摘錄自第12頁到13頁
In September 1931, Japan began its expansion in Asia and sent its troops into northern China. By 1939, the Japanese armed forces had occupied a vast area of central and eastern China. In December 1941, the R.O.C. government declared war against Japan, and at the same time issued a proclamation abrogating all treaties with Japan, including the Treaty of Shimonoseki on the ground that the Treaty was "unequal."
1931年09月，日本開始在亞洲擴張，並向中國北部派兵。 到1939年，日軍已經在中國佔領了中部和東部的廣大地區。 1941年12月，中華民國政府向日本宣戰，並同時宣布廢除與日本的所有條約，包括《馬關條約》，理由是該條約 "不平等"。
The Treaty of Shimonoseki, however, is a territorial treaty. A unilateral proclamation to abrogate a treaty by a party to the treaty may be valid with respect to a treaty of executory nature, but it cannot effectively abrogate a territorial treaty. This is true even though the defeated State regards the treaty as unequal. 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. (FN: 54) No such treaty has ever been effectively abrogated or revoked on the ground of inequality in history. It follows that the proclamation of the Chinese government abrogating all treaties with Japan was ineffective with respect to the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
然而，《馬關條約》是一項領土條約。 條約當事者單方面宣布廢除條約，對具有執行性質的條約可能是有效的，但不能有效地廢除領土條約。 即使被擊敗的國家認為條約是不平等的，也是如此。 被擊敗國被迫割讓領土的條約必然是不平等的，因為被擊敗國與獲勝國的談判地位不平等。 被擊敗的國家割讓領土以結束戰爭並拯救自己國家。 "不平等條約" 一詞是政治概念，而不是國際法中公認的法律術語。 （FN：54） 在歷史上，從未有過以的不平等為由而有效地廢除或撤銷這種條約。 由此可見，中國政府宣布廢除對日所有條約對《馬關條約》是無效的。
(54) For a discussion of unequal treaties, see GARY L. SCOTT, CHINESE TREATIES: THE POST-REVOLUTIONARY RESTORATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ORDER 85-99 (1975). "[N]one of these writers[, Grotius, Pufendorf, Vattel, and Wolf,] considered that inequality in treaties was in any way a cause for abrogation or a factor invalidating treaties." Id. at 86. See generally PETER WESLEY-SMITH, UNEQUAL TREATY 1898-1997; CHINA, GREAT BRITAIN AND HONG KONG'S NEW TERRITORIES (1998); FARIBORZ NOZARI, UNEQUAL TREATIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1971).
Furthermore, a territorial treaty cannot be abrogated or revoked on the ground of a subsequent aggression of the other party to the treaty. In 1955, during the period of parliamentary debates on the sovereignty over Formosa in the British House of Commons, legal scholar Georg Schwarzenberger commented on the cession of Formosa by China to Japan in the Peace Treaty of Shimonoseki:
此外，不能以該條約另一方隨後的侵略行為為由而廢除或撤銷一項領土條約。 在英國下議院1955年的議會辯論中，就福爾摩沙的主權問題進行辯論時，法學學者格奧爾格•施瓦岑貝格（Georg Schwarzenberger）在《馬關和平條約》內對中國將福爾摩沙割讓給日本發表了評論：
China had ceded Formosa to Japan by the Peace Treaty of Shimonoseki of April 16, 1895. In order to judge the validity of this cession [the] subsequent developments in international law which may, or may not, have affected the validity of cessions achieved as the result of aggressive war must be disregarded. Thus, the validity of this cession can hardly be contested.
中國是根據1895年04月16日《馬關和平條約》將福爾摩沙割讓給日本的。為判斷這種割讓的有效性，國際法的後續發展可能會或可能不會影響由於侵略戰爭必須被忽略。 因此，幾乎不能質疑這次割讓的有效性。
|
