Should native Taiwanese people who want to travel internationally be able to apply for travel documents issued by a sovereign state?
本土臺灣人在國際旅行時，是否應持由主權國家所核發的旅行證件？
Secretary Powell's Statement
quote: "Our policy is clear. There is only one China. Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy."
包爾國務卿的證言
引述： ”我們的政策是清楚的，只有一個中國。台灣不是獨立的國家，不享有作為國家的主權.這是我們的政策、堅實的政策。”
Director Wilder's Statement
quote: "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."
韋德寧主任的證言
引述：臺灣或中華民國、在這個時點的國際社會中皆不是國家，美國的立場是 ”ROC中華民國” 是一個尚未決定的議題。你也知道，這已經是很多年以來仍尚未解決的議題。
Roger C. S. Lin et al. v. United States of America
quotes: (March 18, 2008 District Court Decision) [The Native Taiwanese] 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.
林志昇等控美案
引述如下：(2008年03月28日 哥倫比亞地區法院判決文), 60幾年來[本土臺灣人]原告、實質上是沒有國籍的人，最終有關臺灣地位最完整的權威敘述是來自1945年麥克阿瑟將軍令；我們可以理解和同情這些原告們為爭取其有國際正常地位的殷殷期盼。
(April 7, 2009 Court of Appeals Decision) 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. This pervasive ambiguity has driven Appellants to try to concretely define their national identity and personal rights.
(2009年04月07日 高等法院判決文)
在過去60年，由於美國和中國之間糢糊不清的關係，致使原臺灣住民陷入了政治的煉獄中，在此期間，台灣人民生活在沒有被普遍承認的政府狀態下。就實際狀況來說，他們是生活在身份不確定的國際社會裡，這已經影響到他們日常的生活。在這樣的普遍的不確定性氛圍下，乃趨使原告們企圖要明確的澄清自己的國籍和其個人應有的權利。
According to the above data, the United States Executive Branch and U.S. courts do not recognize the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan as a sovereign state. So, what is the ROC on Taiwan? Based on the legal and historical record, Taiwan was Japanese national territory until Japan renounced all of its rights, claims, and title in the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) of 1952. Hence, it seems reasonable to say that when the ROC moved its central government to occupied Taiwan in early December 1949, it was moving outside of China's national territory and immediately became a government in exile.
根據以上資料可佐證美國行政部門及法院並不承認中華民國(ROC)在臺灣是一個主權國家；那麼中華民國在臺灣是什麼？根據法理和歷史、臺灣原是日本的領土直至1952年舊金山和平條約(SFPT) 日本放棄其對臺灣所有的權利、名器與請求權。因此，我們可以合理的認定在1949年、當中華民國將其中央政府搬至(逃難至)佔領中的臺灣時，那表示它已從離中國的國家領土，立即就成為流亡政府了。
Reference may be made to the case of Sheng v. Rogers, D.C. Circuit, Oct. 6, 1959, where the judges examined the legal status of Taiwan in detail, and held: " . . . that the Government of the Republic of China exercises authority over the island; that the sovereignty of Formosa has not been transferred to China; and that Formosa is not a part of China as a country, at least not as yet, and not until and unless appropriate treaties are hereafter entered into. Formosa may be said to be a territory or an area occupied and administered by the Government of the Republic of China, but is not officially recognized as being a part of the Republic of China." (Emphasis added.)
我們也可以從1959年10月06日華盛頓巡迴法庭Sheng v. Rogers的案例中法官們詳細的審視臺灣的法理地位資料獲得理解如下：“中華民國的當局是在這個島上行使權力；而福爾摩沙的主權並未移轉給中國；福爾摩沙並不是中國國土的一部份、至少現在還不是，一直到除非有適當的條約通過做為依據。福爾摩沙可以說是一塊領土或是由中華民國所佔領或治理的一個地區，但福爾摩沙並不是被正式承認為是中華民國的一部份。
Based on the above it is clear that there was no "Taiwan Retrocession Day" on Oct. 25, 1945, the ROC has never held the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan, and the issuance of ROC passports to native Taiwanese persons is without legal basis.
根據以上的說明可以清楚的明白1945年10月25日並非是中華民國所自稱的 ”光復節”，中華民國ROC並沒有擁有臺灣的主權，因此、它所發行給本土臺灣人的中華民國護照並沒有法律依據。
Native Taiwanese People
本土臺灣人 (原臺澎住民及其後代)
Upon the signing of the surrender documents by the Japanese Emperor on Sept. 2, 1945, all people of Taiwan bearing household registration in Japanese-governed Taiwan and their descendants continuing to possess household registration in Taiwan up to the present.
日本天皇在1945年09月02日簽署 投降書前、在臺灣設有戶籍的人、以及其至今在臺灣仍設有戶籍的後代子孫們是為本土臺灣人。
Importantly, the human rights of the native Taiwanese people are being violated and have been violated since the end of World War II. They are native Taiwanese people, not Chinese citizens. As such, they should not be forced to carry ROC passports.
重要的是本土臺灣人的人權被侵犯並且從二戰結束以來一直被不停的侵犯。他們是本土臺灣人、並非是中國公民。因此他們(本土臺灣人)不應被逼迫使用中華民國護照。
The Republic of China passport carried by native Taiwanese people clearly indicates the bearer’s nationality as “Republic of China.” Under international standards however, such a nationality designation does not exist. This is explained as follows.
對於拿(持)中華民國護照的本土臺灣人來說，這意味著持有人的國籍是中華民國。但依國際標準的分類，中華民國 (ROC) 這個國籍際上實際是不存在的，玆說明如下
ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes are three-letter country codes defined in ISO 3166-1, part of the ISO 3166 standard published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), to represent countries, territories, etc. These three-letter abbreviations have been formally adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as the official designation(s) of a “recognized nationality” for use in manufacturing machine-readable passports, carried by travelers in order to deal with entry/exit procedures at customs authorities in all nations/territories of the world.
國際標準組織(ISO) 3166-1分類的“起頭三碼”是以 “國家名稱” 的 “三個字母” 來代表那一個國家、地區等。這 “三個字母” 的國名縮寫也正式的由國際航空組織(ICAO)所採用，並以之用來處理旅行者出入各個國家或地區海關時，可經由智慧型機器來識別其護照的 “國名符號”、以方便護照持有人在世界各國依法快速方便的出入國境。
According to these three-letter ISO country codes adopted by ICAO, the “Republic of China” is not a recognized nationality in the international community, and thus there is no “ROC” entry.
根據由國際航空組織(ICAO) 所採用的 “三個字母” 的國名縮寫、在國際社會裡、中華民國已經不是一個被承認的國家或國籍，是故沒有 “ROC” 國籍的選項。
This is a serious human rights issue for native Taiwanese people, because Article 15 (1) of the Universal Human Rights Declaration says everyone has the right to a nationality.
對本土臺灣人而言、這是非常嚴肅的人權議題，根據世界人權宣言第15(1)條的 規定：「人人有權享有國籍。」
What is the solution to this problem?
那麼，如何解決這個問題?
The question then arises, "Which sovereign state should take the responsibility for issuing 'travel documents' to native Taiwanese people?" The following excerpts from the Foreign Relations of the United States series, edited by the Department of State, offer some important insights:
那麼，現在問題來了；是那一個主權國家必須負起責任發行 “旅行證件” 給本土臺灣人？我們應可以由美國國務院編纂的 ”美國外交關係” 系列叢書中節錄出一些重要的內容來深入了解。
49-3) June 9, 1949
Plebiscite Proposal
There has been no recognition (by the Allies) that Taiwan has been incorporated into Chinese territory.
1949年06月09日
住民公投提案
沒有任何同盟國家承認臺灣已經被編入中國國內領土。
49-5) Oct. 23, 1949
Right of conquest
Chinese President Li Zongren is in favor of joint Sino-American Commission to govern Taiwan, but admits US could take control based on right of conquest.
1949年10月23日
征服者的權力
中華民國總統李宗仁贊成中美共管臺灣；但承認美國可以依征服者的身分來控管臺灣。
49-6) Dec. 3, 1949
Special Responsibility of US
The United States has a special responsibility for Taiwan due to its military liberation of the island.
1949年12月03日
美國的特別責任
因為美國是以軍事力量解放了這個島嶼，因此美國對臺灣有不可抹消的特別責任。
50-1) Oct. 23, 1950
International Problem
By sending the Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait, the U.S. Executive Branch has forcefully emphasized its position that Formosa is an international problem.
1950年10月23日
國際問題
經由派遣第七艦隊護衛臺灣海峽，美國行政當局大力的強調福爾摩沙法理地位的認定屬於國際問題。
50-2) Nov. 11, 1950
No Formal Act
To date, no Formal Act restoring Formosa & Pescadores to China has occurred.
1950年11月11日
沒有正式(法律)動作
到目前為止，沒有任何正式的(法律)動作有將臺灣和澎湖返還中國。
50-3) Nov. 16, 1950
Principal Victor over Japan
As principal victor over Japan, US has a great responsibility in regard to the disposition of Formosa.
1950年11月16日
對日本的主要戰勝國
做為對日本的主要戰勝者，美國對福爾摩沙(臺灣)的處理有其不可抹滅的鉅大職責。
51-2) May 3, 1951
Occupation of Formosa
There are many types of military occupation, and the US could occupy Formosa without any Americans being present . . . .
1951年05月03日
福爾摩沙的佔領
佔領有很多種方式，而美國可以使用一種不需要任何美國人在現場的方式，來佔領台灣。
52-1) June 2, 1952
Undetermined sovereignty
Sovereignty over Formosa is still undetermined with the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) on April 28, 1952.
1952年06月02日
尚未決定的 (領土)主權
自1952年04月28日舊金山和平條約(SFPT)生效以來，福爾摩沙的主權仍然屬於尚未決定的狀態。
54-1) Sept. 27, 1954
Inchoate Juridical Status
Formosa and the Pescadores (aka "Taiwan") have an inchoate juridical status under SFPT, however Kinmen and Mazu have continuously been Chinese territory.
1954年09月27日
未完全形成的法律地位
依據舊金山和平條約SFPT、福爾摩沙和澎湖列島(亦稱“臺灣” ) 有其尚未完全形成的初始法律地位，然而金門和馬祖一直不斷地屬於中國的領土。
54-2) Oct. 14, 1954
US juridical position
Neither the San Francisco Peace Treaty of April 28, 1952, nor the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty (Treaty of Taipei) of Aug. 5, 1952 can be interpreted to say that Formosa and the Pescadores have been ceded to China. Importantly, the United States retains a juridical position in these islands.
1954年10月14日
由美國在法理管轄上的地位
不論1952年04月28日舊金山和平條約或是1952年08月05日中日和平條約(台北條約)均無法詮釋福爾摩沙和澎湖已經割讓給中國。很重要的是根據條約，對於管轄這些島嶼，美國保有法律上的一個地位。
54-3) Oct. 18, 1954
Distinctive Juridical Status
(Eisenhower:) Technically, Formosa and the Pescadores are not under Chinese sovereignty. The Chinese Nationalists are living in a privileged sanctuary.
1954年10月18日
特殊的法律地位
(艾森豪總統指出：) 嚴格的按照法律來說，福爾摩沙和澎湖並不是包含在中國的領土主權之下，這些(逃難的)中國國民黨及其人民們何其幸運、能以福爾摩沙和澎湖為避難所。
54-4) Oct. 28, 1954
Unsatisfied US Interest
Japan did not cede sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores to China. Japan renounced its own sovereignty but left the future title undefined. As principal victor over Japan, the United States has an unsatisfied interest in these former Japanese islands.
1954年10月28日
美國未完成的利益
日本沒有割讓福爾摩沙和澎湖的領土主權給予中國；日本是放棄了她對福爾摩沙和澎湖的領土主權，卻留下了對臺澎一個未確定義的所有權狀態。但，做為日本的主要戰勝國，美國對福爾摩沙和澎湖自有其未完成的利益。
55-1) July 1, 1955
United States Could Assert Legal Claim
In the peace treaty, Japan has merely renounced sovereignty over Taiwan, but there has been no other disposition. The United States also has an interest in Taiwan and could assert a legal claim to the island(s). Hence, the disposition of Taiwan is not merely an internal Chinese problem.
1955年07月01日
美國能堅決主張一個合法權益
在和平條約中，日本僅是放棄其對臺灣的領土主權，除此之外並未有其他的(最後)處理方式表達。美國對臺灣有其被授與的利益存在，故可以堅決主張其對這些島嶼的合法權益。因此，有關臺澎島嶼的處理，並不僅限於是中國的內部問題。
56-1) June 10, 1956
Former Japanese Territories
The United States has residual responsibility over all former Japanese territories.
1956年06月10日
原日本領土
美國對原日本領土(福爾摩沙和澎湖等) 有剩餘(有必需負責收尾)的責任。
Unfortunately, over the last eight or more years, the US Secretary of Defense has not responded to numerous Petitions of native Taiwanese persons for the issuance of Travel Documents.
可惜的是，最近八年多以來，對於本土台灣人不斷的陳請要求美國核發「台灣旅行證件」，美國國防部部長沒有做出任何答覆。
Whether this situation will change in the months to come remains to be seen.
在未來的時間內，這樣的情形會不會改變，我們拭目以待。
Copyright © Taiwan Democratic Advocate All Rights Reserved
Sponsors:
