But it didnât lose Taiwan to the PRC. The Qing government consented to give Taiwan to Japan (even though it was under duress to do so). The ROCâs claim to Taiwan is that the ROC is the successor state to the Qing empire; any land belonging to the Qing government is automatically transferred to the ROC government.
The ROC (retroactively) didnât recognize the Treaty of Shimenoseki as valid, meaning that from its perspective, Taiwan was part of China even between 1895 and 1945, but invading Japanese forces had actual control.
[/quote]
This is why the RoC claims to Taiwan really make no sense. Treaties like Shimonseki and SF can be unilaterally dismissed, but non-binding declarations like Potsdam and Cairo must be respected? Itâs absolute nonsense from a legal perspective.
That said, the fact that the RoC is the de-facto government of Taiwan and has been for 70 years obviously trumps the legality of the situation.[/quote]
I really donât get these legal arguments. As everyone else here, Iâm no expert, but from what Iâve read, itâs not all that complex.
1895- Treaty of Shimenoseki- Cedes Taiwan, Penghu and some other territories to Japan in perpetuity and full sovereignty as condition to end the first Sino-Japanese War
1943- Cairo Declaration- Not an internationally-recognized legal document, but a statement of goals for post-World War II organizations. States explicitly that upon a Japanese surrender, Formosa (Taiwan) will be restored to the Republic of China.
July 1945- Potsdam Declaration- States the terms of a Japanese surrender. Cites the terms of the 1943 Cairo Declaration.
Sept 1945- Japanese Instrument of Surrender- The Japanese accept and sign the Instrument of Surrender and officially accepts the terms of the Potsdam Declaration and, therefore, accepts the terms of the Cairo Declaration. This cedes sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC, thereby negating that term in the Treaty of Shimenoseki.
1951- Treaty of San Francisco- Reaffirms that according to the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Japan no longer has rights to Taiwan. Due to disagreements on which government (PRC vs. ROC) should represent âChina,â neither is invited to take part and the document fails to specify who Japan has ceded the territory of Taiwan to.
You donât have to dismiss Shimenoseki and San Francisco to argue that Taiwan has been ceded to the ROC. The terms of Shimenoseki that deal with Taiwan were clearly overturned as terms of Japanâs surrender at the close of WWII. San Francisco avoids the subject all together. Thereâs no reason to dismiss it because it doesnât address the sovereignty of Taiwan. Only two internationally recognized documents deal directly with the issue and both explicitly state that the territory of Taiwan will be ceded to the âRepublic of China.â