[quote=“walile”][quote=“Mawvellous”]
I guess the Qing “assumed sovereignty” over Taiwan by conquest…[/quote]
We digress here but I want to clarify something. You assumed too much by saying “Ching assumed the sovereignty of Taiwan by conquest.” Do you know what happened? Ching never conquered Formosa. Rather, the last King of Dongning surrendered the sovereignty of his land to the Ching emperor in 1683. There was official document written by the King to the Emperor, begging to become his subject and pleading clemency. Dongning subjects were ordered to returned to China and they did.
And how did Dongning acquired the sovereignty of Formosa in the first place? Actually there was no such thing as sovereignty of Formosa. There was that dutch castle called Zeelandia. Koxinga and he Dutch governor of that castle signed a Treaty and I believe the dutch still has it today. It was just a Castle.
IMO sovereignty was not assumed, not even by Koxinga and the Ching Emperor. They were wise guys and wise guys don’t trust casual promises.[/quote]
You are right, that is why I put the term “assumed sovereignty” in quotation marks, and then added the caveat that the concept of sovereignty is a modern concept and would not have been recognized at the time. You are also right, the use of the word “conquest” is inaccurate.
However by 1895 Taiwan was recognized as Qing territory, even though they had no control over much of the island. As such, the Qing could surrender the island.
What I am trying to express is that looking for documents that “prove” Taiwan is ROC territory is utterly futile and meaningless. The fact is that the ROC has complete internal sovereignty over Taiwan (but not of course external sovereignty). That is all that matters.
International law doesn’t have a “set of deeds” to each territory, which are then passed between states in an orderly, legalistic manner.
Didn’t the US “illegally” overthrow the government of the Kingdom of Hawaii and “assume sovereignty” over the islands? Does it actually matter? The only relevant fact is that US has sovereignty over Hawaii, and this is recognized by all other nations. The complexity of the Taiwan situation only comes from the fact that the Chinese civil war created "two Chinas’, both claiming sovereignty over the island.
My asking for documents was for the legal part. Politically, we all know how the situation is, and that is the reality.
However, from a legal point of view, as I explained, the sovereignity of Taiwan is quite dificult to put. And, because of that, there is no court of law in the world that will be able to define it exactly, based on the lack of documents proving it.
That is why, a Republic of Taiwan would be only bound by recognition as an independent State. That would make the legal approachment easier, as many states are only bound by recognition, and their current borders are bound by the acceptance of those borders by the surrounding countries.
As for the legal approach on the sovereignity of the Republic of China over Taiwan, it can be easily disputed.
And I wonder how can you surrender control of something you don’t actually control? The Japanese were the first ones to actually control the whole Island. So you can consider that what the Qing signed up was more like a “we don’t care about Taiwan” deal, than a surrender.
The Republic of Taiwan doesn’t control Taiwan, it doesn’t even exist. There was a short lived Republic of Taiwan in the past, but obviously they lost to a stronger power.
Legal documents do not convey control, constant enforcement conveys control.
Arguing in the defense of a non-existant entity boarders on frivolous and ridiculous.
Arguing a case online after the courts toss it out is just desperation.
Of course, this is also the reason China is opposed to such recognition and restricts Taiwan’s international space(e.g. oppose joining the UN or using the name “Taiwan” in international organizations) Because they lend recognition and legitimacy that Taiwan is an independent state.
If I’m an adovocate of Taiwan independence, I should be accepting, not rejecting, ROC Sovereignty in Taiwan. At least ROC has recognition from 20 or so small countries. Absolutely no one recognizes Republic of Taiwan.
[quote=“mr_boogie”]My asking for documents was for the legal part. Politically, we all know how the situation is, and that is the reality.
However, from a legal point of view, as I explained, the sovereignity of Taiwan is quite dificult to put. And, because of that, there is no court of law in the world that will be able to define it exactly, based on the lack of documents proving it.
That is why, a Republic of Taiwan would be only bound by recognition as an independent State. That would make the legal approachment easier, as many states are only bound by recognition, and their current borders are bound by the acceptance of those borders by the surrounding countries.
As for the legal approach on the sovereignity of the Republic of China over Taiwan, it can be easily disputed.[/quote]
I think the point is that the status of Taiwan is a political question. If the political situation changed, then of course the legal aspect of Taiwan independence is not a problem. Kosovo was able to become independent because of US and European support, not because there was any particular legal reason why it should become independent.
Because Taiwan was recognized as Qing territory. Of course, Taiwan’s mountainous terrain made it difficult to control the whole island, and anyway the Qing had no good reason to try. However they most certainly had an administrative presence in the island, which no other nation had.
I do think you make an important point though. The Qing were quite happy to sign away territory to foreign powers, perhaps because they had little concept of “sovereignty”.
Because of the split of the “two Chinas”, Japan cautiously avoided any direct reference to which China was the recipient of sovereignty subsequent to surrender. Hence, as the US govenment says, Taiwan’s status is “undetermined”. So any arguments about Taiwan being US property are hypothetical. In philosophy, one can argue about the truth. But in law, there is no “truth” until there has been a final judgement. So legally speaking, we’ll wait and see!
[quote=“Poagao”][quote=“TaipeiDawg”][quote=“Poagao”]It’s all actually very simple:
Decide what you believe is the “correct” outcome.
Pick the documents that support your cause.
Discard all the rest or call them “irrelevant”.
PROFIT! (or not…)[/quote]
The funny part is that sounds pretty much like China’s claim on Taiwan:
Believe with emotional blindness that Taiwan is part of China.
Point to any historical vagaries that support your cause.
Discard anything to the contrary as meddling by foreigners.
PROFIT (Well, not quite yet…)
And does it sounds like the KMT’s (oops, I mean the ROC’s) claim on Taiwan? Well, I won’t go there…[/quote]
The great thing about it is that it works for all of the parties involved.[/quote]Works in one way or another for the political parties involved perhaps. And I guess that’s all that matters considering those parties never took it upon themselves to consider what the people they ‘govern’ want.
There is something to this based on cases decided by the ICJ over the past two-three decades on a variety of territorial disputes. This does not bode well for the PRC’s claims over Taiwan.
Frankly, the PRC will never accept ICJ adjudication because they know they will lose as there is absolutely no legal basis for their claim. There is no treaty to transfer the territory following the war, and this development in recent decades in juridicial precedent also does not bode well for China.
[quote=“Mawvellous”]
Taiwan is ROC territory, and has been since 1945. The claim that it is “legally US territory” is a strange fantasy.[/quote]
Actually, the technical state would be belligerant occupancy until 1952 as no treaty dealing with its final status had not been signed and ratified. Once the SFPT came into effect in 1952, there was no legal justification for ROC dictatorial rule over the Taiwanese people.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]The court tossed out the case on grounds that it was a legal fantasy to use the US court system to resolve a territorial conflict between ROC and PRC, which they claim was a matter for the US executive branch to consider.
Is Lin going to try to run this case up to the supreme court now?[/quote]
Actually, it was thrown out on the grounds that it was a “political question.” This is a doctrine that has been used in the US judicial system for nearly as long as the US has been an independent nation.
[quote=“mr_boogie”][quote=“ac_dropout”]So you guys really believe that the omission of ROC was not because of the civil war, but because they wanted Republic of Taiwan?
Fantasy Island…[/quote]
What forums either than fmosa you read? Because sometimes I get the idea you come here and post stuff that either you are getting them from somewhere else, or you live in a fantasy world…
I said the ROC needed to be in a treaty, to justify “ownership of the land”.
The Treaty of Taipei was later scrapped by Japan, when they recognized the PRC, so it’s validity is quite disputable.[/quote]
Also disputable on two more points:
There is no explicit transfer of sovereignty in the treaty.
Japan had already renounced sovereignty over Taiwan prior to the ratification of the Treaty of Taipei.
Oh, I have no idea. I was just putting that forward as part of the myriad of plausible arguments that can be made about Taiwan’s legal status. It wouldn’t surprise me too much, though if China put forth some such argument, don’t they pretty much look on all the treaties of that era as uneven and a result of force/duress and thereby invalid?[/quote]
All such treaties following the war were by definition under duress. That is what happens when once country wins and another country loses a war. Under international law, the treaties signed in such circumstances are perfectly legal. Hugo Grotius made compelling arguments in favor of such status - essentially that if such treaties were not going to have the expectation of being abided by and regarded as legal, wars would continue until one side was completely destroyed, resulting in unnecessarily suffering and bloodshed.
[quote=“Mawvellous”][quote=“walile”]
Well, what you’re proposing sounds like what people in prehistoric period did. I thought legal documents exist for a good purpose, no?[/quote]
I am not proposing anything, I am simply describing how international law works. The ROC assumed sovereignty over Taiwan in 1945, the San Francisco peace treaty was not signed until 1951. So in 1951, the ROC had already ruled Taiwan for 6 years, the US fully recognized ROC sovereignty over Taiwan (it was only disputed by the PRC), and these goons are still trying to claim that Taiwan is “legally” US territory.[/quote]
Actually, this is not how international law works. The ROC was technically in belligerant occupancy of Taiwan from 1945 until the ratification of the SFPT in 1952. During that time, Japan was still the de jure sovereign. It takes a treaty to transfer territory from one state to another state.
And the only court that really has standing here is the ICJ, not a municipal court in any country (including the US). However, China won’t allow it to come before the ICJ because their chances of actually winning the case are remote at best.
LIke I wrote in the other post, one of the Taiwan’s undetermined status guys needs to tear up their ROC Visa or ROC passport and then tell the custom dude at the border that Taiwan’s status is undetermined. Then come back and tell us who “legally” owns Taiwan, if you are still in Taiwan.
