1931 ROC Constitution Re: ROC Sovereign Territory As enacted on May 12, 1931, and promulgated on June 1, the Constitution of the Republic of China during the Political Training Period, in Article 1 specifies: "The territory of the Republic of China includes all the provinces plus Mongolia and Tibet." Commentary: Some pro-China scholars continually claim that due to various rationale, by the early 1930s the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki was no longer valid, and Taiwan was regarded as part of China's national territory. The content of the 1931 Constitution clearly shows that such claims are false. The remarks of Chairman Mao, as given above, also show that such claims are false. ITEM #1

1936 ROC Constitution Re: ROC Sovereign Territory On May 2, 1936, as passed by the Legislative Yuan, but not reviewed by the National Assembly Representatives, the draft of the often-called May 5th Constitution, in Article 4, Paragraph 1, specifies: "The territory of the Republic of China is Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui, Jiangxi, Hubei, Hunan, Sichuan, Xikang, Hebei, Shandong, Shanxi, Henan, Shaanxi, Gansu, Qinghai, Fujian, Guangdong, Guangxi, Yunnan, Guizhou, Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang, Rehe, Chahar, Suiyuan, Ningxia, Xinjiang, Mongolia, Tibet, etc. inherent territory." Commentary: As clearly outlined above, the 1936 draft known as the May 5th Constitution contained a detailed listing of all Chinese provinces. Taiwan was not included. ITEM #2

October 25, 1945 Re: ROC Sovereign Territory After the Japanese surrender ceremonies of Oct. 25, 1945, the ROC regime announced "Taiwan Retrocession Day," claiming that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan had been returned to China on this date. Commentary: Such an announcement did not correspond with the views of the other Allies. Among the Allies, there was no recognition of any legal transfer of Taiwan's territorial sovereignty to China in 1945.   [ LINK ] UK government officials consistently held that there was no transfer of Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty in 1945, [ LINK ] and that unilateral declarations by Chinese government officials could not affect the legal status of Formosa.   [ LINK ] Under the 1907 Hague Regulations, the Japanese surrender ceremonies of October 25, 1945, can only be interpreted as the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. International law states that military occupation does not transfer sovereignty. Moreover, in occupied territory, an announcement of annexation, or of the mass naturalization of the local populace, or of the promulgation of a new criminal code and legal structure, etc. are all war crimes. Importantly, neither the Hague Conventions (FN: 2) nor the Geneva Conventions recognize any special "rights or privileges" that the troops accepting the surrender may obtain. ITEM #3

1947 ROC Constitution Re: ROC Sovereign Territory Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of China, as enacted on December 25, 1946, promulgated on January 1, 1947, and implemented on December 25, 1947, in Article 4 specifies: "The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly." Alternate translation: "The territory of the Republic of China according to its inherent territory shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly." Commentary: When examining Article 4 of the 1947 Constitution, in order to understand the meaning of the terminology "existing national boundaries" or "inherent territory," it appears necessary to investigate the content of earlier versions of the ROC Constitution, to see if more specific details are available. From June 1936 through November 1946 there were no new drafts of an ROC Constitution. Hence, we must return to the 1936 draft known as the May 5th Constitution, which contains a detailed listing of all the Chinese provinces. The result of completing such an investigation shows that prior to 1947 Taiwan was not regarded as being within the "existing national boundaries." As a result, the addition of Taiwan to the national territory would require a resolution of the National Assembly in order to complete all necessary legal procedures. Significantly, from the second-half of the 20th century up to today, although the claims of many pro-China scholars to the effect that Taiwan has already been incorporated into Chinese territory are often heard, any proof which can substantiate such claims appears to be lacking. Specifically, in regard to the alleged incorporation of Taiwan into the ROC's national territory, a complete overview of the historical record shows that from the implementation of the 1947 Constitution to the present, there is no resolution of the National Assembly on record, from the end of WWII in 1952 to the present, there is no international treaty reference which can be given, (to prove that Taiwan belongs to the ROC). ITEM #4

Sheng v. Rogers Oct. 6, 1959 Re: ROC Sovereign Territory A 1959 court case in Washington D.C. confirmed that Taiwan had not been incorporated into Chinese territory after the close of hostilities in WWII. Commentary: In the case of Sheng v. Rogers (D.C. Circuit, Oct. 6, 1959), quoting from official pronouncements of the Department of State, the judges held that: " . . . the provisional capital of the Republic of China has been at Taipei, Taiwan (Formosa) since December 1949; that the Government of the Republic of China exercises authority over the island; that the sovereignty of Formosa has not been transferred to China; and that Formosa is not a part of China as a country, at least not as yet, and not until and unless appropriate treaties are hereafter entered into. Formosa may be said to be a territory or an area occupied and administered by the Government of the Republic of China, but is not officially recognized as being a part of the Republic of China." Complete details regarding this important court case have been posted online.   [ LINK ] ITEM #5

Historical Events of the last 130 years Re: ROC Sovereign Territory During 2021 to 2022, a comprehensive study of important historical events of the last 130 years was undertaken, in order to determine if any of these events had resulted in the transfer of Taiwan's territorial sovereignty to China. Commentary: Despite the exaggerated claims of many pro-China researchers and government officials, after thorough analysis it was determined that none of these historical events (and their accompanying documentation) resulted in a transfer of Taiwan's territorial sovereignty to the ROC or the PRC. The complete listing of events, along with relevant analyis and explanation, has been posted online.   [ LINK ] Worthy of particular mention are the Three Joint USA - PRC Communiques, which some people say contain wording to the effect that the United States fully recognizes that Taiwan is part of China. However, in a 2015 ruling, the United States Supreme Court denied such an interpretation.   [ LINK ] ITEM #6

International Law Doctrines Re: ROC Sovereign Territory International law doctrines such as postliminium, prescription, irredentism, terra nullius, historical sovereignty, uti possidetis, etc., are often used to justify the legitimacy of the Republic of China's sovereignty claims over Taiwan. Commentary: It is certainly worthwhile to overview these doctrines and examine their relevance to making a determination of Taiwan's legal status. Full explanations and analysis have been posted online.   [ LINK ] ITEM #7

San Francisco Peace Treaty Re: ROC Sovereign Territory Article 2(b) of the SFPT states: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores." Article 4(b) of the SFPT states: "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." Commentary: In the SFPT, Japan has renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan, but no "receiving country" has been designated. Hence under the terms of the SFPT, Taiwan does not belong to China. Nevertheless, many pro-China researchers will say that the ROC government structure was already functioning in Taiwan when the peace treaty came into force, and this was a known fact which needed no further clarification. Therefore since Taiwan was already being governed by the ROC when the peace treaty came into force, of course Taiwan belongs to the ROC. However, such an explanation is incorrect. In reading this peace treaty, what the majority of researchers are overlooking is that in Article 4(b) the SFPT has already clearly specified a governance structure for the territories described in SFPT Article 2(b) "Formosa and the Pescadores" (aka Taiwan), and Article 3 the "Ryukyu Island Group". Article 4(b) clarifies that the dispositions of property (FN: 3) of Japan and Japanese nationals is subject to the determination of the United States Military Government (USMG). Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory.  (Reference: U.S. Supreme Court, Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866).)  In other words, military government is the government of occupied territory. Hence, Article 4(b) is confirming that SFPT Article 2(b) "Formosa and the Pescadores" (aka Taiwan), and Article 3 the "Ryukyu Island Group" are both occupied territory. Moreover, both are under the jurisdiction of USMG. Additionally, due to an unfamiliarity with the laws of war, many researchers who read the SFPT completely fail to comprehend 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). 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. It is relatively straightforward to see how such an arrangement would apply to Taiwan. For detailed analysis of this aspect, please see the Taiwan Flowchart on this website. Territory is a form of property. For reference, please see the definition of property as given in the Footnotes on this webpage. The Treaty of Taipei of August 5, 1952, confirms the disposition of "Formosa and the Pescadores" (aka Taiwan) made in the SFPT -- Japan has renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan, but no "receiving country" has been designated. For more information, see the 1971 Starr Memorandum of the US Dept. of State.(FN: 4) ITEM #8

Montevideo Convention criteria Re: ROC Sovereign Territory Some scholars maintain that the ROC on Taiwan meets the four criteria for statehood as specified in the 1934 Montevideo Convention, (FN: 5) and therefore is a sovereign state by definition. Commentary: These scholars maintain that even after the SFPT came into force, the status of the ROC in Taiwan could be outlined as follows: Criteria   Description a) Permanent Population ROC citizens b) Defined Territory Taiwan Province, ROC c) Government Republic of China d) Foreign Relations Republic of China However, as explained in other Items on this webpage, the surrender ceremonies of October 25, 1945, marked the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. Under the laws of war and the terms of the post-WWII SFPT there was no transfer of Taiwan's territorial sovereignty to China upon the Japanese surrender ceremonies on October 25, 1945, or the ROC central government's relocation to Taiwan in early December 1949, or the coming into force of the SFPT on April 28, 1952. in occupied Taiwan territory, the following actions are illegal the mass naturalization of the local populace as "ROC citizens" on January 12, 1946, the promulgation of a new criminal code and legal structure (i.e. "ROC Constitution"), the implementation of mandatory military conscription policies. the SFPT signatory countries did not award or delegate any role for the ROC to play in the governance of Taiwan after late April 1952, hence there is no legal basis for the ROC regime to remain in Taiwan after late April 1952, and there is no legal basis for the Taiwan people to hold passports or identification documents of the Republic of China. Therefore, in evaluating the Montevideo Convention criteria, the "Defined Territory" cannot be given as Taiwan Province, ROC, the "Permanent Population" cannot be evaluated as ROC citizens, the "Government" cannot be indicated as Republic of China. ITEM #9

Additional Articles of the Constitution of the ROC Re: ROC Sovereign Territory The Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China are the revisions and constitutional amendments to the original 1947 constitution, drafted to meet the changed circumstances of the ROC after its 1949 relocation to occupied Taiwan. These Additional Articles also attempt to further bolster the legitimacy of the Republic of China's sovereignty claims over Taiwan. Commentary: The Additional Articles speak of the "Chinese mainland area" and the "free area." however no legal rationale are offered to justify the inclusion of "Formosa and the Pescadores" into the national territory of the ROC. The Additional Articles are commonly regarded as part of the fundamental law (aka "organic law") (FN: 6) of the present government of the Republic of China on Taiwan since 1991. These Additional Articles were last amended in 2005. However, fundamentally speaking, the implementation of the ROC Constitution in occupied Taiwan territory in 1947 was illegal. No actions by the ROC regime from 1947 to the present have served to rectify this issue. "Formosa and the Pescadores" together with Kinmen and Matsu comprise the so-called "free area" of the ROC. ITEM #10