11月13日 22:03 · 編輯紀錄 ·
https://www.facebook.com/rotpnetwork/posts/912347392191651:0
臺澎國際法法理建國連線
英國政府對
台灣地位、國民黨政權在台、
治台行為及金馬地位的法律觀點。
============================
【代管佐證文獻】－全文翻譯
本連線昨天公布了
一份由熱心網友提供的英國外交部解密文獻，
並摘錄了其中跟本連線的代管主張最有關的部份。
我們今天完成了該文件的全文翻譯，
在此供大家參考。
【說明】
本文是英國外交部送交閣員傳閱之機密文件
CAB 129/73/38 的翻譯。
這份文件是英國外交部依內閣會議中提出的建議所製作，
主要內容是英國政府對台灣地位、國民黨政權在台、
治台行為及金馬地位的法律觀點。
CONFIDENTIAL Copy No.74
機密
C. (55) 38 u
11th February, 1955
1955年2月11日
CABINET
內 閣
───────
FORMOSA
福 爾 摩 沙
NOTE BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
外相註記
I circulate for the information of my colleagues a note
on the juridical aspects of the Formosa situation in accordance
with a suggestion made at the meeting of the Cabinet
on 31st January (C.C. (55) 8th Conclusion, Minute 2).
謹依 1 月 31 日內閣會議之建議，
就福爾摩沙狀態之法律面向提供相關資訊供內閣同仁傳閱參考。
Foreign Office, S.W. 1.,
外交部
10th February, 1955.
1955年2月10日
───────────────────────
JURIDICAL ASPECTS OF THE FORMOSA SITUATION
福爾摩沙狀態的法律面向
【Formosa and the Pescadores】
福爾摩沙與澎湖
——————————————————
1.
Formosa and the Pescadores were ceded to Japan by China
in the Peace Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895.
福爾摩沙及澎湖於 1895 年依馬關條約由中國割讓給日本。
The validity of this cession can hardly be contested.
此割讓的有效性難以挑戰。
The Cairo Declaration of December, 1943,
with its reference to Formosa as one of the territories
which Japan had “stolen from the Chinese”
was a retrospective moral condemnation of an international transaction which,
at the time and long afterwards,
was never questioned as being in any way contrary to international law.
1943 年 12 月的開羅宣言將福爾摩沙指為日本「從中國竊取」的領土
是對這個在當時及之後很久都未被質疑有任何違反國際法之處
的國際交易的道德譴責。
《歸納》
馬關條約合法、有效地將台澎主權移轉給日本，
國際法上難以挑戰。
———————————————————
2:
In the Cairo Declaration,
the Allies stated that it was their purpose
“that all the territories which Japan has stolen from China, such as
…. Formosa and the Pescadores shall be restored to the Republic of China”
This declaration was simply a statement of intention that
Formosa should be retroceded to China after the war.
在開羅宣言中,同盟國指出
「所有日本自中國竊取的領土，如….福爾摩沙及澎湖，應歸還中華民國」
是他們的共同意圖。
此宣言只是一份指出福爾摩沙應於戰後歸還中國的意向聲明。
This retrocession has in fact never taken place
because of the difficulties arising from the existence of two entities claiming
to represent China and the differences among the Powers
as to the status of these two entities.
但因為有兩個主張代表中國的實體存在，
且同盟國成員對這兩個實體的地位有不同觀點，
導致此項歸還事實上從未發生。
The Potsdam Declaration of July, 1945,
laid down as one of the conditions
for the Japanese Peace Treaty that
the terms of the Cairo Declaration
should be carried out.
1945 年 7 月的波茨坦宣言
將「開羅宣言的條款應該履行」
定為日本和平條約的條件之一。
In September, 1945, the administration of Formosa was taken over
from the Japanese by Chinese forces pursuant to
the Japanese Instrument of Surrender and General Order No. 1
issued by the Japanese Government at the direction of the Supreme Commander
for the Allied Powers, dated September 2, 1945.
But this was not a cession nor did it in itself involve any change of sovereignty.
在 1945 年 9 月，
依據日本政府在盟軍總司令指示下於 1945 年 9 月 2 日發布的
日本降伏文書及一般命令第一號，
福爾摩沙的管理權由日本移交到中國部隊。
但這並非領土割讓，其本身也不涉及任何主權變動。
The arrangements made with Chiang Kai-shek
put him there on a basis of military occupancy,
responsible to the whole body of the Allies,
pending a peace treaty with Japan or,
if the status of Formosa was not finally settled by that treaty (which it was not),
then pending an eventual settlement about Formosa
—which has not yet taken place.
The arrangements did not of themselves constitute the territory Chinese.
將蔣介石放在那裏（台灣）的安排
是讓他到那裏負責為同盟國全體進行軍事占領，
等待與日本簽署的和約。
或如果和約未對福爾摩沙的地位作出最終處置（實際上沒有），
則等待對福爾摩沙的最終處置－這也尚未發生。
這項安排並不會讓台澎成為中國的領土。
In the Japanese Peace Treaty of April, 1952,
Japan formally renounced all right,
title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores,
but again this did not operate as a transfer to Chinese sovereignty,
whether to the Chinese People’s Republic
or
to the Chinese Nationalist authorities.
在 1952 年 4 月（生效）的日本和平條約中，
日本正式放棄對福爾摩沙及澎湖一切權利、權源與主張，
但這同樣不能將主權移轉給中國，
無論是移轉給中華人民共和國或中國國民黨治理當局。
It has been suggested that the Japanese Peace Treaty meant that
the parties to the Peace Treaty,
other than Japan, had become co-sovereigns of Formosa.
This seems doubtful. The Peace Treaty merely removed Japan’s title
without making any alterations in the existing arrangements for its administration.
有人認為日本和平條約意味著除了日本之外，
和平條約的當事國已經成為福爾摩沙的共同主權國。
這說法有些疑問。
和平條約只是除去日本的（主權）權源，
但並未對治理權的既有安排做任何改變。
《歸納》
1.
開羅宣言是未實現的意向聲明 (statement of intent)。
2.
波茨坦宣言將履行開羅宣言定為簽訂日本和平條約的條件之一。
3.
中國部隊 1945 年 9 月依降伏文書及一般命令第一號
取得臺澎管理權，
但這並非割讓，也無移轉主權效力。
4.
蔣介石是為同盟國對台澎進行軍事占領，
以等待與日本簽署和平條約，
但因為和約未對臺澎主權為最終處置，
此軍事佔領的目的變成等待最終處置。
軍事佔領的安排不會使臺澎成為中國領土。
5.
日本於和平條約放棄臺澎主權，此舉無法將主權移轉給中國。
6.
日本和平條約只是使日本失去主權，
並未改變治理權的安排。
—————————————————————————
3.
Formosa and the Pescadores are, therefore,
in the view of Her Majesty’s Government,
territory the de jure sovereignty over which is uncertain or undetermined.
因此，就吾國政府之觀點，
福爾摩沙及澎湖是法理 (de jure) 主權未確定或未定的領土。
In the meantime, Her Majesty’s Government do in practice recognise
the Chinese Nationalists as the authority administering Formosa;
but they do not recognise them as the de facto government of Formosa,
whether as part of China or on any other basis,
since they do not regard Formosa, as such, as constituting a separate State.
目前，
吾國政府確實在實務上承認
中國國民黨政權是福爾摩沙治理當局；
但並未基於福爾摩沙是中國的一部份或其他根據
承認其（國民黨政權）為福爾摩沙的事實上 (de facto) 政府，
因吾國政府並未將福爾摩沙視為另一個國家。
《歸納》
1.
臺澎法理主權未定。
2.
英國政府在實務上承認中國國民黨政權是福爾摩沙治理當局，
但不承認其為事實上政府。
—————————————————————————————-
4.
The logical corollary of our view as to the basis on which
the Chinese Nationalists occupy Formosa is that
although they are entitled to be in Formosa,
they exercise a limited authority there.
根據中國國民黨政權佔領福爾摩沙的基礎，
則吾國在邏輯上的必然觀點為：
儘管中國國民黨政權有權在福爾摩沙存在，
但僅能在該地行使有限的權力。
As we do not recognise the Nationalists as the Government of China,
they are not, in our view,
entitled to use Formosa for trying to get back into the mainland of China.
由於我們並不承認國民黨政權是中國政府，
因此，就我們的觀點，
該政權無權利用福爾摩沙來重返中國大陸。
Their powers in respect of Formosa are, or should be,
strictly confined to administering Formosa itself
and not using it as a base for outside activities.
該政權對福爾摩沙的權力是，
或應該是，嚴格限縮在治理福爾摩沙本身，
且不得將其作為該政權對外活動的基地。
《歸納》
1.
中國國民黨政權只能在台灣行使有限的權力。
2.
中國國民黨政權無權利用台灣來重返中國大陸。
3.
中國國民黨對台灣的權力應嚴格限縮在治理台灣。
———————————————-
5.
On the future of Formosa,
Mr. Morrison when Foreign Secretary in the late Labour Government,
took the line in the House of Commons on May 11, 1951, that it had now become
“an international problem in which a number of nations apart from those signatory to
the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations are closely concerned”
and which could usefully be considered by the United Nations at the appropriate time.
就福爾摩沙的未來，在 1951 年 5 月 11 日，
當時工黨政府外相 Morrison (Herbert Morrison) 於下議院中表示
這個問題現在已經成為
「開羅及波茨坦宣言簽署國之外許多國家密切關注的國際問題」，
此問題可在適當時機交由聯合國考慮。
The Prime Minister said in the House of Commons on February 1 of this year that
” the problem of Formosa [had] become an international problem
in which a number of other nations are closely concerned.”
首相在今年 (1955) 2 月 1 日於下議院表示
「福爾摩沙的問題已成為其他許多國家密切關注的國際問題。」
《歸納》
臺澎未來已成為國際問題，可於適當時機交由聯合國考慮。
—————————————————————————–
【The Coastal Islands】
沿海島嶼（主要指金馬等鄰近中國沿海省份的島嶼）
——————————————————————
6.
The Nationalist-held islands in close proximity to the China coast
are in a different category from Formosa and the Pescadores,
since they are undoubtedly Chinese territory and therefore,
in our view, part of the territory over which
the People’s Republic of China is entitled to exercise authority.
在中國海岸附近由國民黨政權掌控的島嶼
則和福爾摩沙及澎湖分屬不同類別。
由於這類島嶼無疑是中國領土，
因此，就吾國的觀點，
其屬於中華人民共和國有權行使權力的領土。
Any attempt by the Government of the People’s Republic of China,
however, actually to assert its authority over these islands by force would,
in the circumstances peculiar to the case,
give rise to a situation endangering peace and security,
which is properly a matter of international concern.
然而，
有鑑此案例的罕見狀況，
中華人民共和國政府任何企圖藉武力對這些島嶼行使權力的企圖
將導致有害和平與安全的狀況，
而此狀況無疑會受到國際關注。
《歸納》
1.
中國沿海島嶼是中國領土，中華人民共和國有權行使權力。
2.
中華人民共和國政府若藉武力對這些島嶼行使權力
會有害和平與安全並引發國際關注。
7th February, 1955.
1955年2月7日
———————————————————————————————-
完整文件下載：https://goo.gl/EPJAxa
英國國家檔案局檔案連結：http://goo.gl/ioPX0k
=======================================================
