معاهدة السلام الصينية اليابانية

معاهدة السلام الصينية اليابانية في محفوظات الأكاديمية التاريخية الصينية.

معاهدة السلام الصينية اليابانية (صينية: 中日和平條約، يابانية: 日華平和条約)، وتعرف باسم معاهدة تاي‌پـِيْ (صينية: 台北和約�) حيث وُقعت في تاي‌پـِيْ، هي معاهدة سلام بين اليابان وتايوان وُقعت في 28 أبريل، 1952. جاءت الحاجة للمعاهدة، لأن كلا الجارتين تايوان والصين قد تم دعوتهما لتوقيع معاهدة سان فرانسيسكو بسبب خلافات في بلدان أخرى أثناء وبعد الحرب الأهلية الصينية. تحت ضغط الولايات المتحدة واليابان، تم توقيع معاهدة سلام منفصلة مع تايوان لإجتناب الحرب بين الدولتين (الصين وتايوان) بوضع نهاية رسمية بإنتصار تايوان. بالرغم من أن تايوان لم تكن مشاركة في معاهدة سان فرانسيسكو لاستئناف الحرب الأهلية الصينية بعد عام 1945، فإن هذه المعاهدة مرتبطة إلى حد كبير بمعاهدة سان فرانسيسكو. وبالخصوص، فقد تنازلت جمهورية الصين لليابان عن تعويضات الخدمات في هذه المعاهدة فيما يتعلق بالفقرة 14 (أ) 1 من معاهدة سان فرانسيسكو.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 ملخص المعاهدة

معاهدة تاي‌پـِيْ تربط نفسها ببنود معاهدة سان فرانسيسكو، مشيرة إلى أنه في معاهدة سان فرانسيسكو (التي دخلت حيز التنفيذ في 28 أبريل 1952) فقد تخلت اليابان عن كل الحقوق والملكية والادعاء فيما يخص تايوان، جزر پسكادورس، جزر سپراتلي، وجزر پاراسل.

 المواد الأساسية

مادة 2

Reiterates the provision of the San Francisco Peace Treaty whereby Japan renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan and other associated islands.

مادة 4

All treaties, conventions and agreements concluded prior to August 9, 1941 were nullified.

مادة 10

Ethnic Chinese residents of the islands of Taiwan and Penghu and their descendants were regarded as having Chinese nationality.

 علاقتها بمعاهدة سان فرانسيسكو

 المراجع الرئيسية

In two articles, the Treaty of Taipei makes direct references to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which was the treaty signed and ratified by most Allies with the government of Japan in 1951 and 1952.

Article 2 is a confirmation of the renunciation of Japan's claims to Taiwan and the Pescadores as well as to the South China Sea island chains of the Paracels and Spratlys.

 التواريخ

The San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed on September 8, 1951 and ratified on April 28, 1952. The date of the ratification of the San Francisco treaty is the same date that the Treaty of Taipei was signed, that being April 28, 1952. However, the Treaty of Taipei did not enter into force until August 5, 1952 with the exchange of instruments of ratification between the two governments in Taipei. While there is no explicit provision for the transfer of sovereignty over Taiwan from Japan to the Republic of China, Article 10 is taken by many scholars as an implicit transfer. However, Ng Yuzin Chiautong, Chairman, World United Formosans for Independence (WUFI), writing in the 2nd edition (1972) of his book Historical and Legal Aspects of the International Status of Taiwan (Formosa) maintained that Article 10 is not an affirmative definition of the Chinese nationality of the Taiwanese people, but merely an agreement reached for the sake of convenience on the treatment of the Taiwanese as ROC nationals, because otherwise they would be considered stateless and be ineligible for documentation to enable them to travel to Japan. He further points out that the Treaty of Taipei does not call the Taiwanese "Chinese nationals" but instead employs the term "residents".

Moreover, Japan formally surrendered its claim to sovereignty over Taiwan on April 28, 1952, thus calling into serious doubt the authority of Japan to formally make such an assignment regarding the status of Taiwan over three months later on August 5, 1952. Indeed, British and American officials did not recognize any transfer of Taiwan's sovereignty to [ (QChina)] in either of the post-war treaties.

 الوضع السياسي لتايوان

Article 10 of the Treaty states that [ (Qfor the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendants who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).)]

Pro-independence supporters point out that the Nationality Law of the Republic of China was originally promulgated in February 1929, when Taiwan was argued to be a de jure part of Japan. The Nationality Law was revised in February 2000; however, there were no articles addressing the mass naturalization of Taiwanese persons as ROC citizens. Hence, the conditions of Article 10 of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty in regard to [ (Qin accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan…)] was argued to have yet to be fulfilled.

Furthermore, it must also be noted that independence supporters point out that neither the San Francisco Treaty nor the Treaty of Taipei specifically provide for a transfer of sovereignty over Taiwan from Japan to China. Both have provisions for the renunciation of Japan's claims of sovereignty, yet neither provides for a mechanism of transfer to China.

Significantly, as the ROC officially announced the total abrogation of the Treaty of Shimonoseki on more than one occasion, supporters of the ROC would argue that China's sovereignty over Taiwan was never in dispute. Moreover, Japan and the ROC by the Treaty of Taipei further [ (Qrecognised that all treaties, conventions and agreements concluded before December 9, 1941, between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war)]. It was therefore argued that the ROC Nationality Law which was promulgated in February 1929 would have applied to the residents on Taiwan, and it was unnecessary to address any nationality issues in the February 2000 revision.

However, Professors Lung-chu Chen and W.M Reisman, writing in the Yale Law Journal in 1972, maintained that the title to Taiwan territory vested in Japan at the time of, and/or because of, the Treaty of Shimonoseki, as the language of the Treaty clearly indicated. Such title, insofar as it is title, ceases to be a bilateral contractual relationship and becomes a real relationship in international law. Though contract may be a modality for transferring title, title is not a contractual relationship. Hence once it vests, it can no longer be susceptible to denunciation by a party to the treaty. Professor Y. Frank Chiang, writing in the Fordham International Law Journal in 2004, expanded upon this analysis to state that there are no international law principles which can serve to validate a unilateral proclamation to abrogate (or revoke) a territorial treaty, whether based on a charge of being "unequal," or due to a subsequent "aggression" of the other party to the treaty, or any other reason.

 انظر أيضا

• معاهدة السلام والصداقة بين اليابان والصين
• الحرب الصينية اليابانية الثانية (1937–45)
• العلاقات الصينية اليابانية
• الوضع القانوني لتايوان
• الوضع السياسي لتايوان
• معاهدة سان فرانسيسكو
• العلاقات التايوانية اليابانية

 الهوامش والمصادر

الهوامش

المصادر

 وصلات خارجية

• http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/china/joint72.html
• Text of the Treaty of Taipei