as we all know, the treaty of shimoseki was the piece of paper that japan,as winner, had china sign backat the turn of the century.
in it, china ceded formosa to taiwan in perpetuity.
also in it, china relinquished any claim/control over korea.
as WW2 was getting wrapped up, china unilaterally abrogated the treaty of shimoseki. was such an abbrogation legal? it was an international treaty- can such be abrogated?
if such an abrogation is OK (seems it is at the heart of china’s claims to taiwan) isn’t korea also due to be reclaimed by the han motherland?
In regard to the cancellation or abrogation of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, China made several unilaterall announcements about this in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s. All of those are invalid.
The correct interpretation is that according to Article 4 of the Chinese-Japanese Peace Treaty (which came into effect on August 5, 1952), all treaties (concluded before 1941) between China and Japan are “terminated” because the war has come to an end.
In other words, any statements by the Chinese that any such treaties were “terminated” before this date are invalid.
However, it is important to remember that what can be “terminated” or “cancelled” are merely those provisions of a treaty which have continuing validity at the time of the “cancellation.” In order to return to the so-called “original status”, with Taiwan under full Chinese administrative authority, would require the negotiation of a new treaty with specific provisions to that effect.
In fact, Japan renounced all right, claim, and title to “Formosa and the Pescadores” in the San Francisco Peace Treaty (which came into effect on April 28, 1952), and reiterated this statement in the Chinese-Japanese Peace Treaty. However, these areas were not given to the Republic of China.
While Hartzall and I disagree on other areas of interpretation, my own research confirms what he says about the unilateral declaration and the subsequent Japan-ROC treaty.
Unilateral declarations of legally binding treaties are invalid under international law. While today, a treaty such as Shimonoseki would NOT be binding if executed today, in 1895, it undoubtedly was.
Also, with the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty (which China doesn’t recognize as valid anyway - so they can’t use it as a basis for their claim on Taiwan), it only refers to parts still in force. As Japan had already surredered Taiwan without a beneficiary, the clause in Shimonoseki in which Taiwan was handed from China to Japan is not subject to reversal.