關於 trusteeship system ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

(✪‿✪)ノ排程中晝發文 #國際法法理建國 Q&A

Q193 :負責戰後託管的機構，不是聯合國託管理事會麼? 其當然有權依聯合國憲章安排進程。舊金山和約我沒記錯是授權當事國與日本另訂條款，提到移交聯合國託管機制的也就是西南群島和南方各島，而台灣也從未於法理上與中華民國形成託管關係，還是你指「代管」是與託管無關的另一個概念?

A193:

台澎是軍事佔領，跟聯合國託管制度無關。

《舊金山和約》條文網路上查得到，你可以逐條看看：https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco

你提到的在這：

Chapter II. Territory
Article2

(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of April 2, 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.

日本政府放棄國際聯盟委任統治相關的一切權利、權利名義與要求，同時接受聯合國安全理事會於1947年4月2日所採取有關日本前述太平洋島嶼委任統治地之託管統治安排。

Article 3
Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29° north latitude (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands), Nanpo Shoto south of Sofu Gan (including the Bonin Islands, Rosario Island and the Volcano Islands) and Parece Vela and Marcus Island. Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters.

日本政府同意美國對北緯29度以南之西南群島（含琉球群島與大東群島）、孀婦岩南方之南方各島（含小笠原群島、西之與火山群島），和沖之鳥島以及南鳥島等地送交聯合國之託管統治制度提議。在此提案獲得通過之前，美國對上述地區、所屬居民與所屬海域得擁有實施行政、立法、司法之權利。

-

不過也藉這機會跟大家說明：

1.中華民國政權是依照盟軍《一般命令第一號》中的安排，為盟軍全體成員到台澎接受日軍投降，並在台澎戰後最終處置確定前，以盟軍「代」理人身分為盟軍全體成員實施佔領及「管」理。
盟佔授權依據《一般命令第一號》是 1945.9.2 發佈，聯合國是在 1945.10.24 成立。因此，中華民國政權依據《一般命令第一號》為盟軍實施的佔領代管當然與聯合國託管制度無關。

2.《舊金山和約》中明白提到託管的，是第三條。其內容為日本同意該條所列領土交付聯合國託管制度託管，並以美國為託管國。在依聯合國託管制度託管完成託管前，由美國行使行政立法司法三權（施政權，也可說是治權的內容）。然而，美國並未使相關地區成為聯合國託管地，而是在治理一段時間之後，將其施政權交還給日本。

3.日本在《舊金山和約》第２條，放棄她對在第一次世界大戰後受國際聯盟託付的「委任統治地」所具有的一切權利、權利名義及請求，並「接受」聯合國安全理事會於 1947 年 4 月 2 日以第 21 號決議對該地區所做的安排。這些地方並不是因為《舊金山和約》而成為聯合國託管地，而是早在 1947 年 7 月 18 日就已依據安理會前述決議成為聯合國託管地，並由美國擔任託管國。

-
#延伸閱讀
👉🏻Q&A18台澎為什麼不是聯合國託管地？：https://www.facebook.com/258660130833607/posts/4060458890653693/?d=n

台澎是在《舊金山和約》Chapter II. Territory
Article2

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

日本放棄對台澎所具有的權利名義（title），相關的一切權利（right），及一切的主張請求（claim）。

-
👉🏻 同盟國是什麼？同盟國與ROC政權之間的關係？ https://wp.me/pd1HGm-kX

👉🏻這篇有提到「代管」是法理建國派論述時的簡稱：
內部自決權 vs 外部自決權、民族自決權 vs 住民自決權、自決權的行使 https://wp.me/pd1HGm-5S

因為中華民國政權代表盟軍來台受降，停戰接著就是進行軍事占領，直到簽署和平條約，能有最終處置。 因為是盟軍全體成員授權之下作為同盟國的代理人，簡稱代管，代理他人進行管理的意思。只是我們法理建國派每次要解釋這一段就很複雜。還有一個原因就是我們並不想讓人誤以為與聯合國「託管」有關！
「#終止代管自決建國」的口號8個字解壓縮後就是 《台澎法理建國指南》的所有內容。

「#終止代管自決建國」所代表的就是：終止在二戰盟軍授權中華民國政權代表全體盟軍來台受降並且進行佔領管理的盟佔狀態，由原日籍台澎住民及其後代依國際法法理程序去日本殖民統治來行使住民自決權，在台澎領土上建立自己的主權獨立的國家。

（關鍵字搜尋🔍國際法法理建國，敬請期待明天的問與答）

希望大家可以看的資訊❣️

🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻［英語繁中字］為什麼台灣在國際上無法加入WHO？原因與解決方法：https://youtu.be/lss2OdMhi90
👉🏻部落格 https://journeyshin.wordpress.com
👉🏻聖峰演講影片Youtube ：
https://youtu.be/-a_qHXh_URM
👉🏻聖峰演講實錄Podcast：
https://anchor.fm/rotpnetwork-shin-hong-ng/episodes/2019-03-29-ep8kln
👉🏻Apple podcast：https://reurl.cc/a5qZjQ
👉🏻 《台澎法理建國指南》電子書：
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yFXTxYOtkqrwEyV11w0kQyKujxEZsU8N/view?usp=sharing
👉🏻《台澎主權的未來請交給台澎人民決定》漫畫：
http://www.rotpnetwork.tw/TPSovDBYTP.php?LAN=TW

Jenna Cody :

Is Taiwan a real China?
No, and with the exception of a few intervening decades - here’s the part that’ll surprise you - it never has been.

This’ll blow your mind too: that it never has been doesn’t matter.

So let’s start with what doesn’t actually matter.

Until the 1600s, Taiwan was indigenous. Indigenous Taiwanese are not Chinese, they’re Austronesian. Then it was a Dutch colony (note: I do not say “it was Dutch”, I say it was a Dutch colony). Then it was taken over by Ming loyalists at the end of the Ming dynasty (the Ming loyalists were breakaways, not a part of the new Qing court. Any overlap in Ming rule and Ming loyalist conquest of Taiwan was so brief as to be inconsequential).

Only then, in the late 1600s, was it taken over by the Chinese (Qing). But here’s the thing, it was more like a colony of the Qing, treated as - to use Emma Teng’s wording in Taiwan’s Imagined Geography - a barrier or barricade keeping the ‘real’ Qing China safe. In fact, the Qing didn’t even want Taiwan at first, the emperor called it “a ball of mud beyond the pale of civilization”. Prior to that, and to a great extent at that time, there was no concept on the part of China that Taiwan was Chinese, even though Chinese immigrants began moving to Taiwan under Dutch colonial rule (mostly encouraged by the Dutch, to work as laborers). When the Spanish landed in the north of Taiwan, it was the Dutch, not the Chinese, who kicked them out.

Under Qing colonial rule - and yes, I am choosing my words carefully - China only controlled the Western half of Taiwan. They didn’t even have maps for the eastern half. That’s how uninterested in it they were. I can’t say that the Qing controlled “Taiwan”, they only had power over part of it.

Note that the Qing were Manchu, which at the time of their conquest had not been a part of China: China itself essentially became a Manchu imperial holding, and Taiwan did as well, once they were convinced it was not a “ball of mud” but actually worth taking. Taiwan was not treated the same way as the rest of “Qing China”, and was not administered as a province until (I believe) 1887. So that’s around 200 years of Taiwan being a colony of the Qing.

What happened in the late 19th century to change China’s mind? Japan. A Japanese ship was shipwrecked in eastern Taiwan in the 1870s, and the crew was killed by hostile indigenous people in what is known as the Mudan Incident. A Japanese emissary mission went to China to inquire about what could be done, only to be told that China had no control there and if they went to eastern Taiwan, they did so at their own peril. China had not intended to imply that Taiwan wasn’t theirs, but they did. Japan - and other foreign powers, as France also attempted an invasion - were showing an interest in Taiwan, so China decided to cement its claim, started mapping the entire island, and made it a province.

So, I suppose for a decade or so Taiwan was a part of China. A China that no longer exists.

It remained a province until 1895, when it was ceded to Japan after the (first) Sino-Japanese War. Before that could happen, Taiwan declared itself a Republic, although it was essentially a Qing puppet state (though the history here is interesting - correspondence at the time indicates that the leaders of this ‘Republic of Taiwan’ considered themselves Chinese, and the tiger flag hints at this as well. However, the constitution was a very republican document, not something you’d expect to see in Qing-era China.) That lasted for less than a year, when the Japanese took it by force.

This is important for two reasons - the first is that some interpretations of IR theory state that when a colonial holding is released, it should revert to the state it was in before it was taken as a colony. In this case, that would actually be The Republic of Taiwan, not Qing-era China. Secondly, it puts to rest all notions that there was no Taiwan autonomy movement prior to 1947.

In any case, it would be impossible to revert to its previous state, as the government that controlled it - the Qing empire - no longer exists. The current government of China - the PRC - has never controlled it.

After the Japanese colonial era, there is a whole web of treaties and agreements that do not satisfactorily settle the status of Taiwan. None of them actually do so - those which explicitly state that Taiwan is to be given to the Republic of China (such as the Cairo declaration) are non-binding. Those that are binding do not settle the status of Taiwan (neither the treaty of San Francisco nor the Treaty of Taipei definitively say that Taiwan is a part of China, or even which China it is - the Treaty of Taipei sets out what nationality the Taiwanese are to be considered, but that doesn’t determine territorial claims). Treaty-wise, the status of Taiwan is “undetermined”.

Under more modern interpretations, what a state needs to be a state is…lessee…a contiguous territory, a government, a military, a currency…maybe I’m forgetting something, but Taiwan has all of it. For all intents and purposes it is independent already.

In fact, in the time when all of these agreements were made, the Allied powers weren’t as sure as you might have learned about what to do with Taiwan. They weren’t a big fan of Chiang Kai-shek, didn’t want it to go Communist, and discussed an Allied trusteeship (which would have led to independence) or backing local autonomy movements (which did exist). That it became what it did - “the ROC” but not China - was an accident (as Hsiao-ting Lin lays out in Accidental State).

In fact, the KMT knew this, and at the time the foreign minister (George Yeh) stated something to the effect that they were aware they were ‘squatters’ in Taiwan.

Since then, it’s true that the ROC claims to be the rightful government of Taiwan, however, that hardly matters when considering the future of Taiwan simply because they have no choice. To divest themselves of all such claims (and, presumably, change their name) would be considered by the PRC to be a declaration of formal independence. So that they have not done so is not a sign that they wish to retain the claim, merely that they wish to avoid a war.

It’s also true that most Taiwanese are ethnically “Han” (alongside indigenous and Hakka, although Hakka are, according to many, technically Han…but I don’t think that’s relevant here). But biology is not destiny: what ethnicity someone is shouldn’t determine what government they must be ruled by.

Through all of this, the Taiwanese have evolved their own culture, identity and sense of history. They are diverse in a way unique to Taiwan, having been a part of Austronesian and later Hoklo trade routes through Southeast Asia for millenia. Now, one in five (I’ve heard one in four, actually) Taiwanese children has a foreign parent. The Taiwanese language (which is not Mandarin - that’s a KMT transplant language forced on Taiwanese) is gaining popularity as people discover their history. Visiting Taiwan and China, it is clear where the cultural differences are, not least in terms of civic engagement. This morning, a group of legislators were removed after a weekend-long pro-labor hunger strike in front of the presidential palace. They were not arrested and will not be. Right now, a group of pro-labor protesters is lying down on the tracks at Taipei Main Station to protest the new labor law amendments.

This would never be allowed in China, but Taiwanese take it as a fiercely-guarded basic right.

*

Now, as I said, none of this matters.

What matters is self-determination. If you believe in democracy, you believe that every state (and Taiwan does fit the definition of a state) that wants to be democratic - that already is democratic and wishes to remain that way - has the right to self-determination. In fact, every nation does. You cannot be pro-democracy and also believe that it is acceptable to deprive people of this right, especially if they already have it.

Taiwan is already a democracy. That means it has the right to determine its own future. Period.

Even under the ROC, Taiwan was not allowed to determine its future. The KMT just arrived from China and claimed it. The Taiwanese were never asked if they consented. What do we call it when a foreign government arrives in land they had not previously governed and declares itself the legitimate governing power of that land without the consent of the local people? We call that colonialism.

Under this definition, the ROC can also be said to be a colonial power in Taiwan. They forced Mandarin - previously not a language native to Taiwan - onto the people, taught Chinese history, geography and culture, and insisted that the Taiwanese learn they were Chinese - not Taiwanese (and certainly not Japanese). This was forced on them. It was not chosen. Some, for awhile, swallowed it. Many didn’t. The independence movement only grew, and truly blossomed after democratization - something the Taiwanese fought for and won, not something handed to them by the KMT.

So what matters is what the Taiwanese want, not what the ROC is forced to claim. I cannot stress this enough - if you do not believe Taiwan has the right to this, you do not believe in democracy.

And poll after poll shows it: Taiwanese identify more as Taiwanese than Chinese (those who identify as both primarily identify as Taiwanese, just as I identify as American and Armenian, but primarily as American. Armenian is merely my ethnicity). They overwhelmingly support not unifying with China. The vast majority who support the status quo support one that leads to eventual de jure independence, not unification. The status quo is not - and cannot be - an endgame (if only because China has declared so, but also because it is untenable). Less than 10% want unification. Only a small number (a very small minority) would countenance unification in the future…even if China were to democratize.

The issue isn’t the incompatibility of the systems - it’s that the Taiwanese fundamentally do not see themselves as Chinese.

A change in China’s system won’t change that. It’s not an ethnic nationalism - there is no ethnic argument for Taiwan (or any nation - didn’t we learn in the 20th century what ethnicity-based nation-building leads to? Nothing good). It’s not a jingoistic or xenophobic nationalism - Taiwanese know that to be dangerous. It’s a nationalism based on shared identity, culture, history and civics. The healthiest kind of nationalism there is. Taiwan exists because the Taiwanese identify with it. Period.

There are debates about how long the status quo should go on, and what we should risk to insist on formal recognition. However, the question of whether or not to be Taiwan, not China…

…well, that’s already settled.

The Taiwanese have spoken and they are not Chinese.

Whatever y’all think about that doesn’t matter. That’s what they want, and if you believe in self-determination you will respect it.

If you don’t, good luck with your authoritarian nonsense, but Taiwan wants nothing to do with it.

(✪‿✪)ノ排程中晝發文 #國際法法理建國 Q&A

Q51：陳儀接管控制台灣時，舉辦選舉，這是不是指聯合國憲章12章77條（子）的委任統治？

A51:
聯合國憲章第 77 條的「委任統治地」指的是「國際聯盟」制度下的委任統治地。聯合國安理會通過決議依據聯合國的託管制度來處理國際聯盟的委任統治地。

在「國際聯盟」時原本由日本負責管理的委任統治地 (mandate) 後來轉為「聯合國」託管制度下的託管地，而且由美國擔任託管國。

換句話說，聯合國的託管制度 (trusteeship) 取代了原本國際聯盟的委任統治制度 (mandate)。

國際聯盟是一戰後成立的國際組織（1920.1
10成立～1946.4.20 解散）；聯合國是二戰後成立的國際組織（聯合國 1945.10.24 成立至今）。

國際聯盟建立委任統治制度 (Mandate System) 來處理部分自一戰戰敗國切離的領土，聯合國使用託管制度 (Trusteeship System) 來處理聯合國憲章第 77 條提到的地方，裡面包括依照國際聯盟委任統治制度處理的原一戰戰敗國領土。

被軍事佔領代管的台澎則是軍事佔領下，因為多國聯盟的關係，所以由其中一個代表全體成員進行佔領的狀態，不是「委任統治地」。
詳見盟總時期說明：
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%90%8C%E7%9B%9F%E5%9C%8B%E8%BB%8D%E4%BA%8B%E4%BD%94%E9%A0%98%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC

盟總時期說明中的「同盟國分區軍事佔領示意圖」中2️⃣的部分，才是在《一般命令第一號》a提到的，台澎與南沙群島交由中華民國作軍事佔領代管。

盟總時期說明中的「同盟國分區軍事佔領示意圖」中7️⃣的部分，在《一般命令第一號》d提到的「委任統治各島」後來轉為「聯合國託管地」。

而《舊金山和約》 領土章節第 2 條d 款提到的地方才是聯合國憲章第 77 條指的部分，與台澎領土主權無關。
與台澎有關的只有《舊金山和約》領土章節第2條b款: “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.”

盟軍代管機構在佔領地舉辦選舉只是「非主權擁有者」在自己所治理，但沒有領土主權的地方舉辦選舉而已，並不會讓中華民國因此取得台澎領土主權，也不會讓台澎人喪失行使住民自決權。

中華民國政權治理台澎的法律上根據就是 1945 年在《一般命令第一號》中的分區受降、佔領代管安排。所以中華民國政權絕對不是非法治理台澎。當然，身為佔領代管者的中華民國政權有他必須要遵守的規範，但無論它在治理手段上有什麼違反國際法的行為，都不會使盟軍當年給予的占領代管授權失去法律上效力。中華民國政權僭越占領代管者權限所做出的行為，跟他是否具備治理台澎的合法權限是兩回事，更和盟軍的分區佔領授權是否仍繼續存在、有效的判斷無關。

就好比一家公司的董事會依照程序規定任命某人擔任總經理，假設這個人利用擔任總經理的機會虧空公款，這也只是讓這個人必須因此負起詐欺罪、背信罪的責任，並不會讓他立即喪失總經理的資格，除非他自己辭去總經理職務，或董事會決議將他解職，否則他仍舊會是這家公司的總經理。

#Reference
《一般命令第一號》
a. “The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16 north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.”
「甲、在中國（滿洲除外）、台灣及北緯十六度以北之法屬印度支那境內的日軍高階司令官及所有陸、海、空軍及輔助部隊應向蔣介石大元帥投降。」

d. “The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces in the Japanese Mandated Islands, Ryukyus, Bonins, and other Pacific Islands shall surrender to the Commander in Chief U. S. Pacific Fleet.”
「丁、在日本委任統治各島、琉球群島、小笠原群島及其他太平洋島嶼之日軍高階司令官及所有陸、海、空軍及輔助部隊應向美國太平洋艦隊總司令投降。」
—————
《舊金山和約》Chapter II. Territory -Article2
（b) “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.”
「日本放棄對台澎所具有的權利名義（title），相關的一切權利（right），及一切的主張請求（claim）。」（title 是 right 的基礎，right 是 claim 的 基礎）

（d) :”Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of April 2, 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.”
「日本政府放棄國際聯盟委任統治相關的一切權利、權利名義與要求，同時接受聯合國安全理事會於1947年4月2日所採取有關日本前述太平洋島嶼委任統治地之託管統治安排。」

（關鍵字搜尋🔍國際法法理建國，敬請期待明天的問與答）

👉🏻Apple podcast 推薦：https://reurl.cc/a5qZjQ

👉🏻推薦聖峰從歷史事實、國際法及國際慣例分析「台澎主權屬於日本（日屬）」及「台灣目前正由美國佔領（美佔）」之主張是否正確。
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g6xGs7JUi3WwTjTlv7EPSGPXl2vg6irV/view?usp=sharing