Talk:Treaty of Taipei
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on April 28, 2011 and April 28, 2013.|
Existence of Japan's abrogation of Treaty of Taipei
What evidence is there that Japan "cancelled this treaty"?
I can't make sense out of this paragraph:
- Many people believe the following passage in the Treaty makes indirect suggestion about the possibilty that Japan recognized that ROC having sovereignty over Taiwan. However, the passage was to define the opposit party of the treaty to which the Japanese government was signing treaty with. It limits the opposit party to the government controlled the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores at that time. Bound by Treaty of San Francisco, Japan government did not specify which country the Taiwan sovereignty was given to in Treaty of Taipei and did not offer any war-time casualty compensation to ROC government.
1)Japan abrogated the Treaty of Taipei in 1972 period. I was not the one put it on the article. Abrogating the treaty was part of the terms PRC asked for during the Sino-Japan normalization process. I guess ROC would be more in position to protest this abrogation than PRC. There is no ambiguity on this part of history. Please revert this part. Thank you.
- 昭和47年（1972）29日 日中共同声明調印後、北京の記者会見で「日華平和条約は存続の意義を失い、終了したものと認められる」と発言。田中首相らと上海へ
2) I previously noticed the original paragraph made some innuendo to guide people to believe that the terms suggests ROC having Taiwan sovereignty. This is a clear POV. The fact is that the trems in Treaty of Taipei made an effort to define the other party which Japan government was signing treaty with. There is no implication of sovereignty at all. I tried to modified the original paragraph while not to remove the original text. If you are not happy about it, I am fine with having that part go as long as the innuendo part is away, too. Mababa 06:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sure, here is one more from official website of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC
- On October 2, 1971, China put forward "the Three Principles on the Restoration of Sino-Japanese Diplomatic Relations": "The People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China; "Taiwan is an inalienable part of territory of the People's Republic of China; " "Peace Treaty" between Japan and Chiang Kaishek authorities is illegal and it must be abrogated.
I would be happy to pull out more. But don't you think the burden of proof should be layed onto some one who wants to disprove a public common concensus?Mababa 22:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Was the PRC's demand ever carried through? We can't say it was cancelled unless some legal/formal mechanism specifically cancelled it. --Jiang 23:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Japan foreign minister delightfully abrogated Treaty of Taipei demanded by PRC.
- 1972年7月7日田中內閣成立，9月29日日本與中華人民共和國聯合聲名兩國關係正常化，建立外交關係，外交部宣佈台灣與日本政府斷絕外交關係。中國方面的「中日復交三原則」就是：第一、日本承認中華人民共和國政府為唯一合法政府，採取一個中國的原則；第二、台灣是中國的一省，臺灣問題是中國的內政問題；第三、「中日和約」是非法的，必須廢除。日本幾乎都照北京的意思，但是復交的第三原則改為「中日和約」已失去意義而失效，保留了日本國的体面，9月 29日外務大臣大平正芳正式宣布：「日華和平條約失去存續的意義，認為終了」【註16】日本進行兩國關係正常化，獲得的代價是中國也放棄賠償請求權。因此，在1951年4月28日日本與中華民國簽署的中日合約，在1972年9月29日失效。 【註16】『日中關係基本資料集1970-1992年』頁101。
- In 1952 a peace treaty was conducted between Japan and the Chinese Nationalist government, which hadfled to Taiwan,but this treaty was teminated in 1972,when Japan and the People's Republic of China issued a joint communique normalizing diplomatic relations.
Meanwhile, even the treay stands, it would not help ROC or PRC to gain the sovereignty over Taiwan. Since Japan renounced its title and right over Formosa already, the island can not be the target for reverting as Japan could not dispose an object that it does not possess anymore. I hope the information above would help us reaching the conclusion to revert the pertinent paragraph.Mababa 02:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The first passage states that all the inhabitants of Taiwan are of Republic of China nationality. That sounds like a transfer of soverignty to me.
For the purposes of the present Treaty, 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).
The second passage says that Japan understood that the scope of the treaty applied to territories that were under control of the Republic of China government. We could argue with the semantics on whether or not Japan recognized that the Republic of China's soverignty consisted of only Kinmen and Matsu or if the Republic of China's soverignty consisted of Taiwan, the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu. Famous modern Chinese historian Immanuel Hsu also made note of this passage in his history book The Rise of Modern China.
In regard to the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China signed this day, I have the honor to refer, on behalf of my Government, to the understanding reached between us that the terms of the present Treaty shall, in respect of the Republic of China, be applicable to all the territories which are now, or which may hereafter be, under the control of its Government.
Jiang, go to the Main Stacks and check out old issues of China Pictorial, particularly the 1972 back issues. They refered to the Treaty of Taipei as the treaty between Japan and the Chiang Kai-shiek clique. Allentchang 17:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Passages from the Rise of Modern China by Immanuel Hsu Fifth Edition (1995):
- Page 738-739: Moreover, in the communique [with the PRC], Japan did not officially abrogate its peace treaty with Taiwan, although Foreign Minister Ohira announced in a Peking press conference that the treaty had become obsolete and therefore was rescinded. The legality of such a statement is debatable, but ambiguity was resolved when the Nationalist government, upon hearing of the communique, broke off relations with Japan
- Page 748: The Japanese specified in the treaty that its terms applied to all territories now, as well as those "which may hereafter be," under Nationalist control.
Allentchang 21:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Position of Japan on the abrogation of Treaty of Taipei
Jiang, I have noticed that you put the following texts into the article: though this was not officially done and no one-year cancellation notice was given. I would like to suggest that this statement contains POV.
We have no evidence that this is a unofficial move done by Japan. Apparently, your text invoke Article 56 - Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal which requires the party abrogating treaty to give one year notice in advance.
However, if you read the text I provided above, you will see that Japanese Foreign Minister Ohira announced the abrogation after signing the communique which was intended to handel and amend war time conflict between the two country serving as a peace treaty. Please take note: Japanese Foreign Minister Ohira further stated that the very reason for abrogation is due to sino-japan normalization. Hence, in my opinion, he abrogated Treaty of Taipei by invoking Article 59 - Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty implied by conclusion of a later treaty, which does not require such 12 month advanced notification.
You may disagree with my interpretation. However, given that none of us are Ohira, we won't be able to know the legal base of his move. Unless you can help us find a Japanese official source mentioning which article from Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was being involked, I would suggest that we can simply put Japan abrogated the treaty as PRC requested. We simply do not know if the abrogation is official or unofficial as you suggested. We should avoid take side and being misleading.
Immanuel Hsu is a famous Chinese history scholar. He expressed his point of view; but it does not represent Japanese official position. And I am not sure what exactly should be drawn from the cited texts. As for the first passage of the Treaty of Taipei, it implies the limits of ROC jurisdiction power. It did not mention sovereignty and it was not a cession clause. If you interpret the terms literally, you will get the following conclusion: There are a bunch of ROC nationals live in a island which the government in exile does not have sovereignty over. Anyway, this treaty was burried in the dust of history.Mababa 03:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The text in the WikiSource
I've put the actual Treaty in place of the Protocol in Wikisource. But can someone clean it up? Thanks.Lenin13 05:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)==
Improvement in grammar needed
This article’s style and grammar has deteriorated over the past year. I’ve noticed quite a few awkward phrases and run-on sentences. If anyone has free time, please edit the grammar. Allentchang 14:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Original source of quote
I'd like to see the original source of the ROC foreign minister to the LY since I suspect that it has been taken out of context.
"However, this treaty was later unilaterally nullified by the Government of Japan when it recognized the People's Republic of China." This needs a source if it is to be kept.Readin (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I read through the discussion above, and have two problems with it. First, we need some sources we can verify to back up the claims made in the arguments. Second, the extent of moving from conclusion to conclusion make the arguments look a lot like original research. If the Japanese unilaterally and clearly abrogated the treaty, then it shouldn't be too hard to find an English copy of them doing so.Readin (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the article, "This treaty also nullifies all treaties made between China and Japan before 9 December 1941." This is consistent with the text of the treaty which says, "It is recognised that all treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941 between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war." However, the government of China did not sign the treaty. It was signed by Japan and the government of Taiwan pretending to act as the government of China. What is the position of the PRC in regard to this treaty and the supposed nullification of all previous treaties? Readin (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- What pre-1941 treaties would mainland China object to? The treaty that signed over all of Manchuria to Japan, or the 1905 treaty that gave Japan exclusive trade rights in north China? The nullification of treaties was to re-assure the Chinese (all of them) that Japan wouldn't lay claim to any lands that belong to China (either of them), to prevent any other countries from supporting a claim made by Japan, and to prevent the Japanese government from "repatriating" or prosecuting its colonial "citizens" (Chinese people that were living in either Manchuria or Taiwan during the imperial period). Boneyard90 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
"In March 2008 the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C. issued a ruling in the case of Dr. Roger Lin et. al. v. United States of America holding that Taiwanese people are stateless."
- On page 11 of the judgement you cited, her honour held that "[p]laintiffs have essentially been persons without a state for almost 60 years"
- However, I think there are Wikipedia rules governing the use of primary source such as a Court judgement. I am not sure if the previous use of this passage complied with the rules.
- My view is, that passage is merely a obiter dicta and her honour did not intend to make that as the essence of the judgement. That's why her honour held in the end that the courts of the United States did not have jurisdiction to hear this case.--pyl (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
This is, on the whole, a poorly done article. A lot of unsubstantiated POV. There is a lot available on this treaty. I will try to do some major revisions over the next few days. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
April 2011 POV check
Does anyone else feel that the article may give too much weight to the Taiwan independence point-of-view, and insufficient weight to the treaty's subsequent abrogation upon prompting from the PRC? Ngchen (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)