中華民國的國家屬性與臺灣的法律地位：兼論大屋頂框架

The Republic of China’s Statehood and Taiwan’s Legal Status: With Advocating a Common Roof Framework

以《蒙特維多國家權利義務公約》檢視，中華民國是符合的國家屬性要件的；再以通說的「宣示說」檢視，中華民國存在的客觀事實，不需要他人的承認。所以中華民國是一個國家應無疑義。但是，因為多數國家不承認我國，所以實際上我國是被少數說「承認說」來檢視。而「承認說」的內涵是政治因素而非法理，所以中華民國是否是一個國家，並非取決於自我，而是取決於他國及對岸之政治因素。這些政治因素的影響可見於多處，例如：1979年美國與我國之斷交，及對岸「一中原則」的運作。此外，美國基於其國家利益，對臺灣的法律地位也多有操作，例如：不平等之「馬關條約」之漠視，及倡議「臺灣地位未定論」等。西方法理模式固然遭受政治因素衝擊，但其本身亦多有可議之處，例如：《西發里亞和約》模式過於強調以國家為國際人格標準，無法適用於二戰後分裂國家中未被承認國之情況等。反觀中華悠久歷史中的分合狀態，可從中瞭解分裂情況乃屬常態，應給予包容空間，並認知“分久必合”亦是勢之所趨。二戰後分裂國家人民之遭遇乃人權悲劇，鑒於他國及對岸政治因素的影響及法理模式本身多有可議之處，本文倡議「大屋頂框架」為解決之道。兩岸華人在相同歷史、地理、文化為基底的大屋頂下，取得一致的共識，不假外求，共同弭平兩岸分治問題。並建議兩岸政府首應互相承認，作為實踐該框架的第一步，則可審慎樂觀期待臺海和平。

"This article finds that there are two kinds of problems underlying issues of the ROC’s statehood and sovereignty. First, international laws are trumped by political influences, mainly from the US and PRC. Second, the current international laws are practically infeasible for dealing with divided-nation situations, particularly in the ROC case. Referring to the first problem, the implications of associated legal basis, in the name of international law are questionable. For example, as to the statehood issue, the ROC satisfactorily meets the Montevideo criteria and the requirement of the predominant declaratory theory. However, the ROC fails the less-popular constitutive theory test due to lack of the“recognition”element of it, resulting in failure of statehood. From the diplomatic history of the ROC, we see the evolution of recognition and derecognition towards this country, and the causes of it indeed being political influences mainly conducted by the US and PRC. The assertion that“Taiwan sovereignty is being undetermined”is baseless. It is noted that, the Treaty of Taipei, together with the ROC's own abrogation of all unequal treaties with Japan, is significant because even, assuming arguendo that the Treaty of Shimonoseki became effective, or in the absence of the Cairo/Potsdam instruments, the ROC would be the sole country entitled to recover Taiwan. The assertion of“never claiming Taiwan is a State”, when applied to the ROC regarding the territory of Taiwan, is based on an erroneous conclusion that the ROC lacks statehood, and Taiwan is terra nullius. It is a false proposition because the ROC never ceased to be a country, and the sovereignty of Taiwan had been transferred to the ROC, and therefore there is no reason to claim Taiwan is a state. Referring to the second problem, the current types of international personalities limited to be States by Westphalian theory, is practically infeasible for the recognition issue in the divided-nation situation, especially in the situation of the ROC case. A review of Chinese history would provide a clearer picture to illustrate the divided-nation situation than does the Westphalian theory. The ROC has established sui generis foreign relations and impliedly recognized among nations over the course of time, irrespective of Westphalian sovereignty challenges. However, these implied recognitions in the divided-nation situation are still subject to numerous restrictions and challenges. Regarding the future of the ROC, maintaining the status quo, would not be effective either for now or in the long run, while the seeking to be independent would end up with a devastating result. This article suggests a“common roof”framework to be the solution for cross-strait reunification. These problems–statehood, recognition, unequal treaties, sovereignty in Taiwan, etc., are either caused by foreign manipulation or erroneous western concepts, or the PRC. If both the ROC and PRC can agree with each other under this common roof framework, China can solve these problems by herself, and bring peace to the Taiwan Strait."