Talk:Legal status of Taiwan/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

A crankish theory

This is a rather crankish theory. By this I mean that the theory that the ROC government holds Taiwan in trust for the United States is an idiosyncratic one that no major group in Taiwan, the PRC, or the United States holds.

Roadrunner 08:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You think that I don't know that? But if you read the links below, you might not be 100% convinced but you will at least give it some consideration. Don't ask me the detail though. I didn not invent this. I was not the one put this page on either. Also I would love to see your evidence of international laws before we call this is idiosyncratic. Mababa 08:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A good lawyer can argue just about anything. I'm sure one could come up with a reasonable sounding argument that Taiwan belongs to Holland.

However, a legal argument is simply not relevant and worthy of inclusion in wikipedia if none of the parties in the dispute are arguing it. There is no major (or even minor party) in Taiwan, the PRC, or the United States that makes the case that this article is making. This takes up a huge amount of space, at the expense of the arguments which the parties of the dispute *are* making.

Roadrunner 09:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1)I am afraid that there is no lawyer in the world can make a sounding argument that Taiwan belongs to Holland. There is a clear Treaty between Koxinga and the Dutch Government which states that Dutch people leave Formosa.[1] Taiwan is different. There is no clear subject to which Taiwan was cessioned. It takes some study on international laws to understand who holds the current sovereignty of Taiwan.2)There are people in Taiwan making this arguement though they are not in majority. 3)Granted, it is a convoluted arguement that requires a deeper undrestanding upon international laws and Law of land warfare to comprehend. And I do believe that the article should be kept as a separate entry and put a exerpt only into the political status of Taiwan. However, calling something crankish, idiosyncratic and not worthy just because one does not understand it is a clear POV. If you believes in the rule of law, then anything complies with the laws should be carried out. However, if one is a follower of rule of man, he would lean toward political measure to resolve any disputes. I do not think everything is right in the article, but I do not think it to be a waste. You do not have to agree with me.Mababa 05:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Total Dispute

Hello Jiang, would you make some account before you put a total dispute sign? Or could you at least drop some opinion to make a dispute case?Mababa 00:08, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner has already stated that this argument is used by the few. The article here does not note this. Instead, it makes assertions without saying who is making them. Our articles should not read like primary reasarch commentaries. --Jia ng 00:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's conclude this dispute. I do agree that this model has been used by a minority group and we should let readers be awared of this. I think here is one of the discussion forum where this group try to promote their theory[2].

Please go ahead and do the modification you think would make the article NPOV. I totally have no position on how you would like to address the extent of the local support for this Taiwan cession. Please put the fact that this was used by a minor group into the article. However, to say this model is merely a primary researcher's account, was not used in any political activity and oes not worth of being mentioned is simply incorrect. I hope this helps your and roadrunner's question.Mababa 07:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Merge Dispute

It seems the title makes the article confusing. I don't think it should be merged, but rather it should take a different title, and explain the historical status of Taiwan leading to present day, leaving out the complete question who owns Taiwan. I think the article does have a good point in making who use to own Taiwan, and the questionable status whether it is independent or owned by a nation... The "Political Status" article is more of a representative of the situation now. I feel that this article should represent the situation in the past leading to now. Minus all the political and opinions whether or not Taiwan is owned by PRC or anyone. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's either relevant in History of Taiwan (relating to the past) or relevant in political status of Taiwan (relating to the present day). I don't see why we should have an article on "the situation in the past leading to now". It will either be relevant to one or both of the articles I have mentioned above. The whole point this article wants to make is related to Taiwan's current status--the assertion being it was never ceded to China. That is entirely relevant in political status of Taiwan.--Jia ng 20:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I kind of perfer to seperate the article. If it get merged, it might have to be truncated a lot and spend space on proving, disputing with other interpertations. It might not worth it and occupy too much space in the other articles as roadrunner suggested.Mababa 08:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV or not?

I attempted to add some perspective from the ROC/PRC perspective in an attempt to restore NPOV. Speaking of which, I would also like to question the notion that sovereignty is somehow "held in trust" by an occupying power. I always thought that international law gives an occupying power the administration of an area, but barring a specific cession, not the sovereignty of an area. The article still needs more work, and probably a new title as well. Ngchen 2:27, Dec 13 2004 (EST)

I thought about reverting your edit. But I do see that you were trying to add more perpectives from different angles. Several of my points to share with you:

1) This article is about the notion " Taiwan cession", not about other interpretation.

Well, that is true. However, just as a NPOV page on atheism or some other controversial topic should have critiques of what's discussed to maintain NPOV, the same should apply here. In addition, I would like to point out that this article really needs a new name, as depending on the POV, there have been one, two, three, or maybe even zero "Taiwan Cessions." Ngchen 15:24 Dec 13, 2004

Thanks for your response. I am not sure how to define this cession term properly; however, I believe this Taiwan cession implies the territory cession under and realized by SFPT. Please note that SFPT is the only treaty where Japan officially renounced the sovereignty of Taiwan. Japan has never and can never renounce its right over Taiwan anywhere else. Thus, Taiwan was not cessioned anywhere else in any document after the WWII. PRC and ROC can be grumpy and make all kind of their potential claims which were never realized in any treaty and has already been covered in other articles. Again, this article is focusing on the Taiwan cession and nothing else. One can argue about merging with political status of Taiwan. However, if it is still isolated as an independent article, I would prefer to have the article more focused on Taiwan cession based on the interpretation of SFPT and laws of war and this is what makes Taiwan cession, a article purely discuss Taiwan's status under legal basis not political basis, distinct and unique from the article of Taiwan history or of political status of Taiwan. Thus, I am not yet convinced that the title should be changed.

I agree the article should focus of the de jure status of Taiwan, versus any de facto situation. Perhaps a title along the lines of "Current legal status of Taiwan Sovereignty" would be appropriate?

It sounds great to me. :)Mababa 04:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2) Please refer to the two external links below and they would tell you how a billigerant occupation following a treaty of renounce of sovereignty without transfer would result into a "limbo cession" or a "undertermined cession". The previous example would be Cuba cession in Treaty of Paris.

3) The treaty of Taipei is sheerly useless. Japan has already disposed and renounced the sovereignty of Taiwan in SFPT of 1951. Taiwan was no longer in the hand of Japan, and therefore Japan can never ever cession or void the sovereignty transfer of Taiwan in treaty of Taipei in 1952. Further, it was upon PRC's demand that Japan abrogated this treaty in 1970s. There is no way PRC can inherit Taiwan from ROC based on this treaty. Even ROC website claimed sovereignty transfer from surrender instrument, not treaty of Taipei.

Here, one can argue that the exclusion of the PRC and ROC was itself unlawful, as there is no doubt that China fought on the side of the allies during WWII. It is well-established that the reason why neither Chinese regime was invited was the dispute over the legitimacy or lack thereof of each regime. Furthermore, the Treaty of Taipei was concluded by Japan and the ROC (which Japan recognized at the time) and was designed to finalize the peace between the two due to the ROC's exclusion from the SFPT. I see your point though, if Japan really ceded the Taiwan at the SFPT, then it cannot cede (again) what it no longer possessed.

I am not sure where is the legal base to claim excluding ROC/PRC from SFPT is unlawful. If anyone makes such a claim, he might as well pull out any treaty or convention stipulate it to support his claim. The fact is: it is totally lawful and okay. It has nothing to do with how much China was involved into the WWII. It is only Japan's bussiness to decide which China and when to sign treaty with. Even though Japan can not decide which at the time signing SFPT, Japan can decide later. That is the reason for Treaty of Taipei to exist.

IIRC, the purpose of the SFPT was to formally end the war that had been going on between the allied powers and Japan. As one of the victorious allied powers, common sense dictates that the ROC should of been invited. Considering how Japan at the end of the war still held vast pieces of Chinese territory, it would of been absurd otherwise. I've examined the Cairo conference and the Potsdam declaration, and Japan's instrument of surrender. I agree that the best and most reasonable Chinese claim to sovereignty over Taiwan would be based on those documents. To make the article NPOV, I suggest elaborating on the how and why the Potsdam declaration and Japan's surrender which "accepts the Potsdam Declaration" can be argued to have transferred Taiwan's sovereignty. All the other stuff such as the unilateral abrogation of the Treaty of Shimonoseki of the ROC during the war, and the PRC's subsequent refusal to recognize the validity of any of the unequal treaties are secondary. Finally, it's interesting how, if the Cairo conference participants were sincere, they (the allied powers) had somehow not intended to have Taiwan sovereignty transferred to China in some form.

I appreciate people's endeavor to make articles NPOV. However, I only want to say is that these documents apparently has a lower legal rank to a treaty. One can make long elaborations on these documents but the effectiveness would be knock down immediately if another person point out that SFPT is supreme over them. I am not sure how can people can argue an unsigned declaration and surrender instrument is supreme over a peace treaty. If this argument can not be achieved, then what is the point to elaborate on the side topic and not focusing on SFPT's role on Taiwan's legal status?

It may well be true that these documents are of lower rank than a treaty. However, they are valid nevertheless unless a treaty specifically spells out something to the contrary. Now, the SFPT does not spell out anything contrary to that from the Japanese Instrument of Surrender; as such that Instrument of Surrender would still be valid. FWIW, the ROC did have a representative sign the surrender instrument, clearly making the ROC a party to whatever subsequent negotiations. Notwithstanding the lateness of the Vienna Convention of Treaties which you brought up, article 31 of said treaty could be said to require a good faith effort of the allied powers to deal with Taiwan's sovereignty as they intended by the Cairo conference and Potsdam declaration. Ngchen 15:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, as you will notice that SFPT did have terms different from the surrender instrument, which is: China was excluded from the definition of the Allied Powers in the treaty. One might argue how can that be since China did fought hard in the war. However, this is what end up with in the treaty and it was ratified by 48 countries. The fate of formosa is cemented in this treaty in 1952. My POV.Mababa 04:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, in that the SFPT only states that Japan formally gave up sovereignty over Taiwan, etc. If the SFPT said something like Japan cedes Taiwan to the US or something along those lines, then yes, it would be contrary to the Instrument of Surrender. But it said no such thing. This also makes me question the legality of excluding China from the description of allied powers. IIRC, contrary to the stunning silence of all the other powers at the Treaty of Taipei, ROC taking over Taiwan, and so forth, IIRC there was a protest filed against the exclusion of China at the SFPT. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Ngchen 18:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The PRC had Japan abrogate the Treaty of Taipei solely for chronological reasons. As the PRC was proclaimed on October 1, 1949, and the Treaty of Taipei was concluded subsequent to that by the ROC (which in the PRC's view it had supplanted making the ROC illegitimate), the treaty would be illegitimate. The simplest way out then would be for Japan to abrogate the treaty, thereby avoiding questions of its validity. Yes, it is probably true that the PRC cannot claim sovereignty based on a treaty that they had Japan abrogate.

Yeah... but many people still claim that PRC inheritate Taiwan from ROC based on this treaty.

As I noted though, the PRC does not recognize the validity at any time of the Treaty of Shimonoseki or any of the other unequal treaties signed by the Qing, though it does not necessarily contest some of the de facto results of such treaties on maps and history. Therefore, as the successor (to the successor?) state to the Qing government, the PRC would retain sovereignty over Taiwan. Sure, this is a PRC POV, and one can argue about whether the PRC can legally refuse to recognize treaties it dislikes from the Qing era, but it is a PRC argument nevertheless.

Your citation of PRC's claim is playing word games without logic. It suggests that PRC does not contest with the de facto results from Qing's treaty but still they claim recovering Taiwan sovereignty from such unilateral abrogation? Please refer to Political status of Taiwan: their claim is based on Potsdam and Cairo declaration. Based on my knowledge, PRC so far has yet publicize this strange version of claim in UN or internationally. Please correct me if I am wrong. :)

Well, the PRC foreign ministry has a note on Hong Kong located at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/ljzg/3566/t17767.htm which states the PRC's nonrecognition of the unequal treaties ceding and "leasing" Hong Kong. At http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/search/chapters/LIUCHC.pdf (an online book by the University of Washington Press - I can't figure out how to get to the other chapters) it is stated that after the proclamation of the PRC, the unequal treaties were regarded as rubbish. And the Treaty of Shimonoseki is considered an unequal treaty. As for de facto versus de jure results, I thought we were trying to sort through the de jure issues. De facto, there is no question that Taiwan is currently controlled by a regime that calls itself the ROC. The PRC argument is a de jure one, where it argues that de jure, the PRC has sovereignty over Taiwan.

If oneinsist to put PRC's position on unilaterally abrogating unequal treaties, then we should also let the readers aware that PRC's claim is not internationally recognized and does not conform with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Even the Margaret Thatcher personally rebuked PRC's claim on their abrogation.[3] There is no legal basis for their abrogation and the readers are deserved to be informed on that.

I disagree for the following reasons. First, article 4 specifically notes that the treaty is non retroactive, and it only entered into force in January 27, 1980. Now, let's assume that it is valid regardless. Articles 52 would make the Treaty of Shimonoseki void from the start, as it was a result of aggressive war. Article 60 would allow for its nullification (if we again assume its initial validity) during WWII as Japan had clearly violated the peace in pursuing further aggressive war. Ngchen 15:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your correction. You pointed out my anachronistic mistake. It is not retroactive, thus the so called unequal treaties does stand and PRC does not have legal basis for them to claim abrogation now. :) Again, I just want to reiterate that a dispositive treaty is not a target to nullify or void.Mababa 04:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for the ROC, obviously it considers the Treaty of Taipei valid. Assuming your claim that a dispositive treaty cannot be voided, then Japan's abrogation of the Treaty of Taipei changes nothing.

Agreed. I do not believe the abrogation changes any thing. There is no gain from this treaty from the beginning. China has already benefitted from SFPT article 21.

Article 21
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 25 of the present Treaty, China shall be entitled 
to the benefits of Articles 10 and 14(a)2

Any benefit other than this clause is under the restriction by article 25.[4]

I see your point here. The SFPT goes back to 1901 or so, not back to 1895. Politically, I'm curious whether this was an oversight, or whether there really was some treacherous scheme at work here. I guess this shows the folly of not being represented at the conference. Ngchen 18:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The question then becomes what did the SFPT do in terms of transferring the sovereignty of Taiwan, and its relation with the Potsdam declaration, etc. etc.

Please read the article and the treaty terms. The SFPT gives Potsdam legal force, but barred countries other than the allied force as defined in the treaty to benefit from it.(article 25)

According to that theory, then all surrender documents and such aren't really legal? That would be absurd. Anyhow, I would like to reiterate that Japan as a defeated power had little say in what was happening at the SFPT, Treaty of Taipei, or anywhere else. Unless the other allied powers somehow intended to stab China in the back, they were in a position to dictate terms. Based on the intent, it would be obvious that sovereignty over Taiwan was supposed to be transferred to China, and the lack of a clear clause is solely due to the then ongoing Chinese Civil War, with both sides fighting over who's the legitimate Chinese representative.

It does has legal effectiveness but will be replaced with a treaty which has higher legal hierachy than surrender instrument. Please refer to the Modus vivendi and Armistice. The UN treaty guide also addressed on the legal status of a Modus vivendi. Surrender instrument is a Modus vivendi.

The intention went down to the drain. In 1955 after the World War II, being asked the question whether Formosa should be handed to the Communist China according to the Cairo Declaration, Churchill told the House of Commons, "The Cairo Declaration contained merely a statement of common purpose." And since it was made "A lot of things have happened" he added. His Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, also said that the Declaration was merely a statement of intention that Formosa should be retroceded to China after the war, that never materialized. Please refer to the following link[5]. And US also said that this intention ever being executed. It depends on one's definition of stabing one's back to see if this should be qualified as stabing China's back. I would not emotionally put it in this way though.

Well, did they or didn't they intend to hand Formosa back? If they did, then that, plus the silence (prescription) for all those years would've cemented it. What Churchill was speaking of was the fact that the Chinese Civil War wound down, with a Communist victory that they didn't like, and that they didn't want to hand it to the PRC (with whom they didn't recognize at the time). The thing to do would've been to hand it back to the ROC, which was recognized, and was done. To top it off, it is inconsistent to claim that the British could have handed anything "back" as it wasn't theirs to begin with. As for the US, it is murkier, and if I understand correctly, the entire argument that this article was supposed to articulate was that the US got Taiwan sovereignty on an interim basis via the SFPT. Not following through with one's clear stated intentions is treachery, and there is no evidence the US was/is being treacherous here. Ngchen 15:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A intention can be an intention which never be realized. To answer you question on US, please refer to George H Kerr's Formosa betrayed[6] Pay attention on Mr. Dullus's trick on page 427.

It would be interesting to note whether the ROC troops who supposedly took control of Taiwan after the war even recognized that they were doing it on behalf of the United States, or whether they were considering themselves as taking over in terms of a retrocession of Taiwan back to Chinese sovereignty.

They occupy the island in 1945. They do not have any treaty to give them the sovereignty at that time. If they believe so, it is clearly out of their delusion. One can not claim legal sovereignty out of one's delusion, can he? ROC has to show a cession treaty to make such claim.

I'm not sure sovereignty can only be transferred by treaty. As an example to the contrary, suppose a state permanently abandons a tract of land it was previously sovereign over. Doesn't the land become terra nullius and free for the taking by anyone who takes it? And if they really thought so, then someone had intentionally deceived them. It would be interesting to point out the culprit.

Terra nullius theory does not stand on this case. Taiwan was a civilized territory already. Moreover, Yalta Conference and United Nations Charter which ROC signed and thus bears a treaty obligation to comply with stipulated that the territory separated from enemy territory should be under trusteeship and independet in the future. These information has already put into the article of political status of Taiwan. Please refer to the article. As for the measures to acquire sovereignty, I recommend this link[7]. And you will see that PRC and ROC does not fit with anyone of the requirement.

My point is not that Taiwan was terra nullius, rather, that sovereignty can be transferred without necessarily a formal treaty.

PRC and ROC's claim does not qualify ACCRETION since the strait was not drained. It does not qualify ADJUDICATION since Taiwan was inhabited with many people. It does not qualify CESSION since no treaty was signed. It does not qualify CONQUEST since ROC did not attack Taiwan and establish occupation during WWII. It certainly does not qualify DISCOVERY. It does not qualify PRESCRIPTION since US still does not recognize ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan even in 70s and certainly not now, so as it being described in this article. It certainly does not qualify SELF-DETERMINATION as self-determination does not seem to be in the dictionary of PRC and ROC never allowed people to have publicite on sovereignty issues. So, I wonder how can one help PRC or ROC to gain sovereignty of Taiwan when nothing qualified.

If it is the latter, which I strongly suspect was the case, then the lack of any protest from the US or any of the SFPT participants could be construed to imply their acceptance of the transfer of sovereignty from whoever (the US? Japan? All the allied powers at the SFPT? Someone else?) to the ROC.

So you are implying there is a prescription here. If you read the article, you will see that even at 1970s, the US still consider Taiwan political status undertermined and does not recognize ROC's sovereignty of Taiwan. Thus, the prescription claim does not stand. Moreover, prescription itself is not an universally accepted rule.[8]

I am not familiar with the prescription rule. However, I find it questionable that the US somehow didn't recognize the sovereignty of the ROC which was situated on Taiwan. If that were the case, how could/did it justify intervening in the fifties to stop the war from continuing?

The mutual defense treaty which Carter abrogated and the Taiwan relations act.Mababa 09:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, there was stunning silence at the Treaty of Taipei from those powers.

If you read the clauses of this treaty, you will find it mostly repeat the terms in SFPT. I guess not too many people or countries cares about this treaty.

Where is the clause that specified that Japan was to return all lands "stolen from China?" Ngchen 15:24 Dec 13, 2004

In Chiang Kai-shek's dream and his unsigned cairo declaration. There is no such a clause in any treaty any could be found in this universe.Mababa 08:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

4) Lastly, I read this somewhere else but I thought this is the general rule: a dispositive treaty is generally not a target to nullify or void. Thus, a cession treaty can not be nullified. PRC's claim would be null in this sense. And you just can not find such unilateral claim from PRC in his english official websites.

Conclusion: PRC and ROC's claims are null. Again, my own POV.

I am afraid what you put into the article is not revalent to the "Taiwan cession" and has already been covered in the political status of Taiwan article. If there should be any POV in this article, it should be the interpertation of the articles of SFPT and the war of laws. I personally suggest to restore the change. I hope you would agree.Mababa 08:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad we're moving along, and I am learning a lot and hope you are too, BTW. FWIW, I would like to point out that some of the websites you cite, namely taiwandocuments.org and taiwannation.com.tw are definitely not NPOV sites, and do have a strong bias toward Taiwan Independence. That doesn't mean their documents aren't accurate or anything; however, they aren're NPOV sources. Ngchen 15:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So do I. I also learned a lot from you too. :) Certainly these sites' point of views are not balanced; however, they gives strong evidence to what they claim and function as convenient reference for people to look up texts of treaties, especially taiwan document project. One can easily filter out the statements they choose not to believe.

Hopefully we can reach a NPOV here. At least, I think we have already agreed with each other on making this article less political oriented. Through our conversation, I think I am more susceptible to the idea puting ROC and PRC's position into the article. Still, I want to point out their claim was still a claim, not yet internationally recognized and never realized into a treaty. The first treaty regarding Taiwan's status entered into force in 1952. The de jure status would solely depends on the interpretation of this treaty, not others. My POV.Mababa 04:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV or not (II)

I have moved the discussion above to here so that people can participate the name-changing proposal.Mababa 04:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The claims of the PRC and ROC based on Cairo conference and Potsdam declaration are all political assertations in my eye. Their claim does not comply with the legal reality where there is laws of treaties and there is a hierechy of the effectiveness of the treaties; and thus I consider their claims are political claims and should be and has already been addressed in the artical political status of Taiwan. But, it is my POV. If other people agrees on the proposed change, perhaps we can also put on change of the US and UK's position along with the historical time line as well to make a distinction from the political status of Taiwan. I would actually suggest that we can slightly touch on their claim by pointing out ROC and PRC claims sovereignty without international law basis and refer readers to the political status of Taiwan. Mababa 09:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is a POV. As I've tried to note, there are numerous legal reasons for claiming ROC/PRC sovereignty over Taiwan. Let's summarize. First, there is the question of the validity or lack thereof of the Treaty of Shimonoseki. It can be void ab initio, as claimed by the PRC. It could of been valid for a few decades until WWII, and repudiated by the ROC declaration of war against Japan, as claimed by the ROC. It could of been valid until Japan's surrender, or it could of been valid until the SFPT, or the Treaty of Taipei. If it were invalid from or before WWII, then Chinese sovereignty would be a open-and-shut case, as the PRC/ROC are both the successor states to the Qing dynasty. If it were valid until later, only then is it trickier. There then arise questions of intent on all sides, good faith negotiations, prescription, renunciation of sovereignty w/o a clear recipient (speaking of which - if there was no clear recipient, then couldn't one argue that the US would've simply acquired temporary administration of the area, immediately delegated to the ROC?), Potsdam declaration and Japanese agreement to it, and the like. To say that these arguments "don't have legal basis" is a very long stretch, and highly non NPOV.

Agreed. This is my POV to claim that the unequal treaty doctrine being lack of leagal basis. However, this POV is also the exact position of British government on PRC's unilateral abrogation of the treaties. And this is what I believe the readers should be awared of if PRC's POV is going to appear in the article, which is: the PRC's position is not internationally accepted. [9][10]

IMO, it b/c a political question over which countries accept or don't accept the unequal treaty doctrine. For the case of Hong Kong, the question of who had sovereignty over the region is moot, with the signing of the "Sino-British Joint Declaration," whereas neither side gave in on their claims, but the British relinquished (in its eyes) sovereignty over HK, and the PRC simply took over administration over an area that (in its eyes) it was always sovereign over. Ngchen 19:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You just agreed that the unequal treaty doctrine was not recognized by Britian; then it also raised the question: why would that apply to Taiwan's case?Mababa 04:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The source you cited earlier on international law notes that the countries of the world are split roughly 50/50 on whether unequal treaties (and other repugnant treaties) have validity. Why cherry pick the British side's 50%? Ngchen 09:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason is simple. It is because this dispute involved a dispositive clause(cseeion) whereas not all the treaties are involved in cession. Even for those unequal treaties not involved in cessions, the Chinese government were not effective in exerting their unequal treaty doctrine either. Please refer to this interesting link which I just found[11] and focus on TERMINATION OF TREATY RIGHTS section. I found it nice and I am sure you will find this link a great resource too. :) You will see that most of the FOREIGN CONCESSIONS are recovered by the act of war or political pressure to the allies during the war, not through their unilateral abrogation of unequal treaties. Even France maintained its lease until 1943/46 and Japan until 1945.To me, Britian government's attitude is just one of the lydian stones to see if the unequal treaty doctrine applies to Chinese government's claim on territory cessioned by Qing. Needless to mention how difficult it would be for PRC to claim a territory which Japan acquired through a dispositive cession treaty and has already been renounced and out of the control of Japan. I am not fammiliar with the case of Macau and the situation might be a little bit different from HK's case. I learned that Chinese government possibly only acknowledged the occupation but nevered cessioned Macau in a treaty but Portuguese government insisted on the existance of cession. They finally made a new arrangement in 1987. The following links gives a lot of Chinese POV[12], but I believe their basic arguement is that the cession did not exist.Mababa 03:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The very legal basis for PRC to recover Hong Kong island, which is a territory ceded to UK in perpetuity under the Treaty of Nanjing in 1842, is the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong and nothing else. For Britian government to realse sovereignty of HK, the legal basis is certainly not the unequal treaty doctrine claimed by PRC.

On the contrary, if these treaties can be abrogated simply by not recognizing them by PRC, I wonder if PRC has already get all the money which Qing paied to the foreign countries. I bet PRC would be extremely happy if the compensating moneys in these treaties [13] can reture into their ministry of finance's pocket. The fact is there is not single a penny was recovered through PRC's unequal treaty doctrine. Let me reiterate this: a dispositive treaty is not a target to nullify or void.

I think I'm beginning to understand your point there. My guess is that the PRC may really wish to have all that money back; however, in the interest of good neighborly relations, the PRC does not pursue such claims (which of course would be rejected by the other powers anyhow). Perhaps on a basis similar to prescription, the PRC thus forfeits its monetary claims. As to a dispositive treaty being unvoidable, I would like to see some real, accepted documents on that question. From my limited understanding, if a treaty is ignored/abrogated/ripped up by one side, its terms no longer bind the other. If that's the case, then the ROC's declaration of war on Japan in light of Japanese WWII aggression would void the Treaty of Shimonoseki. But if I understand your argument correctly, since a dispositive treaty can't ever be voided, it doesn't matter how outrageous say Japan's conduct was or could've been, that treaty can't be voided even by mutual consent later? If countries X and Y sign a peace treaty, and X then wages aggressive war on Y, is Y somehow still obliged to recognize whatever cessions it made to X before the latest war of X vs Y? Ngchen 19:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

戰爭對於交戰國間的條約（適用於戰時的條約除外）所給予的影響，國際法學者 L. Oppenhein 
所做的以下分類，是現在最為普遍的見解。[14]

(1)沒有設立永久狀態之所有政治性條約成為無效，同盟條約即是。
(2)沒有設立永久狀態之非政冶性條約，雖末必然因戰爭的爆發而成為無效，但卻可經由締約國自由裁量，
   而加以廢棄或停止，例如通商條約即是。
(3)設立永久狀態之條約，無論其是否為政治性條約，皆不能因戰爭的爆發而成為無效。
   但是，戰勝國可以用和平條約將之加以修改或解除。Lauterpacht, op. cit, p. 303.

I have been working hard to provide links and evidences to support my claim. I guess no one really bothers to read them. :~ Mababa 04:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I try to get the gist of everything noted. And yes, the (other) article you note says that a dispositive treaty can't be voided, b/c the acts done are essentially "do it, it's done" type tasks that may even be irreversible. To void such a treaty, someone would have to draft a new treaty to do the opposite. It would've been very useful if a brief explanation of the concept were posted, IMO. Ngchen 09:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for the Japanese surrender instrument, please take note that I said that it has a temporary role, serving as temporary document as a record of provisional agreement and is intended to be replaced by a treaty later. I never said that they are useless. Their effectiveness is only limited. It was SFPT gave Potsdam leagal force, not the surrender instrument which is a modus vivendi and armistice. Thus the terms in SFPT dictates how the conditions of Potsdam declaration be applied.Mababa 04:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the PRC and ROC's illegal political positions which both do not have legal basis are going to be put into this article, I want to make sure that all the readers will be informed that their claims are political gestures and are not supported by laws of treaties and laws of wars. Mababa 09:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I'd like to inject my own POV for a short blurb. There is a phenomenon termed legalism, and much of the contortions used by the proponents of this idea fall under that category. Briefly, legalism is the mentality of taking and twisting law to suit one's own ends, without regard for intent, history, fair play, equality, or the like. Basically, it's the idea of "letter of the law" while totally ignoring "sprit of the law." The fact that the SFPT did not directly address the transfer of sovereignty to China was merely an accident of history due to the civil war there, and to somehow use that to argue against Chinese sovereignty of Taiwan strikes me as extremely legalistic. Ngchen 15:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is great that you brought this legalism issue up. I somehow feel that the PRC's position which was provided so far can easily being categorized into this legalism group. :)

Well, let me go over my understanding of the spirit of what transpired. (1) Japan waged aggressive war against the Chinese Qing dynasty, and was able to obtain the Treaty of Shimonoseki and with it Taiwan sovereignty. As this treaty was due to aggressive war, its validity is questionable, just as is the validity of the unequal treaties. If the treaty is void either from the start, or from the subsequent waging of WWII (which Japan ignored its obligations), then there is no dispute that it's void at that point. The question then becomes whether the Qing transfer of sovereignty is/is not voidable in light of the further Japanese aggression. If it is voidable, and it was void, then we have an open-and-shut case for Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. (2) Suppose that the Treaty of Shimonoseki were not void during/before WWII. It was decided at the Cairo Conference and stated in the Potsdam declaration that Japan was to give up all its "stolen" lands. Japan was forced to accept the terms when it surrendered, and it did. The spirit of the Japanese surrender was that Japan gives up 100% of its previous empire, and basically will rule only the main Japanese islands, and that Japan would restore sovereignty over areas it took over as a result of previous aggressive wars. (3) The SFPT formalized the peace between Japan and 40+ countries, and Japan basically agreed to do what was imposed upon it. The spirit of the SFPT was that Japan was to give up all overrun lands, and restore things to the way they were before the aggressive wars. That was the spirit of the Treaty of Taipei as well. As you conceded, the Treaty of Taipei formalized the peace b/t the ROC along the lines of the SFPT, and Japan. The exclusion of the PRC/ROC at the SFPT was due to a dispute of the legitimacy or lack thereof of the PRC/ROC, and is a historical accident (and cold war maneuverings). In spirit I argue that the SFPT and the Treaty of Taipei should be treated as having occurred simultaneously, transferring the sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC (which Japan recognized at the time, while not recognizing the PRC). My argument, again in terms of spirit of law vs the exact letters of law, is based on the stunning silence (for all those years) of all the allied powers at the Treaty of Taipei (no protest of Japan making some sort of "void" transfer), the ROC declaring Taiwan retrocession (no protest there either), and the exclusion of the PRC/ROC from the SFPT due solely to a dispute over regime legitimacy. OTOH, the ROC did protest its exclusion from the SFPT. For the counterclaim (the SFPT voids whatever claims the ROC/PRC has to Taiwan) to be valid, one would have to ignore the spirit of the Japanese surrender, and the spirit of the SFPT (granted there is the fluke of the clauses going back to 1901 and not earlier for some inexplicable (nefarious??) reason). As for the US, well its stunning silence over the ROC's claims of sovereignty over Taiwan for decades again argue for prescription, if the US really did de jure hold Taiwan sovereignty for a while. For the article to be NPOV, I think such legal arguments need to be included, at least say at the bottom for a "critiques of the theory" section. Ngchen 19:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. "Critiques of the theory" should always be encouraged so that the article can reach NPOV status. My opinions on your comments: 1)you can not reverse the hierarchy of international documents. All the good faith of interpretation stays in the treaty level. The spirit of a treaty should be carried out. However, the spirit of an unsigned press communique does not have legal binding power. As other people has pointed out: " Potsdam/Cairo declarations were not valid, because they didn't meet the conditions set by the international laws regarding the conclusion of treaty." Neither the surrender instrument is legal binding after the Treaty was signed. 2)Treaty of Taipei and SFPT are different treaties entered into force at different time. SPFT take effect earlier than Treaty of Taipei, thus Taiwan was already out of Japanese hand when Treaty of Taipei took effect. Article 26 of SFPT forbidded Japan to offer better deal or compensation to other treaty signed later to SFPT. I just do not see why you are emphasizing on the silence of the allied powers on treaty of Taipei. There is nothing provided in Treaty of Taipei that was not provided in SFPT.Mababa 04:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Inheriting ROC's position in UN, PRC has a treaty obligation to comply with the article 76 and 77b of the UN charter to help Taiwan become independent. PRC should respect the "sprit of the law" and full fill her duty in uphelding terms in the UN charter. SFPT is not a coincident but a by-product of the cold war. The fact that the SFPT did not directly address the transfer of sovereignty to China was an intentional move achieved in a way that was described in detail in Formosa betrayed. Not to uphold the rule of law ("letter of the law"), reversing the hierarchy of legal documents(make an forsaken intention more important than tems in a written treaty), and drasticly claim recovering sovereignty by unilaterally voiding a dispositive treaty is definitely more legalistic in my eye. I hope you will agree. :)Mababa 04:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Intentional move by whom and for what purpose? In terms of self-determination, it was also recognized that self-determination was not to be construed to be used to dismantle states. Taiwan, FWIW, was never made some sort of trusteeship either. I'll mention that self-determination is one of the trickiest questions in international law today; say in the example of Quebec and its separatism (suppose Quebecers vote for independence - does self-determination then justify Quebec independence (position taken by the Quebec separatists) or does self-determination require an affirmative "whole of Canada" vote (as argued by the rest of Canada)?) Rule of law doesn't mean necessarily "letter of the law," (or you'd have some Muslim women arrested for being veiled for violating mask laws). The spirit of the law, in terms of say legislative intent, drafters intent, and so on, should factor in IMO in terms of "spirit of law" and doesn't violate the rule of law. To do otherwise is legalistic. Ngchen 19:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are equating the muslim law to the international law. You also equated the spirit of surrender instrument to the spirit of SFPT which are undoubtly different. And this is playing legalistism to me. I have previously provided a Formosa Betrayed link about Mr. Dulles who mastered in his record for "brinkmansbip"[15] and perhaps you were too busy to glance over it? :)Mababa 04:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What I meant about the Muslim veiling was that in some parts of the world, textually speaking it is illegal to be in public with a mask. The intent of such laws is to prevent anonymous intimidation and harassment by ilk such as the KKK and such. Applying the letter of the law there vs muslim women would violate the spirit of the law. As for Mr. Dulles, I skimmed the text, but didn't really get his motive for "screwing" the ROC. Like I said I suspected all along, there was some sort of nefarious plot, and I (being a non-expert of international laws) nevertheless smell something illegal in what occurred. Perhaps someone can point out the principle that was violated. Ngchen 09:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. One really have to point out a principle or a law which has been trespassed before one can call the others' behavior unlawful. To me, the Cairo press communique and Potsdam delclaration do not meet treaty standard and thus are not legally binding. There is nothing legally wrong to hold a conference and not inviting both China since Japan can always sign a treaty with either of them later. Moreover, the SFPT has already provided some basic benefit for China already which does not include Potsdam and Taiwan sovereignty. As to why John Foster Dulles would screw ROC so badly, on top of not inviting PRC, is because he was ordered to carry out President Truman's decision to neutralize Taiwan and make Taiwan international status undetermined.

The example of Quebec is not a good analogy to the situation of Taiwan. The de jure and de facto sovereignty of Quebec was established where as Taiwan's de facto sovereignty is obviously separated from PRC and de jure sovereignty is not transfered to PRC in any treaty either. According to UN charter, Taiwan does qualify to enjoy the right of self-determination as a territory separated from enemy as a result of war and PRC has no say on Taiwan's right according to UN charter. I did not follow the the example of Quebec closely, but it is certain to me that their legal status is clearly different.Mababa 08:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Both independence movements are invoking self-determination in their claims though. And that's precisely my point. Sure, specific circumstances can differ (how much of that is really relevant to self-determination claims?), but there is nowhere near a consensus on when a group and/or area can gain sovereignty based on self-determination claims. IMO, thats probably the murkiest area of law today. Ngchen 09:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The obvious difference is the issue of territory integrity and this is what I was trying to point out. Canadians who opposes Quebec referendeum could invoke territory integrity theory to object for Quebec's move. However, by looking at these treaties, Taiwan is already out side of the Chinese territory, thus IMO the PRC has no legal basis to object Taiwanese self-determination and claim territory integrity. Then the question again comes down to 1)if PRC's unequal treaty doctrine stands on Taiwna's case, whether Taiwan has a right to claim self-determination; or 2) if PRC's sovereignty claim does not comform to treaties and laws, why Taiwan does not have a right to claim self-determination. Again, my POV.Mababa 06:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed NPOV version

I believe we are ready to develop a NPOV version of this page. First, how about renaming the title "Ownership of Taiwan de jure" and then explaining the views of the PRC and ROC with regard to the Cairo conference and Potsdam declaration, which Japan accepted in its instrument of surrender. Following that, we could add the questions about the validity or lack thereof of those documents as a transfer of sovereignty, and the SFPT and its possible effects. Along with that theory, one should note that the logical conclusion of that theory would be that the United States holds sovereignty over Taiwan on a temporary basis to this day. Stuff about the unilateral nonrecognition of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, stuff over the Treaty of Taipei, and so on perhaps could nicely stay here, as they are side arguments, rather than principal arguments. Ngchen 11:02, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I am not the person created this page, thus I wonder what he would think. I personally do not have much opinion on changin the title. I still prefer not to put into too much political positions from other places, since it would make the article lose the focus on the legacy of SFPT on Taiwan.

I agree that mere political stuff should stay out of a discussion of the de jure status of Taiwan.

I think your proposal is probably what AllyUnion means by saying this article should represent the situation in the past leading to now. Minus all the political and opinions whether or not Taiwan is owned by PRC or anyone. I am all for your proposed change.Mababa 04:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed NPOV version (2)

With this additional discussion that took place, perhaps we can agree on the following, and convert this article to NPOV. If there is anything anyone disagrees with, please indicate one's objections.
(1) The title should be changed to "Legal status of the status of Taiwan's sovereignty."
(2) Brief historical overview section. In this section, all of the legal arguments on all sides should be left out. I suggest starting with the Treaty of Shimonoseki (if someone wants to add stuff about the Dutch and events prior, fine), and proceed through the Chinese Civil War, WWII, the Cairo Conference and Potsdam Declaration, Japanese Surrender, and the Treaty of Taipei. Perhaps one could add something about present-day Taiwan, and briefly touch on claims of self-determination and independence. I would expect this page to include numerous links to all the topics which are described in greater detail.
(3) Legal arguments section - one subsection for each side
(3a) Pro-China arguments - specify that the term "pro-China" refers only to arguments in favor of some sort of Chinese sovereignty, not necessarily implying that such a position necessarily benefits China
(3a.1) Arguments common to PRC and ROC - Cairo Conference, Potsdam Declaration, and Japanese Surrender, ROC declaration of war vs Japan, lack of invitation to SFPT protested and of questionable legality (possibly due to cold war maneuverings), lack of protest for years with ROC claiming retrocession, SFPT lack of explcit directive due to accident of history, and to top it off, the cultural claim - namely, that Taiwanese culture and Chinese culture have "always been closely linked " (their POV); IMO legally the cultural claim itself is a weak claim.
(3a.2) PRC arguments and their weaknesses (I suggest putting that here, since the PRC has probably the most extreme claims); unequal treaties void from start claim
(3a.3) ROC arguments and their weaknesses - treaty of Taipei and lack of protest (possible prescription). After reading over that treaty, I noticed that again, there was no explicit (even void?) transfer of sovereignty to ROC, FWIW. One can argue whether this is due to some sort of oversight, ill will, or something else.
(3b) Various Taiwan independence movement arguments - IMO others can arrange this better than I can
(3b.1) Qing never really administered or ran Taiwan seriously to begin with, throwing the initial Qing claim in some doubt
(3b.2) Treaty of Shimonoseki, being a dispositive treaty, is unvoidable. By the Japanese cession at the end of WWII, it was at best unclear who the cession went to.
(3b.3) The Potsdam Declaration and Japanese surrender are simply a modus vivendi, which this side views as having been superceded by the SFPT, which again raises the limbo cession question.
(3b.4) Self-determination - the claimed right of people from areas detached from the enemy states to determine their own fate.
(3b.5) (Bringing the US in) Based on the limbo cession, one can also claim the US is still sovereign there, though this argument is claimed by a small minority.
(4) Current status of Taiwan and de jure view by the UN. Also briefly note the Montevideo Convention there. (I'll need to research that to be able to say much there)
(5) See also section - I think this section should really be large. History of Taiwan, Treaty of Shimonoseki, Unequal Treaties, Chinese Civil War, SFPT, Treaty of Taipei, Japanese Surrender, Cairo Conference, Potsdam Declaration, Taiwan Independence, Self-Determination, Qing dynasty, cold war, Political Status of Taiwan, Chinese Reunification, Montevideo Convention, and perhaps some others. For external links, we can keep the ones already listed, plus add a few taiwan independence links, a link or two to the PRC foreign ministry or particular embassies, and a link to the ROC government information office.

I think that if we summarize the arguments used (and can be used) by all sides, and include links to all the other relevant articles, then the article would be NPOV. As the article is about the legal status of Taiwan, I don't think stuff about how poorly or well the ROC dictatorship ran the place is relevant. If others agree, then we could get to work on the article and solve the NPOV dispute for good. Ngchen 20:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is "Legal status of the status of Taiwan's sovereignty" different from "political status of Taiwan"? You have a great outline there but I really don't see how the two articles will be clearly on separate topics. I think the "political status of Taiwan" article should be greatly expanded instead--Jia ng 21:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it is different because this article would delve solely into legal issues, as opposed to political ones. Perhaps the political status of Taiwan article can have some of its material trimmed, with a link to this one. So stuff like what position is simply more popular or accepted wouldn't belong here. Ngchen 02:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess we can wait until the material here is rewritten before trying to do anything, but if things can fit on one page, we should probably fit it on one page.--Jia ng

Sounds great to me.:)Mababa 08:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I redid the page, incorporating as much of the stuff on the previous version as I could find, and removed the NPOV tag. In terms of moving the page and making further revisions, I'll let our other contributers chime in first before changing anything else. Ngchen 18:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your good job!! (Clapping) I am sure that your hard work would be highly appreciated. IMO, I think the article is quite balanced. I made some minor modification but nothing dramatic. I think I have provided almost everything I know on this topic. Perhaps it is time for me to rest my case and let other contributers to share with us their opinions.Mababa 22:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dispositive treaty

Here is a webpage in mandarin discussing the validity of voiding Treaty of Shimonoseki, a dispositive treaty,[16].

Note: only the article six in Treaty of Shimonoseki is voidable. Other than that, nothing can be voided. Thus, no money and no territory can be legally gained or recovered by declaring the unequal treaty doctrine.Mababa 03:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Potsdam Declaration Annex II: (8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

Cairo declaration: It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.

It was declared that sovereignty of those areas were restored to the ROC, but I don't know if they carry any legal power or even the validity of asking such questions.

Then perhaps you can get some clue in the SFPT and see if the Allied Powers did give a damn about the Cairo press communique. :)Mababa 19:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But it looks like the Allies didnt give a damn about the Treaty of Shimonoseki at all. Wareware 04:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That I do not know. May I ask your evidence? The way they are treating the so called unequal treaties are exactly the way Britian was treating Nanking Treaty. Ask if Britian gives a damn to that treaty and perhaps we will know if the Allied Powers gave a damn to Treaty of Shimonoseki.Mababa 19:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The potsdam and cairo declarations were made by the Allies (including the UK) in regards to Japan. Do you really think that they'd void the Treaty of Nanking just because they didnt care if the Treaty of Shimonoseki was dispostive or not? Wareware 21:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not get what you are implying here. Do you mind clarify a bit?Mababa 23:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The validity of treaty of shimonoseki, Cairo/Potsdam declarations

The Treaty of Shimonoseki, Potsdam/Cairo declarations were not valid, because they didn't meet the conditions set by the international laws regarding the conclusion of treaty.

Japan renounced any rights and claims to Taiwan and Pescadores according to Article 2b of the Peace Treaty of San Francisco 1952.

Some people suggest that according to Article 10 of the subsequent Treaty of Taipei, concluded between ROC and Japan, that Taiwan and Pescadores were returned to ROC. This view is wrong. Since Japan already renounced Taiwan and Pescadores, logically Japan cannot transfer Taiwan and Pescadores again to any state, simply because Japan was not the owner of these territories anymore. The said treaty was abrogated by Japan at the request of PRC government, when the 2 states established diplomatic relations.

The Chinese nationalists overthrew the Qing imperial government in 1911 and established a new republican government called Republic of China. The international community then recognized the new government as the sole legitimate Chinese government.

Same thing happened in 1949. The Chinese communists overthrew the ROC government and established the PRC government. The newly established government requested the UN to expel the ROC representatives from the UN, on the ground that PRC succeeded ROC, and according to international law that the succeeding government inherits all rights and obligations from the preceding government.

The current status of Taiwan is an occupied area under the effective control of the illegimate Chinese government. According to international law regarding the succeeding of government, there can be only one legitimate government per state, and the only legitimate Chinese government currently is PRC government, therefore Taiwan belongs to China. In other words, ROC is the reason that Taiwan belongs to China.

Disagreed. Taiwan is currently occupied by a government in exile without a doubt. However, even if the succeeding doctrine prevails here, the result would only be that Taiwan island should be occupied by PRC but the sovereignty still is under trust and transaction of sovereignty still not occuring. On the other hand, there are other precedents where an government in exile functioning as occupation forces as well, e.g. Free French[17]. Thus, it is still arguable if PRC has a right to claim in replacing ROC as occupation power since this occupation was merely a serrogate occupation authorized by General Douglas MacArthur's gerneral order No. 1[18] for the priniciple occupation power as defined in SFPT. You can say the country executing occupation duty should be PRC instead of ROC; however, equating occupation with sovereignty transfer is invalid. Otherwise, French Indo-China north of 16 north latitude should also belong to China's sovereignty.

Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, 
necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the 
occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional.[19]

The only way Taiwan can achieve independence is to declare independence and seek UN membership and state recognition by other states in stead of government recognition.

I am not sure about this would be the case either. Other creative options also have been proposed.[20][21] Your suggestion is certainly one option, but other choices exists.Mababa 19:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have been providing evidences against PRC's claim and I feel that I should at least say something hopeful on PRC's side. IMO and according to the theory of Taiwan cession, the only lawful way PRC can acquire Taiwan sovereignty is through political dialogue as stated in Shainghai communique. PRC should have started political negotiation with Taiwan authorities long time ago even if that means talking to Chen Shui-bian, unless PRC prefers war over dialogue.Mababa 04:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Treaty of shimonoseki

It suddenly occurred to me that so far, the opinions among this discussion unamously regard the treaty of shimonoseki as result of aggression toward Qing and thus qualifies PRC's unequal treaty list. However, if we take one step further and look into the cause the first sino-japanese war in 1894, we would realize this war would ineviablly occurred anyway as a competition of resources on the Korean peninsula between the existing super power(Qing) and the other rising power(Japan). The trigger point of this war was due to the fact that both countries wants to interfere the internal affairs of Korea. This interpretation would be clearer and more obvious if one stands in a Korean's point of view. And Korea was actully the victim at the junction between the two powers. The result of the war is the treay which consists cession by conquer. Japan initially doesn't even want this barren island, Taiwan.

I understand the Chinese pride and dignity does not allow a different interpretation of the treaty of shimonoseki. However, I am still interested to learn if anyone on this discussion would dismiss the interpretation that this sino-japanese war was not an act of unilateral aggression but a conflict of resource between two strong countries?Mababa 22:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Occupation power or sovereign state

That is incorrect. Only state possesses sovereignty, not government. Taiwan doesn't have sovereignty because it was and is a territory occupied by other states throughout its history. The ROC government was only a government in exile during 1949-1952. From 1952 it exercised effective control of Taiwan until now.

Thank you for your response. Please note that even in your arguement, ROC only exercised effective control of Taiwan. The only reason of description portraying ROC exercised effective control but not sovereignty is because ROC did not recieve Taiwan's sovereignty from any treaty in this universe.

Therefore it isn’t a government in exile. General Douglas MacArthur's general order No. 1 was valid until the conclusion of the SFPT. The US senate ratified the SFPT, therefore US recognized Taiwan was renounced by Japan and occupied by the then legitimate Chinese government(ROC). The US military government in Japan(including Taiwan) ceased to exist on the day the SFPT went into effect.

After SFPT ratified, the occupation on Taiwan was transformed from belligerent occupation into friendly occupation. 354. Friendly Territory Subject to Civil Affairs Administration Distinguished[22]

Of course French Indo-China north of 16 north wasn’t part of China due to the occupation by the ROC force. Because it was a temporary occupation pursuant to the General Douglas MacArthur's general order No. 1. The French force later returned to replace the Chinese simply because it was a French colony, a part of France.

In the same logic, Taiwan originally belongs to Japan before the war. China did not recieve the sovereignty from SFPT and was even prohibited to recieve any benefit from the SFPT except from Articles 10 and 14(a)2. Thus Taiwan does not belong to be part of China when the China Republic first established, and does not belong to China after the Pacific war. In this sense, ROC is also legally categorized as foreign military power occupating Taiwan in the same way it occupied French Indo-China; and this occupation power should also be withdrawn from the island after the SFPT was ratified after 1952 as it withdrew from French Indo-China.

The fact is, ROC is still an friendly occupation power on the island and does not have sovereignty. Perhaps for those people support popular mandate, can argue that the current ROC has the mandate from Taiwanese after Lee was elected in the presidential election of 1991. However, THIS ROC with Taiwanese mandate should not be equated with the ROC with the Chinese mandate. THAT ROC with chinese mandate lead by Chiang family IS a government in exile which lost its territory sovereignty during the chinese civil war and was ostracized by the Chinese people onto an island without holding legal sovereignty of it from any legal angle.

If you could read in Manderine and if other contributers are interested, this following link has a flow chart on the post-war transfer of sovereignty analysis in six territories according to laws of war: Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan.[23] I believe external links in the Taiwan cession article should also make argument with plenty legal documents cited. Perhaps you can spend some time to glance over them during the holiday if you are interested?Mababa 01:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Move

Thanks to the many good improvements, I think I can live with this being a separate article, but it should be moved to "sovereignty over Taiwan" and be made the "main article" of the section Political_status_of_Taiwan#Question_of_sovereignty (which should be steamlined to about three paragraphs, making sure it contains no info that's not already mentioned here). The entire Political_status_of_Taiwan article will need to be reorganized/rewritten to have all the legal arguments sit in one section. The rest of the article should focus on historical background (including the major policies enacted through various times) of the conflict. (I believe the Taiwan independence and Chinese reunification articles currently contain more comprehensive material on the subject than the supposedly more general Political_status_of_Taiwan article.

I would like clarification on the historical validity of this statement: "The Qing dynasty never effectively exercised administrative control over Taiwan, making its initial claim of questionable validity." My understanding is that the Qing were the first to establish control, unlike previous dynasties. Having a high incidence of crime in the area does not mean they did not "effectively exercise control" because there are bound to be bandits and pirates everywhere. --Jiang 09:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another title can be "Legal status of Taiwan" if "sovereignty over Taiwan" seems too ambiguous or broad. I think "Legal status of the status of Taiwan's sovereignty" is too wordy. First, it's unecessary to mention "status" twice since we automatically assume legal status includes "status". Second, legality implies sovereignty and vice versa.

I removed the following since it sounds like political consequence due to a particular stance of Taiwan's sovereignty and belongs in the "political status" article:

At the present time, Taiwan, is considered by the United Nations to be a "Province of China." In 2004, for the twelfth year in a row, the United Nations refused to consider the "Republic of China on Taiwan" or "Republic of China (Taiwan)"'s application for membership as it's argued that de jure Taiwan was part of China, and was represented by the PRC. (See China and the United Nations)

--Jiang 10:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed

~~The Taiwan cession~~[Taiwan] represents an interesting case study in international law, since it fulfills the requirements of the (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. These four elements comprise the Montevideo Convention's criteria for "the state as a person of international law". ~~In the situation of Taiwan however, since it is a territorial cession, what is missing is the any clear transfer of the juridical person.~~

With the NPOV strikethroughs made, the text should somehow be incorporated, along with other theories about what constitutes a state and its legitimacy. I felt it wasn't apporpriate in the lead since this article doesn't discuss Taiwan's status as a state, province, or neither but who legally owns it. It's an area where this article should probably expand on.

I totally do not understand what you mean. Please elaborate on what is needed to be expand on.--Mababa

The argument viz "taiwan is a province of China", "taiwan is a de facto independent state" and "taiwan is a de jure independent state". Currently, the content is based only on sovereignty (who owns Taiwan). I'm saying we should expand this article to the actual "status" of Taiwan defined by different doctrines of international law (what is Taiwan).--Jiang

Or perhaps we should first limit the title to "Sovereignty of Taiwan" before that part has been covered? Having this said, I still do not belive the statement contradicts with the title, "Legal status of Taiwan".Mababa 07:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, maybe this should be moved. Montevideo is still relevant in political status and can be discussed there. --Ji ang 18:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At the end of the WWII during a meeting in 1945, U.S. President Herbert Hoover suggested then President Harry S. Truman to allow Japan to retain Formosa as trustees under the world trustee system in exchange to encourage Japanese to end the war based on following reasons: 1)Formosans are not Chinese, 2)the Japanese have proved that under the liberal elements of their country that they are capable administrators and 3) it has been Japanese possessions for over fifty years and the annexation has been admitted by treaties of America, Britain and China.[24]

This never happened. Hoover's suggestion was not implemented. I don't see the relevance of any of this.

This is the background of the policy making. It is still somehow marginally related to the topic and tells the readers that the U.S. did not feel bound by Cairo declaration and does not really think Formosa should be given to China at the very begining.Mababa 06:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hoover does not speak for the United States. Apparently, his voice wasnt represented. If otherwise, how? An encyclopedia includes only what is important. How significant is this? --Jiang

Two US presidents discussed on the disposition of Formosa. Though the plan was not realized, their intention which is to disregard the Cairo Declaration was presented. Not significant? Then perhaps we can remove everything about Cairo Declaration as well since this was not implemented either.Mababa 07:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The difference is that Hoover's suggestion is obscure and cited by no one while the Cairo Declaration is well-known. The fact that it was affirmed in the Potsdam Declaration which was in turn affirmed by Japan in its instrument of surrender is being used to justify Chinese sovereignty. It was Hoover's intention to disregard the Cairo Declaration, but we're only interested in Truman/US government's intention.--Ji ang 18:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disagreed. The view of Hoover would reflects on the fact that the Cairo declaration is not legal binding and thus neglectable. If this is legal binding, then Hoover, as a previous president, could never make such a suggestion to Truman. The value of this paragraph is not on whether this was brought to reality or if the was cite more often than the other. The value of this paragraph is that it reflects the perception on the western countries that 1) Formosan does not spring from Chinese. 2)Japanese sovereignty over this island is internationally and legally recognized by the western powers and also the Chinese government.Mababa 20:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it reflects Hoover's view that the Cairo Declaration did not need to be followed. Who clai med it to be legally binding in the first place? Only the instrument of surrender which referred to the Potsdam Declaration which referred to the Cairo Declaration is claimed to have any legal weight. Again, this statement is not relevant. Even if it were, we do not need to cite obscure memorandums to make a point because something more prominent would be made to the effect. --Ji ang 23:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PRC UN Ambassador. Please see below.

The Communist China(PRC) was yet part of the UN nor a participant of the peace treaty. Chiang Kai-shek would never agree on this arrangement and therefore Mr. Dulles informed the Nationalists in midyear 1951 that they, too, were not invited to sign the Treaty. Finally, in the Treaty of San Franciso, when Japan renounce her sovereignty and rights in Formosa, the sovereignty of Taiwan would be surrendered to the forty-eight nations who signed the Treaty, and was to be held in trust by them. The final issue could be settled in the UN Assembly in the future, as designed by John Foster Dulles in 1951.

Changed "China" (very misleading) to "Republic of China" in the previous paragraph to reflect the 1st sentence. The 2nd sentence slightly contradicts the following paragraph and needs to be incoporated if valid. The 3rd/4th sentences are unattributed. To the best of my knowledge, the treaty makes no such provision for a trust or settlement in the UNGA.

Again, this is a paragraph mentioned by George H. Kerr who was a U.S. diplomat and knew the design of this treaty better than a random Chinese layperson. The provision was described in detail in Formosa Betrayed. At the beginning of the paragraph, the source of the information was given to the readers so that they can always refer to. If one have opinion against this paragraph, perhaps one should give a better source of knowledge to refute it otherwise should just learn it. Then he would have a better knowledge than his current best knowledge. Mababa 06:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since you've added the content, I would like to see the factual justifications. The burden's on you! I would like quotations or citations regarding the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentences. Where does Kerr claim this and what are his primary sources? This does not excuse the misleading nature of calling the Republic of China "China" (since we're talking about the UN, it's obviously the ROC) and that the content regarding the ROC's participation in the SF Conferent needs to be incorporated into the following contradictory paragraph.--Jiang 06:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I am not making any argument on the wording of "China". You have my full support to make the article clear and easy to read. As for the sentences, I thought since you were against this paragraph so strongly, perhaps you would have solid evidence againt to provide. I would be delighted to bring my evidence supporting my edit to the discussion:

He soon found a formula which enabled him to circumvent or cancel out that unfortunate "territorial integrity" commitment. He first proposed that Japan should merely relinquish sovereignty there, after which the island's permanent status would be determined by the United States, the United Kingdom, Soviet Russia and China acting together on behalf of nations signing the Treaty. If these four Powers could not agree within one year the question should then be taken into the UN Assembly.

The Generalissimo would never accede to this and Communist China was not a member of the UN nor among the nations summoned to San Francisco. In midyear 1951 Mr. Dulles let it be known that the Nationalists, too, were not invited and would not sign the Treaty. Thus at San Franciso, Japan was divested of her sovereign rights in Formosa. Title was surrendered to the forty-eight nations who signed the Treaty, to be held in trust by them until the final issue can be settled in the UN Assembly at some future time. The Treaty came into effect in 1952 and there the matter stands. -----from A Case for Mr. Dulles[25].

There was, however, no footnote of the source in these paragraph in the book. Being the vice consulate in Taipei, Kerr's words should bear enough credibility. For the formality, as I said, the source of the information was noted at the front of the paragaph for reference. If you still have doubt on his deposition, perhaps we can put a note to let people beware of the potential of his deception.Mababa 07:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The first paragraph you cited is already in the article. The second paragraph does not make the claim you're making --that Chiang Kai-shek was not invited because he would not accept the terms of the treaty. The phrase "and therefore" creates a cause and effect relationship Kerr did not make. If "Title was surrendered to the forty-eight nations who signed the Treaty, to be held in trust by them until the final issue can be settled in the UN Assembly at some future time," then there should be some primary documentation of this (in the treaty itself?). Let's go into the primary source documents...--Ji ang 18:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Perhaps I misunderstood his text. Then can we put it back that Dulles purposely excluded Chiang from participating the SFPT then?

CHAPTER VI

SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

Article 22

If in the opinion of any Party to the present Treaty there has arisen a dispute concerning the 
interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which is not settled by reference to a special claims 
tribunal or by other agreed means, the dispute shall, at the request of any party thereto, be 
referred for decision to the International Court of Justice. Japan and those Allied Powers 
which are not already parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice will deposit 
with the Registrar of the Court, at the time of their respective ratifications of the present 
Treaty, and in conformity with the resolution of the United Nations Security Council, dated 15 
October 1946, a general declaration accepting the jurisdiction, without special agreement, of the 
Court generally in respect to all disputes of the character referred to in this Article. [26]

There is indeed a clause to settle the disputes in ICJ in the UN. And this arrangment of solving Formosa problem in UN not only occured in Kerr's memorior but also echoed in Truman's statement which you chose to ommit when you summarized his statement.Mababa 20:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dulles "informed" Chiang that the ROC was excluded from the conference. Where does it say he "purposely excluded" Chiang?

So perhaps Dulles accidentally informed Chiang not to attend the conference. Conventional wisdom and common sense tells me that the move was intentionally done. Perhaps you can show me how to make an arguement that Chiang was accidentially excluded?Mababa 23:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, as the article states, Britain had relations with the PRC and could not accept having the ROC at the conference. Conventional wisdom and common sense tells me Dulles was simply relaying the information. The Truman administration didn't like Chiang personally for being corrupt, but the ROC and US were still close allies.--Ji ang 18:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article 22 says nothing about ceded lands being held "in trust". I am still looking for a reference on this. --Ji ang 23:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The most similiar thing I can find in the treaty is:

Article 4 (b) Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3. [27]

Actually this article is also the core argument of claiming Taiwan was still occupied b USMG. So far, I have gave you the reference on Kerr's work. You can choose to not believe it. When Japan renounce the right over Taiwan, whether Taiwan become a trust territory or not, according to international laws, has beyond my knowledge and all I can do is to cite where I get the conclusion from. If this is not good enough, perhaps we should get every move from everyside to show their ultmost basic legal baiss. Please tell us the reason why you think Kerr's deposition has credibility problem.Mababa 23:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, nothing about territories being held in trust. This still doesn't answer my question. How is the statement "the sovereignty of Taiwan would be surrendered to the forty-eight nations who signed the Treaty, and was to be held in trust by them" valid. I am trying to understand it. This is not China where we memorize everything our teacher says and believe it. If it's a valid statement, it can be corroborated. --Ji ang 18:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

~~Article 2~~

~~(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.~~

~~(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.~~

(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.

Forget it. This is not helpful.

In 1955 after the World War II, facing the question whether Formosa should be handed to the Communist China according to the Cairo Declaration, Britian Priminister Winston Churchill told the House of Commons, "The Cairo Declaration contained merely a statement of common purpose." And since it was made "A lot of things have happened" he added. His Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, also said that the Declaration was merely a statement of intention that Formosa should be retroceded to China after the war, that never materialized.[28]

What's the point being made here regarding the legal status of Taiwan? "A lot of things have happened" sounds awfully ambiguous. Wasn't Churchill just trying to stop the spread of communism?

Additionally, content needs to added in the historical section regarding the legal effect of the treaty establishing relations between the PRC and Japan and the three communique's between the PRC and US.

Disagreed. The section of the historical background was outlined in chronological arrangement. That's why it was put at the last paragraph. This paragraph was a NPOV itself to provide evidence showing that the Cairo declaration was not regarded as a legal binding document. What "A lot of things have happened" means is not important. What is important is that these comments were made by policy makers from the Allies who does not think this document important. Pleeease note the difference.Mababa 06:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you diagreeing with my proposal to explain sovereignty status with the numerous developments post-1950? Why? Note the paragraph break you destroyed.... Where did we claim the Cairo Declaration to be legally binding in the first place? The paragraph is out of context and out of place. Explanation would be needed on how Britain had established relations with the PRC and was trying to justify Taiwan's independent status from the PRC. This really should be under the arguments section since it mentions no historical development.--Jiang 06:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I went back to the last revision before your drastic modification and I still do not see what you meant by "Note the paragraph break you destroyed". You suggestion sounds good. But befor your suggestion being realized, I think this paragraph can still exist in the article. I still did not get it. Why do you have to remove it?07:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The suggestion and the act of removing the paragraph on Churchill are two separate things. I removed the paragraph since it is illustrating an argument through Churchill. As it is not a historical development or something that led to a historical development, it is not appropriate or valuable in the history section. --Ji ang

This is not an argument through Churchill. This is a reflection on the attitude of the Allied Powers on the Cairo Declaration acting through Churchill. It *IS* appropriate and valuable in the historical section. Please put it back for the time being and move it to places when you figure out a better and appropriate later.Mababa 20:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What's the legal validity of "attitudes"? And again, who is claiming the Cairo Declaration is holding legal weight? How does this effect the sovereignty status of taiwan? I'm trying to see the relevance of the statement. --Ji ang 23:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PRC's UN Ambassador Wang Yingfan is making such claim that the Cairo Declaration is holding legal weight. He stated multiple times in UN general committee: "Taiwan is an inseparable part of China’s territory since antiquity" and "both the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Declaration have reaffirmed in unequivocal terms China’s sovereignty over Taiwan as a matter of international law." And, Churchill's statement is a good illustration giving different opinion on PRC's UN Ambassador's position. I would think one to be unfamiliar with the topic if one do not know that PRC is still actively claiming Cairo declaration valid. It is totally relevant. Please.Mababa 23:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again, this is relevant in the arguments section. What both Wang Yingfan and Churchill have said are arguments. What the PRC is saying is not represented in the article. Please represent both sides, and in the arguments section--Ji ang 18:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And please use spell check. --Jiang 05:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion on spell check.

On the other hand, I still strongly suggest that we restore all of the important paragraphs you have just removed.Mababa 06:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please respond above and we'll can restore partially if there's consensus. I really don't see a neutrality dispute here. How is the article with your paragraphs removed not neutral? That needs to be justified since the header is to serve as a warning. --Jiang 06:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. This Warning, I believe, is in regard to the suppression of the evidence on the Cairo declaration and the way how the SFPT was drafted. Sure, the current article could still be neutral. However, much truth and evidence of SFPT and Cairo declaration was removed according to one person's point of view. I believe you can remove half of the paragraphs in almost every article and still leave them neutral. I would agree that perhaps some paragraphs would have to be discussed before we both agree to be put into the article and this discussion might be inevitable for us to reach NPOV.

BTW, I would suggest to have the Truman's statement back on the article. This is an important evidence and Presidential statement with historical values. So far I am not sure if we have reached any concensus though. Please go ahead and make modificaitons you feel appropriate, and I can come back to see if we can make it NPOV.Mababa 07:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I tried to summarize the purpose/content of truman's statement since, as a encyclopedia, we should be more concise. Is the summary sufficient? What needs to be changed about it? --Ji ang

The statement itself is not a long statement anyway. I do not see why this has to be further condensed. A encyclopedia should also provide limited original source of document. As for the sufficiency of current summary, no, it is not sufficient. In Truman's statement, he proposed the status of Taiwan awaits for future 1)restoration of security in the Pacific,

2)a peace settlement with Japan, or 3)consideration by the United Nations. And, this policy is what has been omitted.Mababa 20:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It does not matter how long the statement is, only what information is conveyed from it. Every wasted word counts. I've restored the part of the quote that you said was missing from the summary.--Ji ang 23:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am surprised that we have to be frugal on the number of words, even a few lines more. Who counts the wasted word? Who decide what is waste? Your add back was noted. Many thanks.Mababa 23:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The best writing conveys the most information in the fewest number of words.--Ji ang

NPOV was reached. Jiang, you're right. After read the article over agian, I think the article is still in a good NPOV shape even without the components removed aboved. Now I only hope you can find a good place to put the churchill's statement and also agree that we can have the President Truman's statement back. It would be wonderful if the juridical person part comes back since it does not contradict with the title even if this would make the article focusing on the sovereignty not the "province"... etc. Good night.Mababa 08:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reminding of NPOV policy

In light of the curent situation where no concensus are reached so far, I would like to friendly remind Jiang the policy of NPOV, which is to present all side of what people believe instead of supress what people do not believe.

The neutral point of view policy is easily misunderstood. The policy doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from just a single unbiased, "objective" point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct.

Mababa 21:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder, Mababa. However, the main issue I have against the texts I removed is accuracy and relevancy, not neutrality. It would be hard for me to make a case if the issue resided on neutrality. --Ji ang 23:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not really, Jiang. Relevancy is subject to one's point of view and it is your point of view againsting mine. Furthermore, I do not see a problem of the accuracy. Most of the opinions presented here which you against are cited with a source and they were not converted into FACT. If this article is all about the facts, then the article can only be devoted to one of the PRC, ROC, Taiwan or US. The fact can only be one and all the arguements in the article are mutually exclusive.

We realize that this does not IN FACT convert that opinion TO a fact, it just says it is a 
FACT that: "this person holds that opinion."---From NPOV

This is a NPOV dispute and this dispute is totally focused on your opinion which you are trying to impose onto others and exclude others' opinion. Nope, you failed to convince me that this is not a case of POV and the issue does not reside on neutrality of opinions. I hope you can see this. :)Mababa 02:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jiang, I have to propose an armistice for the time being. Even though I still belive that many of the dicussion can be further negotiated and many of these paragraphs are still of value, I have to cut down on my extracurricular activity for the time being. So far it has been fun. I find the current version acceptable and is actually NPOV enough. I think people who are interested in this topic should find the current version useful enough and perhaps would be shrude enough to find other source of information on their own. Anyway, your NPOV efforts are appreciated. Many thanks for communication.Mababa 07:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I look forward to your help in future revamping of that other article on political status.--Ji ang 18:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement to suspend the current dispute and also for your comment on the "Removed" section. I am pretty sure that we will run into discussions some time in the future, and it's going to be fun, too. :) I will let you know when I have more time to spare so that I can do more research on the topic and have figured out how to make best use of the information under dispute here in the future and perhaps put in evidence found from both side.Mababa 21:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)