| ABCD Chart of territorial cession by Richard W. Hartzell
[Line Drawing #1]  This line drawing is described as follows: On the line there are three dots, labeled A, B, and C respectively. On the right end of the line is a diamond shape, labeled D. We can use this simple line drawing to discuss territorial cessions which are the result of war. Point A represents acquirement of the territory by conquest, or "cession by conquest." In other words, historically speaking most countries traditionally recognized that overrunning another country's territory with military forces was directly equivalent to "annexation." However, in the post-Napoleonic period this came to be re-defined as merely "military occupation." As we now recognize, there are different stages of "military occupation," and Point A marks the beginning of the "belligerent occupation" of the entire territory. Military government is in effect. This customary norm of international law was more precisely codified in the Hague Conventions of 1907, which stipulated that "the occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct." Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. In layman's terms, Point A often corresponds to the point in time when local military troops surrender. Point B represents "cession by treaty." In the post-Napoleonic period "cession by conquest" must be confirmed with a "cession by treaty" in order to make a valid determination of what the status of the territory should be. Point C marks the end of the military government of the "(principal) occupying power." Military government must be supplanted by some other legal arrangement for local government in order for the territory to reach a "final (political) status." Area D marks the onset of a "final status" after going through the period of military occupation. Alternatively, this is called the final status under the law of occupation. The following diagram provides a convenient summary for the territorial cessions of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Cuba, and Taiwan. |
| [Chart #1] |
| Point A | Point B | Point C | Area D | |
| Puerto Rico | 1898.08.12 | 1899.04.11 | 1900.05.01 | unincorporated territory of USA |
| Philippines | 1898.08.14 | 1899.04.11 | 1901.07.04 | unincorporated territory of USA |
| Guam | 1898.06.21 | 1899.04.11 | 1950.07.01 | unincorporated territory of USA |
| Cuba | 1898.07.17 | 1899.04.11 | 1902.05.20 | Republic of Cuba |
| Taiwan | 1945.10.25 | 1952.04.28 |
|
Referring back to Line Drawing #1, the significance of the periods of time from Point A to Point B, from Point B to Point C, and from Point A to Point C are given as follows: Point A to Point B marks the period of "belligerent occupation." During this period, in the case of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, and Cuba, the international position of each was an "independent customs territory under USMG on Spanish soil." For Taiwan, it was an "independent customs territory under USMG on Japanese soil." Point B to Point C marks the period of "friendly occupation," or what in today's terminology we would call the "civil affairs administration of a military government." During this period, in the case of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Cuba, and Taiwan, the international position of each was/is "unincorporated territory under USMG." Point A to Point C is called the "interim status" under the law of occupation. The conquering power has a right to displace the preexisting authority, and to assume to such extent as may be deemed proper the exercise by itself of all the powers and functions of government. The local populace passes under a "temporary allegiance" to the conqueror. Area D is the "final status" under the law of occupation. In a general way, the rule may be stated that final status is achieved when the (principal) occupying power's military government has relinquished the occupied territory to the "lawful government of the area." Notes: Line Drawings for comparative examples of (1) territorial cessions during peacetime, and (2) military occupation where there is no resulting territorial cession in a post-war peace treaty, would be different. Analysis for Taiwan Examination of the ABCD Chart provides a structured analysis for the situations of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Cuba, and Taiwan. All five of these territorial cessions follow exactly the same pattern. In the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) of April 28, 1952, Japan renounced all claims of sovereignty over Taiwan, but no receiving country was specified. An examination of all relevant US government announcements, proclamations, treaties, laws, etc. regarding Taiwan from the period of late April, 1952, to the present, finds no record of a definitive statement of the end of United States Military Government authority over Taiwan. In other words, no civil government operations recognized by the US Commander in Chief or the US Congress have yet begun in Taiwan from late April 1952 to the present. On the ABCD Chart, Taiwan remains somewhere between Point B and Point C, in "interim status" under the law of occupation. Taiwan is "unincorporated territory under USMG." As such, Taiwan is a TYPE 1 Insular Area of the United States. After the coming into effect of the relevant peace treaty, US insular law applies to Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Cuba, and Taiwan, because they are inside the principle of "cession by conquest" which was confirmed by "cession by treaty." In the situations of Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Cuba, and Taiwan, the following criteria are met: (1) the United States is the conqueror, (2) the United States is the (principal) occupying power, (3) the territory was indeed ceded in the peace treaty. For Taiwan, it is important to clarify that while this interim status condition under SFPT persists there is no "Taiwan Republic," nor any "One China, One Taiwan," nor "Two Chinas," nor a "divided Chinese nation." This is because Taiwan has not yet reached a "final (political) status." Therefore, as long as the final (political) status of the Taiwan cession is undetermined as noted in the Truman Statement of June 27, 1950 and legally affirmed by SFPT, it is protected by basic civil rights as a treaty cession under the Taiwan Relations Act. In summary, under the provisions of the SFPT, United States Military Government authority over Taiwan is still active in the present day, and the allegiance of native Taiwanese persons is to the United States of America. Question and Answer Q1: What is the relationship of this ABCD Chart with the military occupation of metropolitan Japan? of Iraq? A1: Japan and Iraq were not territorial cessions. For areas which are not territorial cessions, the space between Point B and Point C is reduced to zero. Q2: Does US insular law apply to areas where the USA currently has troops stationed? A2: Persons in the modern era are perhaps more familiar with the military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the general post WWII military occupation of Germany, with Berlin in particular. However, US insular law does not apply to any of these areas because they are not territorial cessions. Q3: Does US insular law apply to the Louisiana cession of 1803? A3: No. US insular law is a development which has arisen from the Spanish American War cessions. The Treaty of Paris, after the Spanish American War, came into effect on April 11, 1899. Q4: Does this ABCD Chart apply to the Florida cession of 1819? The Gadsden cession of 1853? The Alaska cession of 1867? A4: No. Those were so-called "peacetime cessions." The ABCD Chart applies to territorial cessions which are the result of, or directly related to, the conduct of war. Q5: Does this ABCD Chart apply to the California cession which was a result of the Mexican American War? A5: Yes, the California cession was the result of war, and can be discussed in relation to this ABCD Chart. For California, the relevant dates are -- Point A: 1847.01.13Q6: What is the difference between "incorporated territory" and "unincorporated territory"? A6: In a general way it can be stated that "incorporated territory" is 100% on its way to statehood. Later, the doctrine of "unincorporated territory" was introduced to deal with non-contiguous territory which has a different social, political, and cultural background, and is not necessarily on its way to statehood. Importantly, so-called "unincorporated territory" only exists in relation to legal developments post-1898. Q7: If the United States delegated the military occupation of Taiwan to the Chinese Nationalist under CKS, then what is to prevent that arrangement from continuing in the present era? A7: The continued existence of the "Republic of China" in Taiwan is blocking the Taiwanese people's enjoyment of "fundamental rights" under the US Constitution. This is explained as follows: In the Insular Cases the US Supreme Court held that even without any actions by the US Congress, "fundamental rights" under the US Constitution apply in all unincorporated territories. However, with no action by the US Commander in Chief, what we have seen in Taiwan from late April 1952 to the present is something completely different. Specifically, the Taiwanese people have been forced to accept ROC citizenship without any internationally recognized legal basis, and males are subject to military conscription in violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Taiwanese people are living under the ROC Constitution, and in their daily lives they are singing the ROC national anthem, raising the ROC flag, and recognizing an ROC national father. The ROC on Taiwan is a non-state, but the ROC constitutional structure in force specifies that insurrection or rebellion against the ROC is punishable by death or lengthy imprisonment!! Hence, as of late Spring, 1952, in order to conform to the provisions of the Senate-ratified SFPT, and to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, the US Commander in Chief must issue an Executive Order for the Republic of China government on Taiwan to disband or move away. The US government must help the Taiwanese people organize a temporary government (with a new President, Vice-President, and other top officials), and begin preparations for the calling of a Constitutional Convention. In summary, it can be argued that under the SFPT, Taiwan is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. The decision to delegate that jurisdiction (in any way, shape, or form) to the Republic of China military forces is not directly authorized by the SFPT. To the extent that the delegation of jurisdiction for the military occupation of Taiwan is blocking the native Taiwanese persons' enjoyment of fundamental rights under the US Constitution, it must be regarded as void. Q8: There is no mention of "temporary allegiance" in the INA. If the Taiwanese people owe "temporary allegiance" to the United States under the law of occupation, how does this correspond to what INA would recognize as "permanent allegiance"? A8: If calculated from the coming into effect of the SFPT in 1952 to the present day, the native Taiwanese persons have already owed allegiance to the United States for over fifty years. Clearly this relationship meets the dictionary definition of "permanent" which is simply "continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change." In a similar fashion, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) merely defines "permanent" as "a relationship of continuing or lasting nature." See 8 USC 1101 (a) (31): The term "permanent" means a relationship of continuing or lasting nature, as distinguished from temporary, but a relationship may be permanent even though it is one that may be dissolved eventually at the instance either of the United States or of the individual, in accordance with law.A "national of the United States" is defined in 8 USC 1101 (a) (22): The term "national of the United States" means: (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.Clearly, native Taiwanese persons living in Taiwan have "permanent ties" to Taiwan, as evidenced by payment of taxes, ownership of property, and the presence of family. These persons have a permanent dwelling place (or "domicile") in Taiwan to which they, when absent, intend to return. Based on the above INA definitions, native Taiwanese persons do qualify as owing permanent allegiance to the United States. Q9: I am a researcher in Spanish American War history, and I disagree with some of the dates given for "Point A" in Chart 1. A9: There are some historical sources which give different dates as the beginning of military occupation for Puerto Rico, the Philippines, etc. However, even if the dates for "Point A" are disputed by a week, two weeks, or more, the overall analysis of the ABCD Chart remains the same. Q10: Doesn't the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) treat Taiwan as an independent sovereign nation? A10. No, it doesn't. For an in depth discussion of this topic, please see http://www.taiwanadvice.com/plenary2yp.htm Q11: Was Taiwan ever under any sort of United Nations trusteeship arrangement? A11: No. Q12: Do the Hague Conventions or the Geneva Conventions distinguish between "invaded territory" and "occupied territory?" A12: No. The terminology of "occupied territory" is used exclusively. Q13: Do the Hague Conventions or the Geneva Conventions make any special reference to "the military troops that accept the surrender," or any similar term? A13: No. Many civilians mistakenly assume that numerous important legal relationships arise from a consideration of what military troops accept the surrender, but the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions have so such specifications whatsoever. In fact, it is the determination of "the occupying power" which gives rise to many important legal relationships. For Taiwan, it can be held that the ROC troops under Chiang Kai-shek (CKS) accepted the surrender of Japanese troops in Taiwan on behalf of the Allies. However, most importantly, the ensuing military occupation of Taiwan is being conducted upon behalf of the "conqueror" and "principal occupying power," and that is the United States. Q14: Does the SFPT confirm that the United States is the principal occupying power? A14: Yes, in Article 23(a). Q15: Referring to the decision in In Church of Jesus Christ of L. D. S. v. United States 136 U.S. 1 (1890), the Supreme Court concluded that: " . . . . The power to make acquisitions of territory by conquest, by treaty, and by cession is an incident of national sovereignty." This decisions specifies three categories for acquisition of territory: (1) conquest, (2) treaty, (3) cession. How does this correspond with the Hartzell-Lin analysis of "cession by conquest" and "cession by treaty"? A15: The use of the terminology in some of these older Supreme Court cases can be confusing. In the American Insurance Company case, 26 U.S. 511 (1828), the Justices held that the government of the Union " . . . . possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty." In general we would say that the three categories mentioned by the Justices in this 1890 case are explained as follows:
Q16: The surrender ceremony for Japanese troops in Taiwan was conducted on Oct. 25, 1945. However, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, obviously, were not promulgated until many years after this Oct. 1945 event. Hence, what is the rationale for quoting the Geneva Conventions in discussing the Taiwan status issue? A16: This is an excellent question. The issue that must be continually kept in mind here is that we are speaking of the customary laws of warfare. In relation to violations of these customary laws (i.e. "war crimes") by the ROC officials, the three major issues we are looking at are:
In fact, these can all be derived from the Hague Regulations of 1907, with particular reference to HR 23, HR 42, and HR 45. In FM 27-10 these are paragraphs 32, 351, and 359.
In other words, the territory comes under the authority of the hostile army, and that is military occupation, it is not annexation. Consequently, there are no legal grounds for changing the nationality of the local populace, nor can they be conscripted into the army of the occupying forces. Q17: From the point of view of Taiwan, is the United States currently a "hostile power" as spoken of in the customary laws of warfare? A17: No, effectively speaking, in the SFPT Taiwan has been ceded to USMG as an interim status condition. Hence, Taiwan is now under "friendly occupation." Q18: Are there any further clarifications on the issue of "Oath of Allegiance Forbidden?" A18: The stricture against compelling the inhabitants of areas under military government from taking "oaths of allegiance" should not be confused with the (A) "pledge of allegiance" to the flag, (B) the doctrine of "temporary allegiance" under the law of occupation, or (C) the "swearing-in" ceremonies in a court. The "oaths of allegiance" in Article 45 of the Hague Regulations are stated in connection with any attempt to compel the local inhabitants to join in armed or auxiliary forces, or to otherwise do military service. Such military service has traditionally been forbidden by the law of war, and is accepted international precedent going back to the 1830's or earlier. It was later codified in the Hague and Geneva Conventions. As such, any participation in a pledge of allegiance to the flag or a swearing-in ceremony in a court is not in violation of the Hague or Geneva Conventions. The doctrine of "temporary allegiance" under the law of war, and as outlined in relevant US Supreme Court decisions, also includes the limitation that the local inhabitants will not be compelled to do military service. Q19: Do the actions of the Republic of China officials constitute crimes under international law? A19: According to FM 27-10, Ch. 8, para. 498, it certainly appears that the actions of the ROC officials are crimes under international law. Q20: Are war crimes defined in FM 27-10? A20: Yes. See Ch. 8, para. 499. War crimes are also defined in 18 USC 2441. Q21: Could the doctrine of "temporary allegiance" under the law of occupation exist in a dual-tiered formulation? A21: This seems highly unlikely. Indeed, at the most basic level such a formulation would be contradictory and illogical. Moreover, there is no hint of any such dual tiered structure in any US Supreme Court cases. Hence, Hartzell & Lin would maintain that the doctrine of "temporary allegiance" under the law occupation can only exist in a single-tiered structure. As a result, the only possibility for the determination of the allegiance of the Taiwanese people is to the United States of America. Q22: Can the Taiwanese people be considered protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention? A22: Although introduced in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the concept of protected persons is very central to the customary laws of warfare. Hence, it would be most appropriate to regard Taiwanese people as protected persons in this respect. See protected persons. Q23: What do you view as the relationship between US Army Field Manual FM 27-10 The Law of Land Warfare and the Taiwan status issue? A23: FM 27-10 is an official publication of the United States Army. The earliest edition of this Field Manual was dated Oct. 1, 1940. The most recent edition appears to be dated July 15, 1976. The purpose of FM 27-10 Manual is to provide authoritative guidance to military personnel on the customary and treaty law applicable to the conduct of warfare on land, as well as to relationships between belligerents and neutral States. Admittedly, those provisions of the Manual which are neither statutes nor the text of treaties to which the United States is a party cannot be considered 100% binding upon courts and tribunals applying the law of war. However, such provisions are of evidentiary value insofar as they bear upon questions of custom and practice. Q24: In FM 27-10 Chapter 6: Occupation there are words to the effect that " . . . . territory subject to civil affairs administration is not considered to be occupied." Does this contradict with the Hartzell-Lin analysis? A24: In other Hartzell-Lin essays it is often mentioned that the Hague Conventions, Geneva Conventions, FM 27-10, etc. pay little or no attention to situations of military occupation which later become territorial cessions in a peace treaty. Hence, the "military occupation" spoken of therein is clearly belligerent occupation, which is Point A to Point B on an ABCD Chart. Therefore, what these words in FM 27-10 are effectively saying is that " . . . . territory subject to civil affairs administration is not considered to be belligerently occupied." See para. 354 (rewritten). In fact, reference to an ABCD Chart, and comparison to the situations of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and Cuba after the Spanish American War shows that the military government of the (principal) occupying power continues past the point in time where the peace treaty comes into force. And, as we know, military occupation is conducted under military government. Hence, for a territorial cession, the military government of the (principal) occupying power must be supplanted by a recognized "civil government" for the area, and when that happens, the military occupation will have ended. Q25: The Treaty of Paris makes specifications regarding the military occupation of Cuba by the United States. Are there similar specifications for Taiwan in the SFPT? A25: Mr. Hartzell says that there are. See A comparison of the situation of Cuba after the Spanish American War and Taiwan after WWII. Q26: It is often mentioned that during the course of the Pacific War " . . . . all military attacks against Japanese Formosa & the Pescadores were conducted by United States military forces." Are documentary references for this statement available? A26: Mr. Hartzell has lived in Taiwan thirty years. Dr. Roger Lin was born and raised in Taiwan. The above statement is based on their discussions with local Taiwanese persons conducted over several decades. Also, notably, they have never seen any reportage in the local press in Taiwan which would cast doubt upon this assertion. According to Dr. Lin's research into Japanese historical sources, the most likely date for the beginning of military attacks against Taiwan by US military forces was the October - November 1944 period. We do assume that the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. would have all relevant records, or know where such records are being kept. Q27: Do the findings in the case of Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) have any bearing on the Taiwan status issue? A27: The events in that case relate to 21 German nationals, who were captured in China by the United States Army. Prior to May 8, 1945, they had been in the service of German armed forces in China. They were initially tried and convicted in China by an American military commission for violations of the laws of war committed in China prior to their capture. On May 8, 1945, the German High Command executed an act of unconditional surrender, expressly obligating all forces under German control at once to cease active hostilities. These German nationals were convicted of violating laws of war, by engaging in, permitting or ordering continued military activity against the United States after surrender of Germany and before surrender of Japan. From the point of view of the USA, these persons were nonresident enemy aliens, and after further appeals they were tried by a United States military commission in Germany. As such, it appears that the specific details of this case in relation to the trial of the 21 German nationals concerned bear no relation to the situation of Formosa and the Pescadores beginning Oct. 25, 1945. Q28: Is there any other significance of Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) to the Taiwan status issue? A28: This case discusses an important concept which can be called "civis romanus sum." The following quotation is relevant: With the citizen we are now little concerned, except to set his case apart as untouched by this decision and to take measure of the difference between his status and that of all categories of aliens. Citizenship as a head of jurisdiction and a ground of protection was old when Paul invoked it in his appeal to Caesar. The years have not destroyed nor diminished the importance of citizenship nor have they sapped the vitality of a citizen's claims upon his government for protection.Notably, for an area under the jurisdiction of the United States such as Taiwan, it is impossible for US citizens to obtain their full Bill of Rights protections in the local Taiwanese court system. See para. 374. This necessitates the establishment of an Article 2 Court in Taiwan, most likely under the name of the "US Court of Taiwan." Q29: Is there any significance of Koki Hirota v. General of the Army MacArthur , 338 U.S. 197 (1948) to the Taiwan status issue? A29: In that case, the Supreme Court considered, and rejected, a habeas petition filed on behalf of several individuals who had been convicted by an international military tribunal in Japan, and were being held in custody (presumably in Japan) pursuant to the tribunal's judgments. The Court noted that: The United States and other allied countries conquered and now occupy and control Japan. General Douglas MacArthur [the respondent named in the petition] has been selected and is acting as the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. The military tribunals sentencing these petitioners has been set up by General MacArthur as the agent of the Allied Powers.Nevertheless, the Court concluded that because "the tribunal sentencing these petitioners is not a tribunal of the United States," the "courts of the United States have no power" to grant the requested relief. Id. Thus, notwithstanding that the tribunal at issue was established by an American general, who was also named as a respondent to the petition, and that the United States "occup[ied] and control[led]" Japan at the time, the Court held that habeas relief was unavailable because the petitioners were not in the custody of the United States acting qua the United States. A fortiori, where a truly sovereign foreign state is holding an individual in custody, "the courts of the United States have no power" to grant habeas relief. That the International Military Tribunal for the Far East was organized by the Allies is not contested. However, Hartzell & Lin would stress that the United States declared war against the Empire of Japan on Dec. 8, 1941, and that was not a Declaration of war "by the Allies." Moreover, all military attacks against the four main Japanese islands as well as Taiwan were conducted by US military forces, hence the United States is the "conqueror" and the "principal occupying power." The fact that the United States is the "principal occupying power" over all areas within the geographic scope of the SFPT is confirmed by Article 23(a). The Hirota case is from 1948, but the SFPT is a Senate ratified treaty and came into effect on April 28, 1952. Also of significance is to note that in respect to these pre-April 1952 cases, the ROC is typically viewed as a member of the "Allied Powers". However, the ROC is not a signatory to the SFPT, and under SFPT Article 25 cannot claim to be a member of the "Allied Powers" as defined in the treaty. Q30: In regard to the subject of "delegated administrative authority" for the military occupation of a particular area, does FM 27-10 have any mention of this type of arrangement at all? A30: Arguably yes. Two relevant quotations would be paragraphs 284 and 366.
Q31: What is the definition of the "Detaining Power"? In relation to Taiwan, who is the "Detaining Power"? A31: The country, state, government, or any other jurisdiction which detains, holds, or incarcerates those who are alleged to have committed an offence against this jurisdiction or others (which for whatever reason have not been or will be proven not to be fit to process the detainees in question) is known as a Detaining Power. In short, anyone who prevents someone from leaving a country or state and may have lawfully arrested and held such persons for a length of time may be referred to as a Detaining Power. In relation to Taiwan, this is arguably the "Republic of China". Obviously, the entire situation in Taiwan is very confused because of the illegal announcement of "Taiwan Retrocession Day" on Oct. 25, 1945, and the ensuing Jan. 12, 1946 ROC military order announcing mass-naturalization of native Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens. In any event, the United States is the occupying power, and hence as per paragraph 366, the United States bears final responsibility for the ROC's mishandling of Taiwan. A "proxy occupation" is obviously illegal if the party to whom the military occupation has been delegated is totally disregarding the laws of war. For more commentary on paragraph 366 see fm2710p366.htm. Q32: What is the definition of "Protected Persons"? In relation to Taiwan, who is the "Protecting Power"? A32: A Protected Person is any individual legally able to invoke the Laws of War for their protection, which in general includes two main groups (1) "enemy nationals" within the national territory of each of the parties to the conflict and (2) "the whole population" of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the occupying power), but more specifically also includes stateless persons, refugees, POWs, criminal detainees, non-repatriated persons, neutral aliens, nationals of Allied Powers without diplomatic relations, etc. Refer to 12 August 1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Article 4: "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." Normally, a protected person must be a national of a signatory country in order to invoke the GC protections but extensions can be provided through relationships with co-belligerents. Under the Geneva Conventions, the USMG is the Protecting Power of the putative state on the Taiwan cession. Protected persons are entitled to protection of the Protecting Power IF the diplomatic relations don't exist any longer between co-belligerents. Q33: Are the "laws of war" also referred to by other names? A33: Yes. Most commonly seen alternative nomenclature are "international humanitarian law" and "the law of armed conflict." Q34: Many Chinese scholars maintain that Taiwan was returned to China on Oct. 25, 1945 based on the terms of the Cairo Declaration (Dec. 1, 1943), Potsdam Proclamation (July 26, 1945), and Japanese surrender documents (signed Sept. 2, 1945). Don't Chinese history books also explain the post-WWII history in this way? A34: Under international law, there is no basis for saying that Taiwan was "returned to China" on Oct. 25, 1945. According to the customary laws of warfare (as codified in the Hague and Geneva Conventions), that date only marks the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. Moreover, at the most basic level, in order for the provisions of these three cited documents to be fully implemented in the post-war peace treaty, a necessary prerequisite would be that the Republic of China maintain its original legal position. However, the ROC's legal position totally deteriorated when it went into exile on Taiwan. In order to understand the implications of "military occupation" in more depth, please review the other files on the http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/ website. Some particular files worthy of being overviewed are the following: Military Jurisdiction and the Taiwan status question http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/milgovex.htm Q35: Do the USA and the PRC have any agreements regarding "Respect for each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity"? A35: Yes, the Joint Communique of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China (August 17, 1982) contains the following important paragraph:
|
the announcement of "Taiwan Retrocession Day" on Oct. 25, 1945,