中日和約 第10條之解釋


背景:
華日和約第二條並非重新規定日本放棄臺灣。它明文記載其「承認依照舊金山對日和約第二條」而「放棄」臺灣。日本並不是依華日和約而放棄臺灣,而是將日本在舊金山和約中放棄臺灣一事,在華日和約中再予承認而已。

華日和約並沒有規定臺灣歸屬中華民國。而且,在其第三條中卻可見到可以解釋臺灣未必歸屬中華民國的文句。在該條款中所謂「國民」及「住民」的字句是在慎重考慮之下而使用的;雖然它們各出現四次,但在指日本人民時都以日本的「國民」﹝nationals﹞來表示,相對的,在指臺灣人民時,卻不以中華民國的「國民」、而以「住民」﹝inhabitants﹞稱之。而且,這種用法來自國府所提出的原案。

. . . . . 中華民國為當事國的華日和約,要指住在臺灣的臺灣人時,竟然避開「國民」的字眼,而使用「住民」一辭,這似乎暗示臺灣未必會成為中華民國領土的一部份。若注意這一點而再讀第三條全文就更清楚了。
關於日本國及其國民在臺灣及澎湖之財產,及其對於在臺灣及澎湖諸島之中華民國當局及居民所做要求﹝包括債權在內﹞之處理,以及中華民國當局及居民在日本國之財產,及其對於日本國及日本國民所做要求﹝包括債權在內﹞之處理,應由中華民國政府與日本國政府另商特別處理辦法。本約任何條款所用「國民」及「居民」等名詞,均包括法人在內。
若不將「國民」及「住民」分別使用,而一律使用「國民」,在表達上當然更為清晰,但竟然如此區別使用,則顯示其有將兩者加以區別的意思,這在條文解釋上是非常妥當的。


既然在條約上故意做如此區別,將臺灣住民認為中華民國國民是不妥當的。那麼,第十條規定,與此解釋似有所不同。該條款如下:
就本約而言,中華民國國民應認為﹝日文正本是「視為」﹞包括依照中華民國在臺灣及澎湖所已施行或將來可能施行之法律規章,而具有中國國籍之一切臺灣及澎湖居民,及前屬臺灣及澎湖之居民及其後裔。

上列條文簡略地說,就是「中華民國國民,應視為包括臺灣人」。不是「中華民國的國民包括臺灣人」,而是「應視為包括」,這至多是擬似的表現而已。 所謂「含むものとみなす ﹝視為包括﹞」這一段,在中文正本中寫成「應認為包括」,若將中文正本這一段,正確地翻譯成日文的話, 則為「 含むと認めるべきである」,其與日文正本相比,是較為肯定的。到底哪一個是正確呢?根據該條約規定,在解釋上有異議時,「應以英文正本為準」﹝第十四條﹞。而英文正本的寫法為"nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan",問題的 "shall be deemed to include",與其說是接近中文正本,不如說是接近日文正本。

如此臺灣人並未確認為「中華民國國民」,而只是被視為中華民國國民而已。關於這點,締結該條約時,擔任其折衝的重要一員的日本外務省亞洲局長倭島英二,在國會審議該條約當中,以政府委員身分,於參議院外務委員會中透露了以下事實:
第十條,這主要是為了臺灣以及澎湖島的住民或曾是那裡的住民,要來日本或前往其他國家時的方便而設置的。所謂方便是,譬如,現在法律上的方針,是因臺灣,以及澎湖島之最終的領土歸屬還不清楚,而一旦舊金山條約生效,臺灣,以及澎湖島就會脫離我國,一脫離我國,則向來被稱為臺灣籍人民的人們,就會失去日本的國籍,而後處於國籍不明的狀態之下是很不方便的,旅行時就會產生到底持哪種護照來我國,才會被承認的問題。在此第十條中將臺灣,以及澎湖島的住民,或是以前曾是當地的住民或其子孫,都視為其具有中華民國的國籍。視為其被包括在中華民國的國民之內,即是所謂視為的規定。

亞洲局長倭島也在參議院外務委員會中回答兼岩傳一委員﹝日本共產黨籍﹞的質詢中,很明確地表示臺灣人的國籍還沒有最後的決定。
倭島政府委員:……   剛才對於領土關係,提有各式各樣的問題,但都不是最後的決定,因此,對於向來被稱為臺灣籍人民的人們之國籍問題,也還沒有做最後的決定。……

兼岩委員:  如此說來,這個「條款」的文章中並沒有規定為中華民國的國民。而應該規定者,將來聯合國究竟會如﹝岡崎勝男外務﹞大臣的答覆那樣做出領土的決定,而經由此決定,國民也會被決定,現在是尚未決定。[是這麼說的嗎?]……

倭島政府委員:  現在拜託各位審議的與中華民國的和約,並非以決定何處是中華民國的領土,誰是中華民國的國民為目的而做談判的,在這裡面並沒有寫著關於其領土問題,以及領土的歸屬,或是何者為中華民國的國民等這樣的協調。

上述的答辯並不是在祕密會議中所做的,而是在對外公開的日本國會中的發言。此外,它也不是條約締結後,隨著國際情勢的變化所做的發言,而是在條約審議中的發言。這是在如有錯誤的解釋或說明則可以拒絕批准,而使條約無法成立的狀況下所做的答辯。因此,應該可將它視為華日兩國政府談判中互相同意見解。由此答辯也可清楚了解臺灣人之所以持有中華民國國籍,完全是為了方便,並不是最終的決定。再者,臺灣之歸屬並非華日和約所決定,也由締約當事國的日本政府,在審議該條約國會上,很明確地指出。中華民國國會的立法院,雖然其審議內容沒有公開,故無法窺知,但至少日本政府這種見解是很重要的。因為在審議華日和約的階段中,日本政府在國會聲明臺灣之歸屬為未定,而中華民國知悉此事而仍然繼日本之後批准該條約,則應可認為對此並無異議。即使從條約解釋的原則來說,也不得不說臺灣之歸屬為未定。


摘錄自 --
臺灣在國際法上的地位
第172 至 175頁

彭明敏,黃昭堂合著
蔡秋雄 譯
初版,--臺北市:玉山社出版:
吳氏總經銷,1995 [民 84]
ISBN 957-9361-01-0﹝平裝﹞

譯自:

 

Historical and Legal Aspects of the International Status of Taiwan (Formosa)

by Ng, Yuzin Chiautong

Historical and Legal Aspects of the International Status of Taiwan (Formosa)

excerpt from the book:   III. Refutation against PRC and ROC     4. Peace Treaties with Japan --
(3) Article X of the Treaty of Peace between the ROC and Japan stipulates as follows for the nationality of the Taiwanese:
"For the purpose of the present Treaty, the nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendants who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).... "
Simply stated, the "nationals of the ROC shall be deemed to include the Taiwanese." The use of the words "deemed" calls for attention. This is not an affirmative definition of the Chinese nationality of the Taiwanese people, but merely an agreement reached for the sake of convenience on the treatment of the Taiwanese as the ROC nationals. On this point, Mr. Eiji Wajima, Director of the Asian Affairs Bureau, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told the House of Representatives Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs (May 23, 1952), in his capacity as government member, that the status of Taiwan remained undefined and that since the inhabitants of Taiwan who were formerly Japanese nationals lost the Japanese citizenship, and unless some measure being taken, they were not able to travel to Japan. Therefore, they were "deemed" to be Chinese nationals.

(Reference: The 13th Japanese National Diet, House of Representatives,
Standing Committee Record, Vol. 4, no. 25, p. 25
)


At the same committee on May 30, Mr. Kanichiro Ishihara, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, was more explicit in his answer to a question raised by Mr. Hyakuro Hayashi, a member of the Standing Committee:
Hyakuro Hayashi: "When it says 'deemed to include', how different is it from saying 'are nationals' ?"

Ishihara: "The word 'deemed' is used here because the territorial issue has not yet been brought to a final resolution."
(Reference: The 13th Japanese National Diet, House of Representatives,
Standing Committee Record, Vol. 4, no. 28, p. 7
)


(4) In the Treaty of Peace between the ROC and Japan the term "residents" is clearly distinguished from "nationals".

To refer to the Japanese the treaty says "Japanese nationals", but it does not call the Taiwanese "Chinese nationals" but instead, it prefers the term "residents". This shows that the Taiwanese are not "Chinese nationals" but only "deemed" to be such. Article III of the Treaty is illustrative of this point:

"The disposition of property of Japan and of its nationals in Taiwan...., and their claims, including debts, against the authorities of the Republic of China in Taiwan and the residents thereof, and the disposition in Japan of property of such authorities of residents and their claims, including debts against Japan and its nationals, shall be the subject of special agreements between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Republic of China."

Arguments of both Japan and the ROC in the stage of negotiations for the Treaty of Peace between the ROC and Japan have been made clear in the course of deliberations in the Japanese National Diet. The ROC persisted in its demand for clearly identifying Taiwan as its state territory, while Japan refused to comply with the demand.

           
Note: As a pre-condition for establishing diplomatic ties with the PRC, Japan abrogated the Treaty of Taipei with the Taiwan polity in 1972.


Options

works: Historical and legal aspects of the international status of Taiwan (Formosa)
Language: English
Edition: 2nd ed.
Pages: 67 p.
LCCN: 74165355
Dewey: 341.2/9
LC: JX4084.F6 N46 1972
Topic: Taiwan -- International status.
DESCRIPTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction
II. Statement of U. S. State Department
III. Refutation against PRC and ROC
      1. Taiwan Is Not Part of China Historically
      2. The Validity of Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty of 1895 examined
      3. Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and the Instrument of Surrender
      4. Peace Treaties with Japan
      5. The Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of China
      6. Legal Aspects of ROC's Rule of Taiwan
IV. Determination of the Legal Status of Taiwan



Copyright © Taiwan Democratic Advocate All Rights Reserved
VALID HTML5