From the second half of the eighteenth century onwards, international law came to distinguish between the military occupation of a country and territorial acquisition by invasion and annexation, the difference between the two being originally expounded upon by Emerich de Vattel in his opus The Law of Nations (1758). The distinction then became clear and has been recognized among the principles of international law since the end of the Napoleonic wars (circa 1820). Many countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, recognized the legal concept of military occupation even earlier.
從十八世紀中葉以來，國際法上開始區別領土取得的方式：(1) 侵略後立即併吞，以及 (2) 軍事佔領。至於兩者的差異，最早有闡述的是由學者瓦特爾所著作的《國際公法》(1758 出版)。這個區別在拿破崙戰爭之後（約1820年）變得更加清晰，並且成為國際法的原則。許多國家，例如美國和英國等，甚至在更早期就已經承認「軍事佔領」這樣的法律概念。
| 大約在1820年代前 | 大約在1830年代後 |
| Territory is considered annexed when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. 領土被敵軍完全控制在其管轄下之後，已屬於被併吞。 |
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. 領土被敵軍完全控制在其管轄下之後，已屬於被佔領。 Note: Military occupation does not transfer territorial sovereignty. 註：軍事佔領不移轉領土主權。 |
Sir William Blackstone, in his treatise Commentaries on the Laws of England, originally published 1765 - 1769 by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, also gave emphasis to this legal formulation. All of the territories Blackstone lists as dominions are the sovereign territory of the Crown: colonies, acquisitions and conquests, and so on.
威廉·布萊克斯通爵士在他的論文、著作《英格蘭法釋評》，(初版1765年到1769年，由牛津大學出版部印刷)，其中強調這樣的法律觀念。布萊克斯通所列出所有英國皇室的主權延伸到的領土，包括：殖民地、收購的領土、征服地等等。
To apply Blackstone's reasoning to the United States, we need merely substitute "federal government" for "Crown," and the meaning becomes clear.
要將布萊克斯通的論述應用到美國，我們只需用 “聯邦政府” 代替 “英國皇室”，這樣意思就很清楚了。
However, again, we have to recognize that in speaking of the sovereign territory of the Crown, there is a technical legal distinction between mere “jurisdiction” and actual “sovereignty” – the two are not always the same thing.
然而，再一次，我們必須認識到，在講到英國皇室主權領土，在僅只是“管轄權” 與實際的 “主權” 之間有一個技術性的法律區別，這兩者並非都是同樣的東西。
Accordingly, in the first two videos of this series, we have illustrated a variety of circumstances where exercising jurisdiction and exercising sovereignty are not identical. We overviewed situations of Kuwait, Belgium, Singapore, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, Philippines, Taiwan, and the Ryukyu island group. However, many civilians still have trouble understanding these concepts which are related to the laws of war and military occupation.
因此，在本系列的影片當中，我們已經說明了各種情況下行使管轄權和行使主權是不相同的。我們綜述科威特、比利時、新加坡、古巴、波多黎各、關島、菲律賓、台灣和琉球群島的情況。然而還是有很多人民很難理解這些涉及戰爭法以及軍事佔領有關的觀念。
Let’s give an additional example from the War of 1812, which was fought between the British and the Americans, from June 18, 1812, to Feb. 18, 1815.
我們再多舉一個1812年戰爭的例子，這是1812年06月18日 到 1815年02月18日 英國人與美國人之間的戰爭。
On Sept. 1, 1814, all U.S. military troops in Castine, Maine, surrendered, and military forces of the British army (commonly known as “Redcoats”) took over jurisdiction of the city. Within a week, the British flag is flying, and portraits of King George III are hanging in all public buildings, and the local police are wearing British uniforms. The question arises: Does the sovereignty of Castine now belong to the U.K.?
於1814年09月01日，在緬因領土的卡斯廷鎮的所有美國部隊投降了，而英國陸軍（通稱「紅外套」）的軍力接管了這個鎮的管轄權。一周之內，英國國旗到處飄揚，國王喬治三世的畫像掛在所有的公共設施裡，當地的警察都穿著英國的制服。問題來了：卡斯廷現在的主權是屬於英國的嗎？
| Maine Statehood 問題：緬因領土何時成為美國的一州？ 答案：1820年03月15日 |
Several large groups of British loyalists are now loudly proclaiming that “Castine is now under the sovereignty of the British Empire!” In addition to the obvious fact that Castine is now under the exclusive jurisdiction of U.K. officialdom, they also assert the following points, which we will number as 2, 3, and 4:
英國王室忠誠派的數個大集團，開始大聲宣稱：“卡斯廷現在是屬於大英帝國的主權！”除了卡斯廷現在是在英國官方系統獨家管轄權下之明顯事實外，他們還聲稱下列的2、3 及4 點：
2) It is commonly known that Massachusetts and Maine, including the port city of Castine, have belonged to the U.K. since colonial times.
2）如眾所周知，麻薩諸塞領土和緬因領土，包括卡斯廷港口這個鎮，自殖民時代以來(甚至於更早)一直都屬於英國。
3) In June 1812, when the war originally broke out, many politicians in the Parliament urged that all treaties between the United Kingdom and the “United States of America” should be considered abrogated. This of course included the 1783 “Treaty of Paris” signed on Sept. 3, 1783, and which came into force on Jan. 14, 1784, in which the American colonies had been granted independence in the first place.
3）在1812年06月，當戰爭爆發初期，在議會中的許多政治家敦促應該將所有英國與美國之間的條約視為廢止。這當然包括了1783年09月03日所簽署並於1784年01月14日生效的 “巴黎條約”。在此條約中，就是原先給予美國殖民地獨立。
4) Reputedly, before the commencement of the war on June 18, 1812, there were several proclamations and declarations, saying that all the northeastern American colonies which the American colonists had stolen from the King of Great Britain, such as New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maine, shall be restored to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
4）據說，在1812年06月18日戰爭開始之前，有許多宣告或聲明說美國殖民者從英國國王竊取的所有美國東北部的殖民地，如：新罕布什爾領土、馬薩諸塞領土和緬因領土，都應該歸還給大不列顛和愛爾蘭聯合王國。
| Massachusetts Statehood 問題：馬薩諸塞領土何時成為美國的一州？ 答案：1788年02月06日 |
| New Hampshire Statehood 問題：新罕布什爾領土何時成為美國的一州？ 答案：1788年06月21日 |
Our question is: Based on the above rationale, can we now say that the U.K. has sovereignty over this city?
我們的問題是：基於上述理由，我們現在可以說英國擁有這個鎮的主權嗎？
Again, the answer is No. Under the laws of war of the modern era, the surrender of the U.S. troops in Castine, Maine, only marks the beginning of the military occupation. International law states that military occupation does not transfer sovereignty.
再一次，答案是否定的。在近代戰爭法之下，美軍在緬因領土卡斯廷鎮的投降，只表示了軍事佔領的開始。國際法規定，軍事佔領不移轉領土主權。
This military occupation is not changed by such rationale as noting that this particular area has belonged to the U.K. since colonial times. Indeed, with the coming into force of the Treaty of Paris on Jan. 14, 1784, all previous British claims regarding the ownership of the territory of the American colonies, whether based on history, culture, language, race, geography, geology, etc., have become null and void.
這種軍事佔領不會因為此特定區域自殖民地時期以來一直屬於英國之理由而改變。的確，當1784年01月14日 巴黎條約開始生效起，在此之前英國原來所宣稱對於美洲殖民地之擁有領土所有權，無論是基於歷史、文化、語言、種族、地理、地質等理由，皆已經變成無效。
In regard to the abrogation of treaties, it is important to note that even when such an abrogation occurs, the only clauses which are affected are those which are still “active.” So, for example, from the perspective of the year of 1812, looking back at the Jan. 14, 1784, Treaty of Paris, the clauses regarding the recognition of the independence of the American colonies, having been fully completed, are no longer “active” clauses, and therefore are not subject to any sort of retroactive cancellation.
關於條約的廢止，重要的是要注意，當廢止發生時，唯一受影響的是那些仍然在 ”執行中”、”作用中” 的條款。所以，舉例來說，從1812年的角度來看，回顧1784年01月14日，巴黎條約，關於承認美洲殖民地獨立的條款，已全面完成，而不再是“作用中” 的條款，因此不受任何形式的追溯取消。
Additionally, although there may have been some proclamations and declarations in the years before the war, saying that all the northeastern American colonies which the American colonists had stolen from the King of Great Britain, shall be restored to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, etc. However, such proclamations, declarations, etc. and indeed even the surrender ceremonies on Sept. 1, 1814, in Castine, Maine, did not create a legal procedure to actually accomplish a transfer of territory. Such a territorial transfer would have to be accomplished by treaty.
此外，或許在戰爭前有一些宣告和聲明，聲稱美國殖民地居民偷走英國國王的美國東北部殖民地，所以應該恢復到大不列顛和愛爾蘭聯合王國等等。然而，經這樣的宣言、宣告、聲明等，甚至在1814年09月01日在緬因領土卡斯廷鎮的投降儀式中，也尚未建立一個法律程序來確實完成領土轉讓。這樣的領土(主權)轉移必須經由條約來完成。
5) But there is still another rationale which the British can advance. Namely, with the coming into force of the Treaty of Ghent on Feb. 18, 1815: “Our troops are in Castine, Maine, and so therefore that city belongs to us, and is under our sovereignty.”
5）但英國還可以提出其他的理由。亦即，隨著1815年02月18日根特條約生效之時，「我們的軍隊在緬因領土的卡斯廷鎮，因此這個鎮是屬於我們的，是在我們的主權之下。」
However, having watched this far in this series of videos, we should immediately be able to recognize the illogic of this argument. “Jurisdiction over territory” is not directly equal to “possession of sovereignty.” This is especially true in situations which are the outgrowth of the conduct of war. More specifically, there were no clauses in the Treaty of Ghent which stated that Castine was being ceded to the U.K.
然而，在看了本系列的影片迄今，我們應該能夠立即認識到這種爭議的不合理。「握有領土管轄權」並非直接與「擁有領土主權」畫上等號。凡是涉及戰爭方面所引發的情況時，這個道理特別顯著。更明確地來說，在根特條約當中，並沒有一個條款將卡斯廷割讓給英國。
The above discussion of the War of 1812 is directly comparable to the conduct of WWII in the Pacific, the surrender ceremonies in Taiwan, and the ensuing legal and historical developments. We can clarify five items of confusion as follows.
上述討論的1812年戰爭可以直接比照美日太平洋的二次世界大戰、在台灣的投降儀式以及接踵而至的法律及歷史發展。我們可以澄清下述五項容易混淆的地方。
1) On Oct. 25, 1945, all Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered, and military forces of the Republic of China army took over jurisdiction of the island. Within a week, the ROC flag is flying, and portraits of President Chiang Kai-shek are hanging in all public buildings, and the local police are wearing Chinese uniforms. The question arises: Does the sovereignty of Taiwan now belong to the Republic of China? The answer is No.
1）1945年10月25日，在台灣的所有日軍部隊投降後，中華民國陸軍的軍力就接收這個島嶼的管轄權。一周之內，中華民國國旗飄揚，總統蔣介石的肖像掛在所有的公共設施裡，當地警察穿著中華民國的制服。問題來了：台灣當時的主權是屬於中華民國的嗎？答案：「不是」。
But, wait a moment, let’s look at some additional rationale.
但是，等等，讓我們來看看一些其他的理由。
2) It is commonly known that Formosa and the Pescadores, which we collectively refer to as “Taiwan,” have belonged to China since ancient times.
2）眾所周知，福爾摩沙和澎湖群島，(我們統稱為”台灣”) 自古以來屬於中國。
3) In July 1937, when clashes between Chinese and Japanese troops initially occurred outside Beijing, many Chinese politicians urged that all treaties between China and Japan should be considered abrogated. This of course included the 1895 “Treaty of Shimonoseki,” in which Taiwan had been ceded to Japan in the first place.
3）1937年07月，當中國和日本軍隊之間在北京之郊區爆發初次衝突之際，許多中國政治家敦促廢止中國和日本之間的所有條約。這當然包括了1895年原先把台灣割讓給日本的「馬關條約」。
4) There was a Cairo Declaration of Dec. 1, 1943, and a Potsdam Proclamation of July 26, 1945, saying that all the territories which Japan had stolen from China, including Formosa and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.
4）在開羅宣言(1943年12月01日)以及波茨坦公告(1945年07月26日) 的內容，宣稱所有日本從中國竊取的領土，包括福爾摩沙和澎湖群島等，應歸還給中華民國。
Based on the above rationale 2, 3, and 4, can we now say that the Republic of China has sovereignty over Taiwan?
基於上述 2、3、4 理由，我們現在可以說中華民國對台灣擁有主權嗎？
Again, we must stress that the answer is No. Under the laws of war of the modern era, the surrender of the Japanese troops in Taiwan only marks the beginning of the military occupation. International law states that military occupation does not transfer sovereignty.
再次，我們必須強調的是，答案是否定的。根據近代的戰爭法，日軍在台灣投降僅僅代表軍事佔領的開始。國際法規定，軍事佔領不移轉領土主權。
This military occupation is not changed by such rationale as noting that this particular area has belonged to China since ancient times. Indeed, with the coming into force of the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895, all previous Chinese claims regarding the ownership of the territory of Taiwan, whether based on history, culture, language, race, geography, geology, etc., have become null and void.
軍事佔領並不會因為「這個地方自古以來屬於中國」這樣的理由而改變。事實上，隨著馬關條約在1895年生效，在此之前中國的所有關於台灣領土「所有權」的主張，無論是基於歷史、文化、語言、種族、地理、地質等等，皆已經化為無效的。
In regard to the abrogation of treaties, it is important to note that even when such an abrogation occurs, the only clauses which are affected are those which are still “active.” So, for example, in the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, the clauses regarding the cession of Taiwan to Japan, having been fully completed, are no longer “active” clauses, and therefore are not subject to any sort of retroactive cancellation in the 1930s, 1940s, or any other period.
關於條約的廢除，值得注意的是，即使能廢除一個條約，唯一受到影響的是那些還在 ”執行中”、”作用中” 的條款。所以，舉例來說：在1895年馬關條約中，台灣割讓給日本的條款，已全面完成，而不再是 ”作用中” 的條款，因此無論是在1930年代、1940年代或任何其他期間當中，不會受到任何形式的追溯取消。
Additionally, we know that there were the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, saying that various territories including Taiwan shall be restored to the Republic of China. However, such proclamations, declarations, etc. and indeed even the surrender ceremonies on Oct. 25, 1945, in Taiwan, did not create a legal procedure to actually accomplish this transfer. Such a territorial transfer would have to be accomplished by treaty.
此外，我們知道開羅宣言和波茨坦公告，宣稱某些領土包括台灣應該歸還給中華民國。然而，這樣的宣言、宣告、聲明等，甚至在1945年10月25日的投降典禮中，也尚未建立一個法律程序來確實完成領土轉讓。實際上，像這樣的領土(主權)轉移必須是要經由條約的簽訂與生效來完成。
5) Finally, the rationale can be advanced that with the coming into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty on April 28, 1952, Chinese troops are in Formosa and the Pescadores, and so therefore those islands belong to the Chinese, and are under Chinese sovereignty.
5）最後，我們還可以提出一個基本的理由，亦即隨著認定舊金山和平條約於1952年04月28日生效之時，中國軍隊就在台灣及澎湖群島上，也因此這些島嶼屬於中國，且在中國的主權之下。
However, as we have seen from the analysis in this series of three videos, “jurisdiction over territory” is not directly equal to “possession of sovereignty.” This is especially true in situations which are the outgrowth of the conduct of war.
然而，正如我們在本系列的影片中所分析，「握有領土管轄權」並非直接等於「擁有領土主權」。凡是涉及戰爭方面所引發的情況時，這個道理特別顯著。
Related to this is the international law principle of
與此相關的是 “已控制地之保有原則＂的國際法原則）。
Uti possidetis:
「已控制地之保有原則」：
a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated. (Latin: uti possidetis, ita possideatis -- "as you possess, so may you continue to possess.")
這是國際法的一個原則──有關領土或其他財產，除非條約有其他規定，否則屬於衝突結束之時仍在其控制之下者。（uti possidetis：拉丁文，“如你所擁有，所以你能繼續擁有。”）
Is this principle relevant to a discussion of Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan?
這個原則與中國是否擁有台灣主權之討論議題有關嗎？
Our analysis can proceed as follows:
我們可以進行以下分析：
(A) It is true that in the SFPT, Japan ceded “Formosa and the Pescadores,” however according to Article 2(b), the ROC was not the recipient of this territorial cession.
（A）日本在舊金山和平條約中割讓台灣及澎湖群島是事實，然而根據第 2條(b)，中華民國並非此領土割讓的收受國。
(B) Taiwan had been ceded to Japan in 1895, and since its founding in 1912 the ROC had never held legal possession of "Formosa and the Pescadores" at any time before the coming into effect of the SFPT.
（B）台灣已經在1895年割讓給日本，而自1912年成立的中華民國在舊金山和平條約生效前，從未合法擁有台灣及澎湖群島。
(C) Under the customary laws of warfare, Oct. 25, 1945, only marks the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan, and there could be no transfer of sovereignty on that date.
（C）按照戰爭慣例法，1945年10月25日，只能表示軍事佔領台灣的開始，並沒有轉移主權。
Based on these criteria, upon the coming into force of the SFPT the doctrine of “uti possidetis” is not applicable to Taiwan, and cannot be invoked by “China,” however “China” may be defined.
根據這些標準，隨著舊金山和約生效，「uti possidetis」的法律規則並不適用於台灣，並且不能為「中國」所行使， . . . . . . 無論「中國」一詞是如何定義。
In summary, after watching this series of three videos, the members of the viewing audience should be much more capable of differentiating when “jurisdiction” includes “sovereignty,” and when it does not.
總而言之，相信在看過本系列影片之後，觀眾們應該更有能力去區別什麼情況之下，「管轄權」包含「主權」，以及什麼情況下「管轄權」不包含「主權」。
In closing, we can pose two more important questions:
最後，我們提出兩個重要的問題：
1) Can the People’s Republic of China claim sovereignty over Taiwan based on the successor government theory? The answer is No, because the Republic of China has never held sovereignty over Taiwan in the first place.
1）中華人民共和國可以基於中國政府的繼承者，宣稱對台灣擁有主權嗎？答案是否定的，因為中華民國對台灣從未擁有過主權。
2) Can the cross-strait relations between the Republic of China on Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China be described as “state to state?” The answer is No, for the simple reason that the ROC on Taiwan is not a state. The ROC is a government in exile residing on Taiwan, which is occupied territory.
2）「中華民國在台灣」與「中華人民共和國」之間的兩岸關係可以稱為「國與國的關係」嗎？答案是否定的。最簡單的理由就是，中華民國在台灣並不是一個國家，中華民國是個寄居在佔領地台灣的流亡政府。
Copyright © Taiwan Democratic Advocate All Rights Reserved
Sponsors:
