Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that:
美國憲法第六條規定：
| Article 4 第四條 |
|---|
| (a) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this Article, the disposition of property of Japan and of its nationals in the areas referred to in Article 2, and their claims, including debts, against the authorities presently administering such areas and the residents (including juridical persons) thereof, and the disposition in Japan of property of such authorities and residents, and of claims, including debts, of such authorities and residents against Japan and its nationals, shall be the subject of special arrangements between Japan and such authorities. The property of any of the Allied Powers or its nationals in the areas referred to in Article 2 shall, insofar as this has not already been done, be returned by the administering authority in the condition in which it now exists. (The term nationals whenever used in the present Treaty includes juridical persons.) 根據本條(b)款之規定，在第2條所列舉區域內，對目前正管理該地區之當局與其居民（包括法人在內），就日本與日本國民之財產、請求權與債務之處分，以及該當局對日本與日本國民，就該當局與其居民在日本之財產與包含債務在內之請求權之處分，應該依據日本與該當局之特別協議為之。第2條所列舉區域內之聯盟國與其國民財產且目前尚未歸還者，應由管理當局依現狀歸還（前項所稱之國民，在本和約中皆包括法人）。 (b) Japan recognizes the validity of dispositions of property of Japan and Japanese nationals made by or pursuant to directives of the United States Military Government in any of the areas referred to in Articles 2 and 3. 日本承認前述第2條與第3條裡，美國軍事政府對日本與日本國民財產處分的有效性。 (c) Japanese owned submarine cables connection Japan with territory removed from Japanese control pursuant to the present Treaty shall be equally divided, Japan retaining the Japanese terminal and adjoining half of the cable, and the detached territory the remainder of the cable and connecting terminal facilities. 依據本和約，日本所掌握連結至日本之海底電纜將予以等分。日本擁有者為日本端之設備與該電纜之一半，以及分離領域所餘電纜和其端點設備。 |
| ANNOTATIONS to Article 4 第四條注解 |
|---|
| Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory. In other words, military government is the government of occupied territory, and therefore it can be quickly seen that the Article 2(b) territory of Taiwan is occupied territory. 「軍事政府」是佔領軍對被佔領地區行使政府權力的一種管理形式。換言之，「軍事政府」是被佔領地區的政府，因此，很快可以看出，第2條(b)中的台灣是被佔領地區。 According to international law, Oct. 25, 1945 is the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan, and certainly not "Taiwan Retrocession Day." A firm tenet of international law states that "Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty." 根據國際法，1945年10月25日是台灣軍事佔領的開始，而肯定不是“台灣光復節”。國際法的一個埾固的信條 是：“軍事佔領不移轉主權。” Due to an unfamiliarity with the laws of war, many researchers who read the SFPT completely fail to recognize an important point: After war, for territory separated from the "mother country" via the specifications of a peace treaty, the military government of the (principal) occupying power does not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty, but continues until legally supplanted (by a recognized civil government). 許多閱讀舊金山和約的研究員由於不熟悉戰爭法，完全無法認知舊金山和約的一個重點，亦即戰後，根據和平條約規定從「母國」脫離的地區，其（主要）佔領國之軍事政府並不會因為和平條約生效而結束，而一直持續到被合法取代為止（即被 “承認的民事政府” 取代。） The territories as specified in Articles 2 and 3 of the treaty have been separated from the "motherland" of Japan, therefore the military governments exercising jurisdiction over these areas do not end with the coming into force of the peace treaty. Most civilian scholars, being unfamiliar with the subject of “military jurisdiction under international law,” have little understanding of such a concept. However such a “legal framework” has been verified by numerous rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, and can be easily confirmed by examination of the precedent established in dealing with the territories acquired by the USA in the Mexican - American War and the Spanish - American War. 第2條和第3條中所規範的領土已經與日本“母國”分離，因此，在這些地區行使管轄權的軍事政府並不因和平條約的生效而結束。大部分平民學者因不熟悉“國際法中的軍事管轄”這主題，而對這樣的概念理解甚少。然而，這樣的一個“法律框架”已經由美國最高法院的無數次裁決所證實，也很容易在在檢視歷史上的先例中得到確認。此先例乃美國於美國-墨西哥戰爭以及美國-西班牙戰爭後處理所取得領土上所建立。 For a detailed chart which explains this principle, along with authoritative commentary, please see Areas Conquered by U.S. military forces and therefore under USMG jurisdiction, with later "new disposition" by peace treaty. 茲提供一個可以說明這個原則的詳細圖表附上權威性注釋。請參見「由美國軍方所征服，並因此置於USMG(美國軍政府)管轄下，再由後續的和平條約『做新部署』 之領土」。 Article 4(b) should be read in conjunction with Article 23(a). 第4條(b)應與第23條(a)一併閱讀。 Article 23(a) confirms that the United States of America in the principal occupying power of all territories under the geographic scope of the treaty. In consideration of this along with the specifications of Article 4(b), it is clear that the United States Military Government (USMG) has jurisdiction over all the territories in Articles 2 and 3. 第23條(a)確認美國是和約中地理範圍內所有地區的主要軍事佔領國，鑒於此條款以及第4條(b)規定，美國軍事政府（USMG）對第2條和第3條的所有領土具有管轄權是很清楚的。 For reference, also see definition of property. 請同時參見「財產」之定義以為參考。 The question may be asked: What does USMG's jurisdiction include? To answer this question, we can refer to the United States' administration of the Ryukyu island group beginning in 1945, and thereby gain a full understanding. Of course, one important aspect of this jurisdiction was that the U.S. military authorities issued "Certificates of Identity" as travel documents for the native people of the Ryukyu islands. 可能有人會問：「美國軍事政府（USMG）的管轄權包括哪些方面？」為了回答這個問題，我們可以參考美國自1945年開始對琉球群島的管轄，並由此來得到一個全面的理解。當然，此管轄權的一個重要面向是，美國軍事當局為琉球群島的當地居民發行了身份證明書作為「旅行証明書」。 Therefore it is fully reasonable under the terms of the SFPT to demand that the United States military authorities issue travel documents (aka “passports”) for the native people of Taiwan. 因此，根據舊金山和約的條款內容，要求美國軍事當局為台灣當地居民發行「旅行証明書」（亦稱“護照”）是完全合理的。 Contrastingly, there is no authorization in the Taiwan Relations Act, the Three Joint USA-PRC Communiques, any Executive Orders issued by the U.S. Commander in Chief, or the SFPT itself for an entity calling itself the “Republic of China” to issue passports to native Taiwanese people. 與之相反地，在台灣關係法、美中三個聯合公報、任何由美國總司令發布的行政命令中，或者舊金山和約本身，都沒有授權給予一個自稱“中華民國”的實體來發行護照給台灣當地居民。 |
property: (1) something, as land and assets, legally possessed, (2) a piece of real estate, (3) something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title, (4) the right of ownership; title.
財產 ：(1) 合法擁有之東西， 如土地和資產 , (2) 一件房地產, (3) 擁有者持有合法產權的一些有形或無形的東西 , (4) 擁有權，即所有權。
Note: When speaking of territorial cession(s) between states, land area is certainly considered to be "property."
附註：當涉及國與國之間的領土割讓時，土地區域當然是被認為是“財產”。
| Name of Cession 割讓領土名稱 | Date 割讓日期 | Originally the property of 財產原歸屬國 |
|---|---|---|
| California 加利福尼亞 | 1848 1848年 | Mexico 墨西哥 |
| Gadsden Purchase 加茲登購地 | 1853 1853年 | Mexico 墨西哥 |
| Alaska 阿拉斯加 | 1867 1867年 | Russia 俄羅斯 |
| Guam 關島 | 1899 1899年 | Spain 西班牙 |
| Puerto Rico 波多黎各 | 1899 1899年 | Spain 西班牙 |
| Virgin Islands 維京群島 | 1917 1917年 | Denmark 丹麥 |
Copyright © Taiwan Democratic Advocate All Rights Reserved
Sponsors:
