コンテンツへスキップ

【日時】
令和4年11月16日(水) 開場12時半 開会13時 閉会16時

【場所】
文京シビック スカイホール
( 東京都文京区春日1-16-21 文京シビックセンター26階 )

【アクセス】
東京メトロ丸ノ内線・南北線 後楽園駅直結 / 都営地下鉄三田線・大江戸線 春日駅直結

【プログラム】

<第一部> 講演
「韓国の小中高教科書内の慰安婦記述に対する諸問題」
金柄憲(キム・ビョンホン)韓国国史教科書研究所所長

「「少女像守り」 反日行動の正体」
朴舜証(パク・スンジョン)ジャーナリスト

「自由民主主義を守る日本国民に捧げるメッセージ」ビデオ出演
柳錫春(リュウ・ソクチュン)延世大学元教授

<第二部> パネル ディスカッション
「慰安婦問題の解決を目指す日韓連携のあり方」
パネリスト: 金柄憲、朴舜鍾、大高未貴、茂木弘道
コーディネーター: 松木 國俊

【参加費】 1,000円

【主催 問合せ】 一般社団法人 国際歴史論戦研究所 i-rich.org
Mail: info@i-rich.org
Tel: 03-6912-0047
Fax:03-6912-0048

【チラシ】
http://nadesiko-action.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022.11.16.pdf

登壇者プロフィール

◆ 金 柄憲(キム・ビョンホン)
成均館大学校漢文学科の修士および博士を修了。韓国の歴史学者、大学講師。韓国国史教科書研究所所長、慰安婦法廃止国民運動代表、国史問題研究所理事を務めている。2019年度から、在大韓民国日本国大使館前の少女像撤去を求める集会を開いており、2022年1月には経済学者である李宇衍氏などと慰安婦詐欺清算連帯を結成。近著の「赤い水曜日、30年間の慰安婦歪曲」の日本語版は文藝春秋より発売中。

◆ 朴 舜鍾(パク・スンジョン)
1989年韓国忠清北道生まれ。2016年韓国外国語大学日本語科卒業(文学士・経済学士)後、サラリーマンとして社会生活を始めた。2019年11月から2022年 6月まで「ペンアンドマイク」外交・政治・国際チーム。現在はフリーのジャーナリストとして活躍中。月刊正論2022年4月号に「韓国の歴史教科書を信用しない理由」を寄稿。

◆ 柳 錫春(リュウ・ソクチュン)
1955年生まれ、慶尚北道 安東出身。延世大学社会学部卒業。米国イリノイ大学社会学博士修了。1987年から2020年まで延世大学教授。2019年延世大学での講義中、「慰安婦は売春の一種だ」発言で訴えられ刑事訴訟1審中。

◆ 大高 未貴
フェリス女学院大学卒業。世界100カ国以上を訪問。チベットのダライラマ14世、台湾の李登輝元総統、世界ウイグル会議総裁ラビア・カーディル女史、パレスチナガザ地区ではPLOの故アラファト議長、サウジアラビアのスルタン・ビン・サルマン王子などにインタビューする。またアフガン問題ではタリバン全盛の98年にカブール単独潜入し、西側諸国ではじめてアフガン崩壊の予兆を報道。『日本をウクライナにさせない 中露の静かなる侵略に気付かない日本』WAC出版 『習近平のジェノサイド 捏造メディアが報じない真実』WAC出版『『日本を貶める「反日謝罪男と捏造メディア」の正体』WAC出版 など著書多数。TV DHCニュース虎の門 産経ワールドビューなどレギュラー出演。

◆ 茂木 弘道
1941年東京都生まれ。東京大学経済学部卒業後、富士電機、国際羊毛事務局を経て、90年に世界出版を設立。「史実を世界に発信する会」会長。「近代史検証会」代表。著書・共著に『大東亜戦争 日本は「勝利の方程式」を持っていた!』(ハート出版)、『日米戦争を起こしたのは誰か』(勉誠出版)など。国際歴史論戦研究所上席研究員。

◆ 松木 國俊
1950年熊本県生まれ。1973年慶応義塾大学法学部卒業。1980年~84年豊田通商ソウル事務所勤務。現在、朝鮮近現代史研究所所長。新しい歴史教科書をつくる会副会長、国際歴史論戦研究所上席研究員。著書に『ほんとうは「日韓併合」が韓国を救った!』(WAC出版)ほか多数。監修に百田尚樹著『今こそ韓国に謝ろう』(日本語版及び韓国語版)など。国際歴史論戦研究所上席研究員。

- China Does Not Have a Legal Right of Possession of Taiwan -

【日本語版】https://i-rich.org/?p=886

 

              Kawahara Shoichiro

Senior researcher

International Research Institute for Controversial Histories (iRICH)

October , 2022

1 “Legal status of Taiwan undetermined” argument

 The question of whether China will invade Taiwan and, if so, when, has recently be raised with a sense of urgency by the mass media. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the question of Taiwan has come under more intense scrutiny, with comparison between Taiwan and Ukraine.

 A forced Chinese absorption of Taiwan, the so-called Taiwan issue, is the most significant issue in East Asia, as it has the potential to have a great impact, in terms of degree and extent, and will inevitably involve Japan as well as the US.

 Did you know that one argument underlying the Taiwan issue is that the legal status of Taiwan has yet to be determined, or “undetermined”, which seems to attracting attention?

 The view that the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined,” simply put, is that Japan renounced its possession of Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores Islands after WWII but only renounced its right of possession and did not specify territorial jurisdiction. Even now, determination of who holds the right of possession of Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands is pending, which necessitates certain procedures, such as holding an international conference to determine who bears the right of possession. That is, the Treaty of Peace with Japan (San Francisco Peace Treaty), which was concluded on September 8, 1951, merely stated that “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores” in Article 2 Section b and other provisions are not mentioned.

 Both China and the Kuomintang (KMT), or the Chinese Nationalist Party of Taiwan, have rejected the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined” view. At one time, during the KMT Ma Ying-jeou administration, the Chief Representative of the Interchange Association Taipei Office in Japan mentioned this “legal status of Taiwan undetermined” view and the relationship between Japan and Taiwan temporarily deteriorated.

However, the Democratic Progressive Party of Taiwan has not stated its attitude toward the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined” view and, conversely, is presumed to embrace it from the perspective of Taiwanese independence. The US held the view that the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined” up until US-China rapprochement. However, Henry Kissinger, then Special Assistant to President Nixon, promised verbally to then Premier Zhou Enlai that the US would subsequently cease to assert that the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined”. The US has not raised this view ever since.

In Japan, those engaged in Taiwan-related affairs and research are aware of the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined” view and nothing more. This is also true worldwide—awareness with no further discussion. Therefore, the meaning of Article 2 Section b of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, in the context of a special international situation remains unexamined. Accordingly, the current paper intends to revisit this matter and make clear that China has no legal right of possession of Taiwan based on Article 2 Section b of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. I will point out that, after all, this issue boils down to a question of Taiwanese nationhood.

 

2 The Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration

 In terms of the right of possession of Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands, it is necessary to see how Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands were treated in the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration before looking at the provision in the San Francisco Peace Treaty.  

The first instance when the Allies took up the issue of Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands, which were in Japan’s possession, was in the Cairo Declaration, issued on December 1, 1943. The signatories of the Cairo Declaration were the heads of the US, the UK and the Republic of China. The Declaration stated:

“It is their [the Allies’] purpose … that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.”

 This provision in the Cairo Declaration was assumed by the Potsdam Declaration, which was issued jointly by the US, the UK and Republic of China (and later joined by the USSR) on July 26, 1945. In the Potsdam Declaration, Article 8 stated:

“The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.”

 As is well known, Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration. Acceptance obliged Japan to carry out the provisions of the individual Articles in the Potsdam Declaration including the fulfillment of the Cairo Declaration. However, this does not immediately evoke legal transfer of the right of possession of Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands.

 Pro-China parties and scholars argue that the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration evoked transfer of the right of possession of Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands and so there is no basis for a “legal status is undetermined” view—which is obviously not valid. Transfer of a right, based on international law, does not come into effect unless a treaty is signed by government representatives and ratified by its council. Acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration merely obligated Japan to carry out the obligations in it and does not evoke a legal transfer of the right of possession. The obligations in the Potsdam Declaration were in fact fulfilled, in all forms, by Article 2 Section b of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. If acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration induced transfer of the right of possession, the relevant provision in the San Francisco Peace Treaty would have been pointless and the provision should not have been made. The provision is there in the Treaty because Japan still had the right of possession at the time of the conclusion of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

3 Occupatio

 Now, let’s go back to the discussion about the provision of Article 2 Section b of the Treaty of Peace with Japan. This Section provided that Japan renounces the right of possession of Taiwan and the Pescadores and the land of which the right of possession was renounced becomes terra nullius. The principle of law based on international law concerning terra nullius is occupatio, which means that a nation can acquire ownership of terra nullius as its territory by exercising control over it before other nations do. What “exercising control” means is arguable but let us say that it refers to the state in which sovereignty is peacefully and continuously exercised over terra nullius without objection from other nations.

 Article 2 Section c of the San Francisco Peace Treaty prescribes renouncement of sovereignty over the Kurile Islands and Sakhalin and Article 2 Section f prescribes renouncement of sovereignty over the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands. However, there is no provision concerning their territorial jurisdiction. Of these lands, at present, the Kurile Islands and Sakhalin are possessed by Russia and possession of the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands are contested by six nations, a result of application of occupatio. That is, these lands were rendered terra nullius on April 28, 1952, the day that the Treaty of Peace with Japan took effect, but the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin was under control by the USSR at that point, and ever since, and no nation has raised an objection to the USSR possessing the Kurile Islands and Sakhalin. As for the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands, since these lands became terra nullius, no nation has exercised control over these lands without objection from other nations, leading to on-going dispute.

 What about Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands? These lands were occupied by the Republic of China (the Government of Taiwan) when they became terra nullius. However, the People’s Republic of China (the Government of China) claims to possesses the lands. The current situation can hardly be said to be peaceful “exercising of control" and there is doubt of whether the Government of Taiwan possesses Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands.

 At the same time, the Government of China does not even occupy Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands; the Government of China is not “exercising control” over Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands. Based on occupatio, the Government of China has no legal right of possession of Taiwan.

4 Conclusion

 One could comment on my conclusion: This conclusion springs form the view that the Government of Taiwan and the Government of China are treated as separate nations. If there is one, unified China, of both mainland China and Taiwan, and the Government of China and the Government of Taiwan represent local governments of a unified China, then all lands can be regarded as territories of the unified China, which includes land possessed by the Government of Taiwan. That is, the right of possession of Taiwan belongs to a unified China.

At the moment, however, the Government of Taiwan does not accept this view and the international community does not accept this view either. In the US’s One China policy, the US acknowledges that the Government of China maintains there is “one China”, which includes Taiwan, and there is no further debate. Japan has practically taken the same position as the US.

 In the end, it should be clear that the issue boils down to a question of Taiwanese nationhood. If the Government of Taiwan is recognized as a nation, then the Government of Taiwan can claim the right of possession of Taiwan based on occupatio and furthermore, the Government of China has absolutely no right of possession.  However, if Taiwan is not recognized as an individual nation, then there can only be “one China”.

 In the future, with increasingly strained relations between China and Taiwan, the question of Taiwanese nationhood will add even more tension. I hope that the current paper, which raises anew the “legal status of Taiwan is undetermined” view, will be a starting point for discussion concerning future diplomatic recognition of Taiwan.