灣的民主，但無法幫助台灣脫離政治煉獄。

Because no matter who runs the presidential office of ROC, the April 7, 2009 Judge Brown’s Opinion Statement “ America and China ’s tumultuous relationship over the past sixty years has trapped the inhabitants of Taiwan in political purgatory. During this time the people on Taiwan have lived without any uniformly recognized government. In practical terms, this means they have uncertain status in the world community which infects the population’s day-to-day lives.” will remain the same no change. And just like the US District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer said on March 18, 2008 at her Opinion Statement “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.”
因為無論誰當選中華民國總統，2009年4月7日Brown法官的意見聲明：「美國與中國在過去60年紛擾的關係下，已經綁死台灣住民於政治困境中。台灣住民生活在未被普遍承認的政府之下。以現實面來說，這意味著他們在國際社會的地位未定，而這影響所有人的日常生活。」仍舊未改變。正如美國地方法院Rosemary Collyer法官在2008年3月18日在其意見聲明中所言：「控方為無國籍之民超過60年。最後一項對台灣管理權的聲明，是遠在1945年的麥克阿瑟所提。我們可以理解與同情，控方想合法化其世界地位之渴望。」

John Hsieh

Hayward CA