[quote=“redandy”]Have you read the Lin v U.S. thread? In his links he outlines the treaty and what he believes it means for Taiwan. That’s one theory. The problem is that it’s one among many – there are lots of arguments that can be made as to Taiwan’s status. For instance, China could probably argue that Japan’s initial taking of Taiwan was illegal, and, thus any successive interest would be invalid. Or, you could argue that even if an interest in the U.S. was created, it was disposed of when they allowed the ROC to take control of the island, or, you could argue that it was disposed of when the U.S. recognized the PRC as sovereign of China (including Taiwan), or, you could simply argue that whatever interest they had has lapsed.
At any rate, it makes for an interesting discussion, but it’s largely a useless exercise. Practicalities are going to ultimately determine Taiwan’s status, and if/when the parties get ready to determine the legalities, they’ll write a new treaty that tries to reflect the reality of the situation.[/quote]
International law is heavily politicized, it simply doesn’t exist as some kind of dispassionate body of law that can be used to “objectively” rule on international disputes. The idea that the transfer of sovereignty requires some clear written record is also patently absurd.
Taiwan was ceded to Japan by the Qing, after the war it was returned to the recognised successor state (ROC). No state ever questioned the legitimacy of this. The issue only came after the KMT lost the mainland and retreated to Taiwan, and subsequent peace treaties avoided direct mention of who Taiwan should be returned to because of the conflict between the ROC and PRC.
Now…the ROC has sovereignty over Taiwan, this is disputed by the PRC. Hartzell and Lin wasted a lot of time.