Although many people are promoting the recognition of Taiwan as an independent nation, the results attained so far have been disappointing. The United Nations has refused Taiwan's "applications" for membership over 15 times, and the leading countries of the world have no current plans to establish diplomatic relations with the island, which calls itself "Republic of China" (ROC).

While many "China experts" claim that the unfair treatment that Taiwan receives in the international community is wholly due to pressure from the People's Republic of China (PRC), Dr. Roger Lin stresses the need to go back to basics and examine the fundamental legal issues. He argues that Taiwan's legal status is not an issue left over from the Chinese civil war of the late 1940's, rather it is a piece of unfinished legal business left over from WWII in the Pacific.

Legally speaking, it was the United States which conquered Japan and her overseas territories in WWII, and therefore the United States bears the responsibility for the final disposition of these areas. Considering that the post-war Senate-ratified San Francisco Peace Treaty did not award the sovereignty of Taiwan to China (either the ROC or the PRC), there are valid arguments to say that Taiwan is still under the jurisdiction of the military arm of the US government, and that Taiwanese people are entitled to hold some form of US overseas passports.

The US Executive Branch has continually stated that neither Taiwan nor the Republic of China is a state in the international community, hence it follows that native Taiwanese persons (currently holding ROC passports) are essentially stateless. This situation needs to be remedied at an early date, and Dr. Lin's lawsuit, now in the US Court of Appeals, with Oral Arguments scheduled for 9:30 am on Feb. 5, is seeking to obtain a ruling to enable Taiwanese people to hold passports which conform to "an internationally recognized nationality."

A Press Conference will be held Feb. 5th at 1:00 pm in the National Press Club to discuss all related developments.

Contact details: Mr. Richard Hartzell at rgroup.tw@gmail.com

Additional contacts: Mr. CK Chen 408-561-7556; Mr. John Hsieh 510-432-7353

ORAL ARGUMENTS

Oral Arguments are now scheduled for Feb. 5, 2009 in Washington D.C., and will focus on the central question at issue in this appeal:

Does the political question doctrine bar the District Court from determining Appellant's legal rights under United States statutes and the Constitution as a result of the undisputable fact that under Article 23(a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) of April 28, 1952, the United States is "the principal occupying Power" of Taiwan, over which Japan renounced "all right, title and claim" in Article 2(b)?

Relevant excerpts from the Briefs filed by the Appellants on Nov. 3 and Dec. 17, 2008, are available at Excerpts from Lin v. USA Briefs (.doc)

Note 1: The United States' status as "principal occupying Power" of Taiwan has resulted from the World War II defeat of Japan by the United States, including the United States' conquest of Taiwan, and subsequent United States military government jurisdiction over Taiwan, which is further corroborated by SFPT Article 4(b) confirming the validity of United States Military Government directives pertaining to Taiwan. Note 2: The form of administration by which an occupying power exercises government authority over occupied territory is called "military government." For a territorial cession in a peace treaty after war, the military government of the (principal) occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty, but continues until legally supplanted by a recognized civil government for the area. See -- Areas Conquered by US military forces and therefore under USMG jurisdiction, with later "new disposition" by peace treaty

---

A Summary of the fundamental legal rationale for the court case, and the Relief Requested, is given here --
Summary & Relief Requested



The Plaintiffs/Appellants first set of Discovery Requests to the United States government were previously filed in June 2007, and will be amended, updated, and refiled if the current appeal process in the US Court of Appeals is successful.