Areas Conquered by U.S. Military Forces and therefore under USMG Jurisdiction

-- with later "new disposition" by peace treaty

由美國軍方征服並因而在美國軍事政府管轄之下的地區,

---之後並以和平條約而作新的處置

Area
地區
Treaty
條約
Came into force
生效時間
End of USMG
軍事政府之終止
USMG supplanted by
取代軍事政府的機構
California
加利福尼亞
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Art. 5
瓜達盧佩伊達戈條約,第5條
July 4, 1848
1848年07月04日
Dec. 20, 1849
1849年12月20日
civil government for California (USA)
加利福尼亞民事政府(美國)
Puerto Rico
波多黎各
Treaty of Paris, Art. 2
巴黎和約,第2條
April 11, 1899
1899年04月11日
May 1, 1900
1900年05月01日
civil government for Puerto Rico (USA)
波多黎各民事政府(美國)
Philippines
菲律賓
Treaty of Paris, Art. 3
巴黎和約,第3條
April 11, 1899
1899年04月11日
July 4, 1901
1901年07月04日
civil government for Philippines (USA)
菲律賓民事政府(美國)
Guam
關島
Treaty of Paris, Art. 2
巴黎和約,第2條
April 11, 1899
1899年04月11日
July 1, 1950
1950年07月01日
civil government for Guam (USA)
關島民事政府(美國)
Cuba
古巴
Treaty of Paris, Art. 1
巴黎和約,第1條
April 11, 1899
1899年04月11日
May 20, 1902
1902年05月20日
civil government for Cuba (Republic of Cuba)
古巴民事政府(古巴共和國)
Ryukyus
琉球
SFPT, Art. 3
舊金山和約,第3條
April 28, 1952
1952年04月28日
May 15, 1972
1972年05月15日
civil government for Ryukyus (Japan)
琉球民事政府(日本)
Taiwan
台灣
SFPT, Art. 2b
舊金山和約,第2條b
April 28, 1952
1952年04月28日
-- ? --
-- 尚未宣佈終止 –
-- ? --
--尚未有任何安排 –

Link to .jpg Format

Birkhimer, p. 26
Military government continues till legally supplanted
軍事政府的統治一直持續到被 (民政府)合法取代為止

Notes: (1) With the end of USMG jurisdiction in California, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Guam, Cuba, and the Ryukyus, each has become either (a) a sovereign nation, or (b) "part" of another sovereign nation. Significantly, each area has a fully functioning and fully recognized "civil government," which of course has supplanted USMG jurisdiction. Taiwan is clearly the exception. Since the end of the Second World War, it has been the official policy of the United States government that the status of Taiwan is "an unsettled question . . . . "
注解: (1)隨著美國軍事政府對加利福尼亞,波多黎各,菲律賓,關島,古巴,以及琉璃群島管轄權的結束,這些地區已經成為(a)主權國家,或(b)另一個主權國家的一部分。顯然地,每個地區都有完全的行政,以及完全被認可的“民事政府”,是能完全取代美國軍事政府的管轄。很明顯,台灣是一個特例,自從第二次世界大戰結束後,美國政府的官方政策是:台灣的法律地位是“懸而未決的. . . .”。

(2) Beginning with the Truman Statement of June 27, 1950, (or arguably earlier) the US position on the Taiwan status question has been "undetermined." As clarified by the Truman Statement and the SFPT, the United States has never recognized the forcible incorporation of Taiwan into China.
(2)自從1950年6月27日的杜魯門聲明開始,美國在台灣問題上的立場已經是“懸而未決的”。正如杜魯門聲明和舊金山和約所闡述的那樣,美國從來就沒有承認過台灣強行併入中國。

(3) In the post-war SFPT of 1952, Taiwan was not awarded to China (either the ROC or the PRC).
(3) 於1952生效的 (戰後) 舊金山和約,台灣並沒有授予中國(無論是中華民國或則是中華人民共和國)

(4) The Mutual Defense Treaty of 1955 did not change the US position on the Taiwan sovereignty question either. In conjunction with the ratification of the MDT, a report issued Feb. 8, 1955 by the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations specified: "It is the view of the committee that the coming into force of the present treaty will not modify or affect the existing legal status of Formosa and the Pescadores."
(4) 1955年的共同防禦條約也並未改變美國關於台灣主權問題的立場,在1955年2月8日,美國參議院外交關係委員會連同共同防禦條約一併發布了一份報告,報告中指出“委員會認為當前條約的實施不會改變或者影響台灣及澎湖列島現存的法律地位。”

(5) The Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress entitled China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy was released on July 9, 2007. In the Summary at the beginning of that report the following points were made -- (5)美國國會研究服務局(CRS)在2007年07月09日發布名為中國/台灣:“一個中國政策”的演變報告,在報告開頭的概述中指出:

  1. The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982.
    美國在1972年,1979年,以及1982年的中美三個聯合公報中都沒有明確聲明台灣的主權地位。
  2. The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait.
    美國“認知到”台灣海峽兩岸雙邊“一個中國”立場。
  3. US policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan;
    美國的政策不承認中華人民共和國對台灣擁有主權。
  4. US policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and
    美國的政策不承認台灣作為一個主權國家。
  5. US policy has considered Taiwan's status as undetermined.
    美國的政策將台灣的狀態視為“懸而未決的”。

(6) Moreover, on Aug. 30, 2007 Dennis Wilder, National Security Council (NSC) Senior Director for Asian Affairs said: "Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community. The position of the United States government is that the ROC -- Republic of China -- is an issue undecided, and it has been left undecided, as you know, for many, many years."
(6)此外,在2007年8月30日,美國國家安全委員會亞洲事務高級主任丹尼斯韋德稱:“台灣,或中華民國,此時,在國際社會上並不是一個國家,美國政府的立場是中華民國是懸而未決的,並且正如我們所知道的,已經懸而未決多年了。”

Reference:
Military Government and Martial Law, by William E. Birkhimer, Kansas City, Missouri, Franklin Hudson Publishing Co., third edition, revised (1914).
參考書目:
《軍事政府與戒嚴法》,作者:威廉伯E.伯克海姆,堪薩斯市,密蘇里州,富蘭克林哈得遜出版社出版,第3版,1914年修訂。

Birkhimer, p. 16
Military Government is that which is established by a commander over occupied enemy territory. To entitle it to recognition it is necessary that the authority of the State to which the territory permanently belongs should have ceased there to be exercised.
伯克海姆,第16頁
軍事政府是指那由指揮官在被佔領的敵人領土上所建立的。欲取得軍事政府之被承認,必須要該領土永久隸屬之國家當局已經停止在該地區運作。

Birkhimer, p. 21
The erection of such governments over the persons and territory of a public enemy is an act of war; is in fact the exercise of hostilities without the use of unnecessary force. It derives its authority from the customs of war, and not the municipal law. It is a mode of retaining a conquest, of exercising supervision over an unfriendly population, and of subjecting malcontent non-combatants to the will of a superior force, so as to prevent them from engaging in hostilities, or inciting insurrections or breaches of the peace, or from giving aid and comfort to the enemy. 伯克海姆,第21頁
在公敵的人民與領土上,建立這類政府 (即軍政府),是一種戰爭行為,但事實上是未使用不必要的武力來進行敵對的動作。其權力是由戰爭慣例而衍生,而非由國內法產生。那是保留征服的一種模式,是對一群不友好民眾實施監管,也是使不滿的非戰鬥人員服從於超級力量之意志,因而防範他們從事於敵對行動,或煽動叛亂,又或者是破壞和平之約定,又或則是給敵方提供援助和支持。

Birkhimer, p. 1
Moreover, military government may be exercised not only during the time that war is flagrant, but down to the period when it comports with the policy of the dominant power to establish civil jurisdiction.
伯克海姆,第1頁
此外,軍事政府不但在公然的戰爭時期可以執行,它可以一直持續到當它符合支配國要建立民事管轄之政策時為止。

Reference:
Madsen v. Kinsella, US Supreme Court, 343 U.S. 341 (1952)
參考書目:
Madsen v. Kinsella, 美國最高法院, 343 U.S. 341 (1952)

Winthrop's opus, as quoted in the US Supreme Court case of Madsen v. Kinsella:

In speaking of the nature of military government, Colonel William Winthrop, in his authoritative work on Military Law and Precedents (second edition, 1920 reprint), says on page 800: "Military government . . . is an exercise of sovereignty, and as such dominates the country which is its theatre in all the branches of administration. Whether administered by officers of the army of the belligerent, or by civilians left in office or appointed by him for the purpose, it is the government of and for all the inhabitants, native or foreign, wholly superseding the local law and civil authority except in so far as the same may be permitted by him to subsist . . . . The local laws and ordinances may be left in force, and in general should be, subject however to their being in whole or in part suspended and others substituted in their stead -- in the discretion of the governing authority."

論及軍政府的本質,William Winthrop上校,在其權威的著作《軍法與先例》(第2版,1920年重印)第800頁中所述:“軍政府. . .,是主權的行使,軍事政府因此統治其戰區的所有行政機構,無論是由交戰國軍隊的官員管理,還是由留守辦公室的平民管理,或由他(指揮官)為此目的所指派的人員管理,這個政府是針對全體居民,無論是本地居民或外來居民,完全取代當地法律和民事政府當局,除非他(指揮官)允許那迄今仍然同樣的當地法律和民事政府生存. . .,當地的法律和法規也許可以保留有效,一般來說也應該如此,不過完全是依治理當局之酌處權來栽奪--或是全部保留,或是部分中止,而由其他的來替代。

* * 註解:* *

民事政府之定義:所謂民事政府係由一般公民被指派或選舉所組成的政府,即非軍方體系人員所組成的政府。

軍事政府之定義:所謂軍事政府是佔領軍對於佔領地區執行政府職權的管理當局型態。

民事政府與軍事政府之分辨必須研究其「權力來源」,而不是光看其名稱。例如自 1950年到1972年由美國國防部組織而在琉球群島運作的 “美國琉球民事政府”(USCAR) 事實上是軍事政府。

Reference:
FM 27-10 "The Law of Land Warfare," DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON 25, D.C., 18 July 1956. (This manual supersedes FM 27-10, 1 October 1940, including C 1, 15 November 1944. Changes required on 15 July 1976, have been incorporated within this document.) Chapter 6, OCCUPATION
參考書目:
陸地戰爭法 手冊第27-10卷,美國陸軍部,華盛頓D.C.,1956年07月18日初版。
(本手冊取代1940年10月01日初版中之FM 27-10,包括1944年11月15日之C1,1976年07月15日所必要的改變,也已包含在本文件中。)參考第6章:佔領

362. Necessity for Military Government
Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory. The necessity for such government arises from the failure or inability of the legitimate government to exercise its functions on account of the military occupation, or the undesirability of allowing it to do so. (See para. 12, which discusses military government, and para. 354, dealing with civil affairs administration.)
362. 軍事政府的必要性
軍事政府是佔領軍對於佔領地區執行政府職權的管理當局型態。對於此種政府的必要性,是由於軍事佔領導而致原來當地合法政府已潰散或不能執行自己的職權,或狀況不允許時佔領軍不欲其執行職權。 (請參見本彙編第 12 段論軍事政府,以及第 354 段處理民政治理的條文。)

363. Duty to Restore and Maintain Public Order
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.  (HR, art. 43.)
363. 恢復與維持公共秩序的義務
當原來具有正當性政府的權力,事實上交給佔領者手中時,除非被情況所制止,後者必須盡全力恢復和保證該地區的公共秩序與安全,同時遵守該地區已生效的法律。 (HR 第 43 條)



Download this file 請 下 載 本 文 in Microsoft Word (.docx) format 版 本


Copyright © Taiwan Democratic Advocate All Rights Reserved
VALID HTML5