postliminium: the right by which persons and things taken by an enemy in war are restored to their former state when coming again under the power of the nation to which they belonged. Comments: The transfer of the title of territory by treaty is an internationally recognized valid method for transmission and reassignment of "ownership." Regardless of the future outbreak of war between the affected parties, or the military occupation of each other's countries, international law does not recognize any claim to "retroactive reversion of title" to previously ceded territory, and the doctrine of "postliminium" cannot be invoked under such circumstances.

prescription: (1) the process of acquiring title to property by reason of uninterrupted possession over a lengthy period of time, (with such duration of time not always precisely specified), (2) acquisition of ownership or other real rights in movables or immovables by continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, public, and unequivocal possession for a long period of time. Comments: Certain countries with a long history have obtained title to their lands based on "prescription." However, Taiwan was a territorial cession in Article 2b of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT), hence there must be a clear transfer of territorial title in order to be recognized as valid. The doctrine of "prescription" cannot be invoked under such conditions. This analysis is fully confirmed when we recognize that October 25, 1945, was the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan, and international law specifies that "military occupation does not transfer sovereignty."   "De facto control" does not constitute ownership as we can clearly see from US military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Such military occupation does not mean that the US has possession of the de jure sovereignty over these lands.

irredentism: claiming a right to territories belonging to another state on the grounds of common ethnicity and/or prior historical possession, actual or alleged. Comments: Technically speaking, "irredentism" is a doctrine from the sphere of identity politics, cultural & ethnic studies, and political geography. It is not a legal doctrine per se, and hence carries little or no weight in discussing legal claims on territory.

terra sine domino: [spoken of populated territory] "land without master," land with no central government, abandoned territory. Comments: Taiwan was Japanese territory up until April 28, 1952. There is no basis under international law to say that by 1949 Taiwan had already become "terra sine domino," and was thus subject to casual annexation by any other country such as the ROC.

terra nullius: [spoken of unpopulated territory] uninhabited islands or lands, abandoned lands, etc. which are not being used for the advantage of human beings. Comments: In late 1945, Taiwan had a population of approximately six million, and could certainly not be claimed under the doctrine of "terra nullius."

uti possidetis: a principle that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated. (Latin: uti possidetis, ita possideatis -- "as you possess, so may you continue to possess.") Comments: This principle is not applicable to a discussion of Taiwan's international legal status after WWII because (1) the Republic of China was not a party to the SFPT, in which Japan ceded Taiwan, (2) October 25, 1945, only marks the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan, and the Republic of China (founded in 1912) had never held legal possession of "Formosa and the Pescadores" at any time before the coming into effect of the peace treaty. (3) Furthermore, Article 21 of the SFPT clearly stipulates the benefits to which "China" is entitled under the treaty, and "Formosa and the Pescadores" are not included.

popular sovereignty: the doctrine that the state is created by and subject to the will of the people, who are the source of all political power. Comments: The sovereignty as spoken of in any discussion of the disposition of Taiwan in the post-WWII period is "territorial sovereignty," which is the right of a government to exclusively exercise its powers within a particular territory. As such, "territorial sovereignty" must be based on having "territorial title." In regard to matters of territorial cession, no instances have been found in the post-Napoleonic period where "the people" (in some anonymous fashion) were deemed to hold the "territorial title" to any areas. Rather, "territorial title" is held by a government. This clarification is very important for discussing the details of Taiwan's international legal position.

unequal treaty: A description which refers fundamentally, but not exclusively, to a historical category of bilateral treaties concluded in the late 19th and early 20th century between European states, the countries in North, South, or Central America, and some Asian or African states. The majority of these treaties were signed after military defeat or as a consequence of a military threat, thus resulting in a large degree of dissatisfaction. Comments: A treaty in which a defeated State is forced to cede a territory is necessarily unequal because the defeated State is not in an equal bargaining position with the victorious State. The defeated State cedes the territory to end the war and save the State. The term "unequal treaty" is a political concept rather than a legal term recognized in international law. In world history, no such treaty has ever been effectively abrogated or revoked on the ground of inequality. It follows that the proclamations of the Chinese government abrogating all treaties with Japan were ineffective with respect to the Treaty of Shimonoseki. More . . . . . .

inalienable part: Claims to the effect that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, or Taiwan has belonged to China since ancient times, etc. are examined on the following webpage -- Historical Research

historical sovereignty: claiming a right to territory whose ownership is unclear, or which is owned by another country, based on the fully documented or assertively alleged exercise of sovereignty over that territory in past eras. Comments: With reference to the principle of prescription, it is based on the concept that the acquirement of sovereignty over territory can be accomplished by meeting the conditions of "continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, public, and unequivocal possession for a long period of time." However, the doctrine of historical sovereignty appears to be an attempt to justify the acquirement (or re-acquirement) of sovereignty over territory without meeting these conditions. Additional considerations are as follows: Claims of historical sovereignty prior to 1648 should be highly discounted. Explanation: The modern principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory is generally traced back to the Peace of Westphalia (1648), which ended a long period of wars in the Holy Roman Empire. This principle is often called Westphalian sovereignty, or state sovereignty, and underlies the modern international system of sovereign states. The principle of non-interference was further developed in the 18th century, and it is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which states that "nothing . . . . shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state." Claims of historical sovereignty should be justified by quoting similar provisions in domestic legal codes. Explanation: International law scholars have privately suggested that as a prerequisite for the government officials of any country to advance claims of historical sovereignty over any geographic areas, they should first be required to provide full documentation that their own domestic legal systems, as regards the ownership or other real rights in immovables, have similar provisions. Recent Case Study: The Permanent Court of Arbitration ("the Tribunal") in The Hague issued a ruling on July 12, 2016, regarding the South China Sea (SCS) dispute between the Republic of the Philippines and People's Republic of China. This arbitration concerned the role of historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements in the SCS, the status of certain maritime features and the maritime entitlements they are capable of generating. On the merits, the Tribunal concluded that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ("the Convention") comprehensively allocates rights to maritime areas and that protections for pre-existing rights to resources were considered, but not adopted in the Convention. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that, to the extent China had historic rights to resources in the waters of the SCS, such rights were extinguished to the extent they were incompatible with the exclusive economic zones provided for in the Convention. The Tribunal also noted that, although Chinese navigators and fishermen, as well as those of other States, had historically made use of the islands in the SCS, there was no evidence that China had historically exercised exclusive control over the waters or their resources. The Tribunal concluded that there was no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to resources within the sea areas falling within the "nine-dash line." More . . . . . .         Further Comments: regarding the ruling of July 12, 2016, of Permanent Court of Arbitration ("the Tribunal") in The Hague. (1) Coins, pottery, and ancient housing found in the islands of the SCS strongly appear "to establish that Chinese people were likely living on the islands at different points in history. However, such artifacts do not prove that the government in power at those times considered the islands part of China or made any claims of exclusive sovereignty. Neither do such relics show that other groups were not also living and trading in the islands, nor that other countries did not consider the islands as part of their sovereign territory. Naval expeditions may show that Chinese mariners traveled through the area but do not prove that these seafarers made exclusive claims of sovereignty over the islands or that other groups were not there at the time. Maps may show that a particular Chinese government claimed the islands as part of its sovereign territory, but such documents do not show that the islands were uninhabited by other groups or that other countries did not also claim the islands. These various remnants of history do not show that the Chinese government openly claimed the islands as part of its territory, and perhaps most important, they do not show that China’s neighbors agreed that these lands belonged to China." See -- [ LINK ]

Senior US officials do not accept China's claims of sovereignty in the South China Sea (SCS) and view China's actions there as a violation of international law.

Articles and Essays:

(2) ADM Phil Davidson, Commander, USINDOPACOM, has stated that "Beijing maintains maritime claims in the South China Sea that are contrary to international law and pose a substantial long-term threat to the rules-based international order." See -- "U.S. Relations with China," Department of State, 2018, [ LINK ].

(3) Christopher Bodeen, "Recent developments surrounding the South China Sea," AP News,11 March 2019, [ LINK ]

(4) ADM Phil Davidson, "China Power: Up for Debate," US Indo-Pacific Command, 2018, [ LINK ]

(5) Jim Mattis and John Chipman, "Remarks by Secretary Mattis at Shangri-La Dialogue," Department of Defense, 3 June 2017, [ LINK ]

(6) ADM Phil Davidson, House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Opening Remarks U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (2019), [ LINK ]