Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that:
美國憲法第六條規定：
| Article 2 第二條 |
|---|
| (a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet. 日本承認朝鮮的獨立，並放棄對朝鮮包括濟州島，巨文島與鬱陵島的一切權利、所有權與請求權。 (b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores. 日本政府放棄對台灣、澎湖的一切權利、所有權與請求權。 (c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905. 日本放棄對千島群島，以及1905年9月5日獲得之庫頁島部分，和鄰近各島嶼的一切權利、所有權與請求權。 (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 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan. 日本放棄國際聯盟委任統治相關的一切權利、所有權與請求權，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信託統治安排。 (e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area, whether deriving from the activities of Japanese nationals or otherwise. 日本放棄因為日本國家或其國民在南極地區活動所衍生之一切權利、所有權或利益之請求權。 (f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands. 日本放棄對南沙群島與西沙群島的一切權利、所有權與請求權。 |
| ANNOTATIONS to Article 2 第二條注解 |
|---|
| In this Article, Japan renounced all rights over Taiwan, but no "receiving country" was designated. Unquestionably, Taiwan was not given to "China." However, the question arises: "How is this Article to be interpreted?" 在本條款中，日本放棄對台灣的一切權利，但是沒有指定“收受國”。毫無疑問，台灣並沒有給予“中國”，然而，問題來了：“本條文該如何解讀？” Some scholars go so far as to claim that according to the wording of this Article, Taiwan has become terra derelicta or terra nullius, available for any country to annex. However, such an interpretation totally ignores the “laws of war” of the post-Napoleonic period. 一些學者甚至認為，依據本條文的措辭，台灣已成為“遺棄之地”或“無主之地”，可供任何國家併吞，然而，這樣的解讀完全忽略了後拿破崙時代的“戰爭法”。 Notably, the U.S. Dept. of State made a clear statement in the 1961 Czyzak Memorandum and the 1971 Starr Memorandum, quoting from the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Report on the Treaty, dated Feb. 14, 1952: 值得注意的是，在1961年的齊紮克備忘錄和1971年的斯塔備忘錄裏，美國國務院引用參議院外交關係委員會1952年2月14日的報告，明確指出： It is important to remember that Article 2 is a renunciatory article and makes no provision for the power or powers which are to succeed Japan in the possession of and sovereignty over the ceded territory. “很重要的是要記住，第2條是一個放棄的條文，對於台灣這個割讓區，和約中並未作出任何有關哪個權力個體將要繼任日本的所有權和領土主權的規定。” While it is true that the treaty has made no “final disposition” of Taiwan, it has made a “temporary disposition.” In recognition of the United States' role as the conqueror of Taiwan, Article 4(b) has confirmed that Taiwan is under the jurisdiction of the military arm of the U.S. government. This is USMG.雖然說，該和約的確沒有做出台灣的“最終處置”，其實它做了“暫時處置”。因認清美國的角色是台灣的征服者，第4條(b)已經確認台灣是在美國政府軍方體系的管轄之下。這就是USMG (美國軍事政府) For reference, also see definition of cede. 請參見「割讓」的定義。 |
cede: (1) to renounce possession of, especially by treaty, (2) to transfer control of or sovereignty over specific property or territory, especially by treaty, (3) to relinquish and/or give up something such as land, rights, or power, (4) [noun] cession
割讓： (1) 放棄並交出所有權，特別是透過條約的安排，（2）移交對於特定財產、資產或領土的控制權或主權，特別是透過條約的安排，（3）交出或放棄諸如土地、權利或權力之類的東西 ，（4）[名詞] 割讓 cession
Note: According to the dictionary definition of cede as given above, there is no strict requirement that a "receiving country" be designated in order to complete the act of ceding, or making a cession.
附注：根據以上字典對於[割讓]一詞的定義，並沒有嚴格的規定要指定一個“收受國＂來完成割讓之行為，或做出割讓。
Copyright © Taiwan Democratic Advocate All Rights Reserved
Sponsors:
