Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty

The Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty (Chinese: 中日和平條約, Japanese: 日華平和条約), commonly known as the Treaty of Taipei (Chinese: 台北和約), was a peace treaty between Japan and the Republic of China (ROC) signed in Taipei, Taiwan on April 28, 1952. This treaty was necessary, because neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China was invited to sign the Treaty of Peace with Japan (Treaty of San Francisco) due to disagreements by other countries as to which government was the legitimate government of China during and after the Chinese Civil War. Under pressure from the United States, Japan signed a separate peace treaty with the Republic of China to bring the war between the two states to a formal end with the victory by the ROC. Although the ROC itself was not a participant of San Francisco Peace Treaty due to the resumption of Chinese Civil War after 1945, this treaty largely correlates itself to the San Francisco Peace Treaty. In particular, ROC waived service compensation to Japan in this treaty with respect to Article 14 (a) 1 of the San Francisco Treaty.

The Treaty of Taipei was abrogated by the Japanese government on Sept. 29, 1972.^{[citation needed]}

Summary of Treaty

Treaty of Taipei largely correlates itself to the terms of the Treaty of San Francisco, recognizing that in the Treaty of San Francisco (which entered into force April 28, 1952) Japan renounced all right, title, and claim concerning Taiwan, the Pescadores, the Spratlys, and the Paracels.

Key Articles

Article 2

Reiterates the provision of the San Francisco Peace Treaty whereby Japan renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan and other associated islands.

Article 4

All treaties, conventions and agreements concluded prior to August 9, 1941 were nullified.

Article 10

Ethnic Chinese residents of the islands of Taiwan and Penghu and their descendants were regarded as having Chinese nationality.

Relationship with the San Francisco Treaty

Direct references

In two articles, the Treaty of Taipei makes direct references to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which was the treaty signed and ratified by most Allies with the government of Japan in 1951 and 1952.

Article 2 is a confirmation of the renunciation of Japan's claims to Taiwan and the Pescadores as well as to the South China Sea island chains of the Paracels and Spratlys.

Dates

The San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed on September 8, 1951 and ratified on April 28, 1952. The date of the ratification of the San Francisco treaty is the same date that the Treaty of Taipei was signed, that being April 28, 1952. However, the Treaty of Taipei did not enter into force until August 5, 1952 with the exchange of instruments of ratification between the two governments in Taipei. While there is no explicit provision for the transfer of sovereignty over Taiwan from Japan to the Republic of China, Article 10 is taken by many scholars as an implicit transfer. However, Ng Yuzin Chiautong, Chairman, World United Formosans for Independence (WUFI), writing in the 2nd edition (1972) of his book Historical and Legal Aspects of the International Status of Taiwan (Formosa) maintained that Article 10 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 ROC nationals, because otherwise they would be considered stateless and be ineligible for documentation to enable them to travel to Japan. He further points out that the Treaty of Taipei does not call the Taiwanese "Chinese nationals" but instead employs the term "residents".

Moreover, Japan formally surrendered its claim to sovereignty over Taiwan on April 28, 1952, thus calling into serious doubt the authority of Japan to formally make such an assignment regarding the status of Taiwan over three months later on August 5, 1952. Indeed, British and American officials did not recognize any transfer of Taiwan's sovereignty to "China" in either of the post-war treaties.

Political status of Taiwan with respect to the ROC

Article 10 of the Treaty states that "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)."

Pro-independence supporters point out that the Nationality Law of the Republic of China was originally promulgated in February 1929, when Taiwan was argued to be a de jure part of Japan. The Nationality Law was revised in February 2000; however, there were no articles addressing the mass naturalization of Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens. Hence, the conditions of Article 10 of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty in regard to "in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan…" was argued to have yet to be fulfilled.

Furthermore, it must also be noted that independence supporters point out that neither the San Francisco Treaty nor the Treaty of Taipei specifically provide for a transfer of sovereignty over Taiwan from Japan to China. Both have provisions for the renunciation of Japan's claims of sovereignty, yet neither provides for a mechanism of transfer to China.

Significantly, as the ROC officially announced the total abrogation of the Treaty of Shimonoseki on more than one occasion, supporters of the ROC would argue that China's sovereignty over Taiwan was never in dispute. Moreover, Japan and the ROC by the Treaty of Taipei further "recognised that all treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before December 9, 1941, between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war". It was therefore argued that the ROC Nationality Law which was promulgated in February 1929 would have applied to the residents on Taiwan, and it was unnecessary to address any nationality issues in the February 2000 revision.

However, Professors Lung-chu Chen and W.M Reisman, writing in the Yale Law Journal in 1972, maintained that the title to Taiwan territory vested in Japan at the time of, and/or because of, the Treaty of Shimonoseki, as the language of the Treaty clearly indicated. Such title, insofar as it is title, ceases to be a bilateral contractual relationship and becomes a real relationship in international law. Though contract may be a modality for transferring title, title is not a contractual relationship. Hence once it vests, it can no longer be susceptible to denunciation by a party to the treaty. Professor Y. Frank Chiang, writing in the Fordham International Law Journal in 2004, expanded upon this analysis to state that there are no international law principles which can serve to validate a unilateral proclamation to abrogate (or revoke) a territorial treaty, whether based on a charge of being "unequal," or due to a subsequent "aggression" of the other party to the treaty, or any other reason.

Application of the Treaty

Japanese lawyers have made the argument that the provisions of the Treaty of Taipei and the subsequent Sino-Japan joint communique waived the right of Chinese nationals to seek compensation from the Japanese government or corporations based in Japan.

End of the Treaty

The Treaty of Taipei was abrogated by the Japanese government on Sept. 29, 1972, upon the establishment of formal diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China.^{[citation needed]}

See also

• Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People's Republic of China
• Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–45)
• Sino-Japanese relations
• Legal status of Taiwan
• Political status of Taiwan
• San Francisco Peace Treaty
• Japan-Taiwan Relations

Footnotes and references

Footnotes

References

External links

• http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/joint72.html
• Text of the Treaty of Taipei