福坦莫大學國際法學期刊             一中政策與台灣             (英文論文,共 87頁)  



  主旨: 美國認知到 . . .  


摘錄自第50頁到53頁

The final text in the [First] Communique turned out to be, "the U.S. declared: the United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position." In other words, the Nixon Administration only took notice of what "the Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait" claimed.
《美中第一雙邊公報》 (即 《上海公報》) 的最後定稿內容為: "美國方面聲明:美國認知到,在台灣海峽兩邊的所有中國人都認為只有一個中國,台灣是中國的一部分。美國政府對這一立場不提出異議。" 換句話說,尼克森政府只注意到 "台灣海峽兩岸的中國人" 的說法。

. . . . .

The statement "the United States Government does not challenge that position," meant that the U.S. government did not deny that "all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait" assert the same thing, namely that there is only one China. It does not mean that the U.S. government agreed with the position taken by the Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Although such interpretation is not apparent in the statement itself, it was also confirmed in the second Joint Communique issued by U.S. President Carter to be discussed.     . . . . .
聲明 "美國政府對這一立場不提出異議",意味著美國政府沒有否認 "台灣海峽兩岸的所有中國人" 都主張同一件事,即只有一個中國。 這並不意味著美國政府同意中國人在台灣海峽兩岸所採取的立場。 儘管這樣的解釋在此聲明中並不明顯,但在美國總統卡特發表的《美中第二雙邊公報》中也得到了證實。對此,本論文將進行討論。    . . . . .

The Shanghai Communique established the U.S. policy toward China to date. The U.S. policy stated in the Shanghai Communique is said to be the one-China policy. In this policy statement, the Nixon Administration did not change the U.S. position that the island of Taiwan is not China's territory.
迄今為止,《上海公報》確立了美國對中國政策。 據《上海公報》所說的美國政策是一個中國的政策。 在這份政策聲明中,關於台灣島不是中國領土,尼克森政府並沒有改變美國的立場。

. . . . .

. . .   it is important to note that in recognizing the P.R.C. government, the Carter Administration did not recognize China's claim over Taiwan. This position is clear in the policy statement made in the Joint Communique on Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China ("Second Communique"). The Carter Administration again, like Nixon's only "acknowledged" that China claimed title to the island of Taiwan. The Second Joint Communique states: "The United States of America and the People's Republic of China reaffirm the principles agreed on by the two sides in the Shanghai Communique and emphasize once again that: The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China."
. . .   務必注意到,在承認中華人民共和國政府時,卡特政府並沒有承認中國對台灣的所有權主張。 在美國與中華人民共和國建立外交關係雙邊公報 (即 "第二公報")內的政策聲明中,很清楚地表明了這一立場。 卡特政府再次像尼克森唯一 "認知到" 中國聲稱擁有台灣島的所有權一樣。 第二聯合公報聲明:"美國和中華人民共和國重申了上海公報中雙方商定的原則,並再次強調:美國政府認知到中國(方面) 的立場,即: 只有一個中國,台灣是中國的一部分。"

The Carter Administration did no more than simply acknowledge that the P.R.C. government maintained the position that there is but one China of which Taiwan is a part. The Carter Administration, by saying that the Second Communique "reaffirm[s] the principles agreed on by the two sides in the Shanghai Communique," meant that it continued to uphold the U.S. position in the Shanghai Communique. Thus, the Second Communique confirmed the interpretation that the statement in the Shanghai Communique stating "the United States Government does not challenge that position" meant that the U.S. government did not deny the fact that "Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait" took the same position that Taiwan is part of China. Carter did not accept or recognize the position taken by the P.R.C. government.
卡特政府只不過簡單地認知到中華人民共和國政府一直保持這樣的立場,即台灣是中國的一部分。 卡特政府說過:第二公報 "重申了雙方在上海公報中商定的原則",這意味著其繼續維護美國在上海公報中的立場。 因此,第二公報確認了一種解釋,即上海公報中的聲明 "美國政府對這一立場不提出異議" 意味著美國政府沒有否認 "台灣海峽兩岸的中國人" 採取了這個觀點:台灣是中國的一部分。 但是事實上,卡特(政府) 並沒有接受或承認中華人民共和國政府這單方面的立場。


English version



REFERENCE
One-China Policy and Taiwan

by Y. Frank Chiang
紐約 福坦莫大學             法學院教授 江永芳

Fordham International Law Journal  Vol. 28:1, December 2004

This 87-page article may be downloaded from the Vol 28, Iss. 1 page of the
Fordham International Law Journal website

 
 
 
 

previous
next