從《舊金山和約》及《台北和約》之國際法效力論台灣國際法地位

An Analysis of The International Legal Status of Taiwan based on The San Francisco Peace Treaty and The Taipei Peace Treaty

本文將焦點放在舊金山和平條約的背景，並嘗試去說明：為何盟軍堅持德國與日本必須無條件投降？從德國與日本接受無條件投降與他們的全部領土被盟軍佔領中導引出傳統國際法上之征服。征服者之盟軍需要適用征服理論來對於德國與日本進行改革與長期監控，比如去納粹化或對於日本之憲法與制度做重大變更，因為盟軍的這些措施均超過了海牙公約所容許的戰爭佔領之範圍。征服理論正當化一項推論：作為日本之唯一征服者之美國擁有合法權利，單獨去起草舊金山和約、命令日本放棄台灣之領土主權、拒絕將台灣主權移轉給中國，以及最後美國仍保有權力決定台灣之未來。中華民國政府（ROC）在舊金山和約生效之後仍然繼續是中國流亡政府不變。台北和平條約之締結與廢止證明中華民國政府之流亡政府的性質。

This article focuses on the background of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and attempts to illustrate why the Allies insisted that Germany and Japan must surrender unconditionally. The acceptance of unconditional surrender by Germany and Japan and the occupation of all their territories by the Allies lead to conquest in traditional international law. The Allies of the Conquerors needed to apply the doctrine of debellatio to reform and monitor Germany and Japan in the long term, such as denazification or fundamental changes of Japan’s constitutional law and institutions, as these measures by the Allies exceeded the scope of belligerent occupation which the Hague Convention is allowed. The doctrine of debellatio justify the conclusion that the United States, as the sole conqueror of Japan, possessed the legal right alone to draft the Treaty of San Francisco, order Japan to relinquish its territorial sovereignty over Taiwan, refuse to transfer it to China and finally remain the power to determine the Taiwan's future. The ROC continued to be a government of China in exile after the Peace Treaty of San Francisco entered into force. The conclusion and abrogation of the Taipei Peace Treaty attests to the nature of ROC's government-in-exile.