「法理論述」VS.「事實論述」：中華民國與國際奧委會的會籍認定交涉，1960－1964

'De jure' vs. 'De facto' Discourse: Battle over ROC Membership with IOC (1960-1964)

1949年，中國內戰結束。中華人民共和國在北京建政，中華民國則播遷臺灣，兩岸隔海對峙。於是，形成China＝ROC＋PRC的分裂分治情勢。從此，PRC以中華民國的繼承政府自居，因統轄大陸，號稱正統。ROC雖僻處臺灣，惟仍以繼承清朝的法統政府自居，續稱正統。在內政上，正統乃唯一合法的政權，因此，兩岸在外交上展開「漢賊不兩立」的生死鬥爭。1952年臺海兩岸在IOC（國際奧林匹克委員會）的中國代表權之爭，成為兩岸體育外交戰的首役。1960年前後，中華民國在IOC的國際地位，因中華人民共和國退出IOC，而大致底定。不過，IOC認為臺灣沒有實際控制大陸的體育領域，所以不能代表大陸；大陸也沒有實際控制臺灣的體育領域，所以不能代表臺灣。於是在憲章中規定「實際控制的體育領域」原則，試圖讓兩岸各在「實際控制的體育領域」的名義下，參與國際奧林匹克委員會與國際奧林匹克運動會，用以規範兩岸參與IOC的競爭秩序。該憲章規定：在臺灣臺北之中國奧林匹克委員會，因未控制中國之體育，不能以該名義繼續接受承認，其名稱將自正式名單中剔除。倘其以另一名義申請，國際奧林匹克委員會將予考慮。遂引發臺灣的不滿，臺灣雖被迫以「中華民國奧委會」的會籍名稱重新申請入會，但仍試圖以中國的唯一合法代表自居，於是引發ROC vs. IOC間的正名衝突。整體而言，IOC對ROC展開改名（正名）行動，造成臺灣的會籍名稱從「中國奧委會」改為「中華民國奧委會」，代表的體育領域淪為「臺灣」，因此ROC一面改名為「Republic of China Olympic Committee，ROCOC」並向IOC申請入會，一面向IOC展開其所代表的體育領域將「正名」為「中華民國」的運動。前者雖申請成功，但後者失敗。相對的，IOC認為ROCOC的會籍名稱主體仍是China（中國），意圖將「實際控制的體育領域」涵蓋大陸，而屢加拒絕。因此，中華民國政府透過國民黨中央黨部召集「中華全國體育協進會」、教育部、外交部等相關單位，組成「正名小組」，透過駐外使領館支援，對各友好國家IOC委員，甚至IOC主席和出席巴登巴登（Baden-Baden）、茵斯布茹克（Innsbruck）、東京（Tokyo）等地舉辦的IOC執行委員會、年會以及日本的東京奧運組織委員會展開遊說工作。其成果有二，就是在巴登巴登會議上獲得可在體育服裝繡上「R.O.C.」字樣，另在遊說日本IOC委員和東京奧運組織委員上，獲得日方承諾並兌現，在奧運典禮上，可以在代表體育領域的「代表團名牌」上，上行使用英文「TAIWAN」，下行加書日文漢字「中華民国」的名稱。從而，滿足了中華民國的悲願，可惜，除了東亞使用漢字的國家之外，與會國際人士與西洋各國幾乎都不解其意，更無法體會中華民國的良苦用心。1960－1964年間，中華民國在IOC的「正名尚未成功，後續仍須努力」。此乃中華民國所處之國際情勢與奮鬥的寫照，而「名分秩序論」的文化價值正是推動「正名」的動力。

The civil war of China ended in 1949 with the People's Republic of China (PRC) founded in Beijing and the Republic of China (ROC) retreated to Taiwan. The confrontation of these two regimes resulted in a divided China. While the PRC claimed herself as the legitimate government succeeding the ROC and enjoyed effective control of the Mainland, the ROC still regarded herself as the legal government after the downfall of Qing Dynasty and her legitimacy did not end with the retreat to Taiwan. Hence, both regimes were fiercely engaged in diplomatic struggles for the 'sole legitimate' status. The fight for representation in the ternational Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1952 was the first cross-Strait diplomatic warfare. With the withdrawal of the PRC from the IOC around 1960, the international legal status of the ROC was more or less secured. However, with no effective control over the field of sports, the IOC considered neither regime representative of each other. Hence, the IOC adopted the principle of 'de facto controlled athletic area' in its Charter to regulate the membership of the PRC and ROC in the IOC. IOC asserted that 'since Taiwanese did not administer sport in China, the Republic of China was to taken off the IOC membership list. However, if it chose to reapply for admission under another name the application would be considered.' This provoked severe protest from Taiwan. Although the ROC was forced to reapply for membership under 'Republic of China Olympic Committee', Taiwan still claimed to be the sole legitimate representative of China. This triggered the name ROC rectification campaign in the IOC. As demanded by IOC, Taipei had to give up her original membership title of 'Chinese Olympic Committee', and to recognize her control over the field of sports only in Taiwan. Faced with such change in status, the ROC on the one hand reapply for admission to the IOC as 'Republic of China Olympic Committee, ROCOC', and on the other hand, campaigned for effective control over the field of sports in the PRC. While the application for membership succeeded, the title was refused by the IOC. The bone contention remained the inclusion of 'China' in the title. The IOC was suspicious of Taiwan's intention to extend the 'de facto controlled athletic area' to Mainland China. To continue the fight, The ROC government through the Central Committee of KMT formed the Name Rectification Committee with the Sports Federation of the Republic of China as the convener and with members including the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Lobbying thus began through the support of overseas consulates and targeted at not only the IOC president and committee members, but also the participants of annual IOC executive committee meetings held in Baden-Baden, Innsbruck and Tokyo. Two achievements were eventually made. First, it was resolved at the Baden-Baden meeting that that 'ROC' could be embroidered on athletes' sportswear; and second, it was agreed at the Tokyo meeting that 'Republic of China' in Chinese characters could be added under the word 'TAIWAN' in English on the nameplate of the ROC delegation. Hence, the humble wish of the ROC was granted. Nevertheless, besides athletes from countries in East Asia using Chinese characters, most of the foreign athletes from western countries would hardly see the difference, nor understand its meaning or significance. 1960 to 1964 saw persistent efforts of the ROC in name rectification in the IOC but with little success. The same plight was suffered in her other battles in the international arena. The culture and value of status and rank provided the impetus to ROC's name-rectification campaign.