SFPT Article 2(b)
舊金山和平條約 第2(b)條
Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
title
| 6.
|
Definition and Explanation of the term "title"
|
|
|
title 此詞的定義和解釋
|
The English language term "title" has many translations in Chinese. This can be very confusing for native Chinese speakers. The following table presents a large number of the most commonly seen examples.
眾所皆知，"title" 這個名詞翻譯成中文有很多譯法。 因此，在任何特定上下文中使用的該名詞時，其含義通常會使正在閱讀英語資料的以中國話為母語的人士感到困惑。常見有關 title此詞之翻譯，茲擬出「漢英對照表」如下：
中 文
Chinese |
英 文
English |
| 標題 |
title, heading, caption, headline, subject |
| 冠軍 |
champion, championship, title |
| 題 |
title, problem, topic, subject |
| 頭銜 |
title |
| 稱謂 |
title, appellation |
| 名稱 |
title, name |
| 篇名，書名 |
title |
| 稱號 |
title, name, designation |
| 職稱 |
title, job title |
| 銜 |
title, rank |
| 封號 |
title |
| 錦標 |
title, trophy, prize |
| 地契 |
title, title deed |
| 所有權 |
title, ownership |
| 6.1
|
Further Definition and Explanation of the term "title" under International Law
|
|
|
領土方面，關於 title 此詞進一步的定義和解釋
|
In international public law, when discussing the "ownership" of a certain territory, one important point involves what evidence can be produced. Documentation proving territorial ownership is actually what is meant by "title". (This is especially important when speaking of a territorial cession.)
在國際公共法中討論到某一個領土的「所有權」時，一個重點在於能否提供相關法律依據。其實，領土所有權 (之依據) 就是 "title" 之內含。 （在談到領土割讓時，這一點尤其重要。）
| 6.15
|
Translation of the term "title" in relation to territory
|
|
|
領土方面，關於 title 此詞的翻譯
|
中 文
Chinese |
英 文
English |
| 所有權 [之依據] |
title, ownership |
| 6.2
|
Definition of the term "title" in relation to territory
|
|
|
領土方面，關於 title 此詞的定義
|
The concept of "title" is used in public international law to show that a territory belongs to a state. Title to territory is usually defined as "a vestitive (FN: 1) fact of territorial sovereignty" or "a source of territorial sovereignty". (FN: 2)
國際公共法中使用了"title" (即「所有權之依據」) 的概念，以表明一個領土屬於一個國家。領土所有權 (之依據) 通常被定義為 [1] "領土主權的 vestitive 事實" ，即 領土主權賦與某國的事實認定的方式(FN: 1)，或 [2] "領土主權的來源"。(FN: 2)
A state acquiring such title is vested with sovereignty. In other words, when a state has title to a certain territory, that state’s control over the territory in question is legally justified, and it is legally considered "domestic territory." Consequently, other states must respect that state’s control over said territory. Alternatively, territorial control without title would not result in the territory becoming "domestic territory."(FN: 3)
主權是賦與能證明已經獲得這 title 的國家所有。
換句話說，當一個國家擁有對特定領土的 title 時，該國家對該領土的控制係屬於具有法律依據的，即在法律上屬於「國內領土」。是故，其他國家必須尊重該國家對所述領土的控制。
相反的，某國家對某領土僅有控制而沒有 title 時，不能將該領土列入該國家之「國內領土」。(FN: 3)
Having "effective territorial control" without having territorial sovereignty is the situation commonly seen in situations of military occupation.
通常，會出現沒有領土主權而僅有的"有效領土控制權"的情況，是領土在軍事佔領中。
In such a situation (i.e. military occupation) international law prescribes the limits of the occupant's power. Occupation does not displace the sovereignty of the occupied state, though for the time being the occupant may exercise supreme governing authority. Nor does occupation effect any annexation or incorporation of the occupied territory into the territory or political structure of the occupant, and the occupant's constitution and laws do not extend of their own force to the occupied territory.(FN: 4)
在這種情況下（即軍事佔領），國際法規定了佔領者權力的限制。佔領不會取代被佔領國的主權，儘管目前佔領者可以行使最高統治權。佔領也不影響將被佔領領土併吞或併入佔領者的領土或政治結構，並且佔領者的憲法和法律不會將其自身的力量擴展到被佔領領土。(FN: 4)
If conquered/liberated territory is ceded in a peace treaty, but with no designated "receiving country," and no formal trusteeship agreement put in place, the territory remains under military occupation (i.e. "civil affairs administration of a military government") after the coming into force of the peace treaty. Based on the historical precedent of Cuba after the Spanish American War, the territory would be held by the conqueror/liberator as a "quasi-trusteeship."
如果已經遭征服/解放的領土在和平條約中給予割讓，但沒有指定"收受國"，也沒有正式訂立託管協議，則在和平條約生效後，該領土仍處於軍事佔領下（即 "軍事政府的民政治理體系"）。根據美國西班牙戰爭後古巴的歷史先例，該領土將由征服者/解放者持有為 "類託管領土。"
The Ryukyu island group is another example of a territory with no designated "receiving country" in the peace treaty and no formal trusteeship agreement put in place, however it remained under military ccupation (i.e. "civil affairs administration of a military government") after the coming into force of the peace treaty. The Ryukyus were also held by the conqueror/liberator as a "quasi-trusteeship." Notably, in both the situations of Cuba and the Ryukyus, the conqueror/liberator was the United States of America.
琉球島群是領土的另一個例子，在和平條約中給予分離 (即割讓)，但沒有指定"收受國"，也沒有正式訂立託管協議。在和平條約生效後，該領土仍處於軍事佔領下（即 "軍事政府的民政治理體系"）。該領土將由征服者/解放者持有為 "類託管領土。" 值得注意的是，在古巴和琉球的情況下，征服者/解放者都是美國。
See "Trusteeship Characteristics" and
"Fundamental Attributes of US overseas quasi-trusteeships"
on the QUASI-TRUSTEESHIP INTRODUCTION page
請參閱 「託管區之特徵」 和 「美屬海外 "類託管區" 的基本屬性」 在 類託管區簡介 網頁上
|
[English webpage] https://www.twdefense.info/trust3/quasi-trust.html
[Chinese webpage] https://www.twdefense.info/trust3/quasi-trustch.html
Such a "quasi-trusteeship" situation would continue until arrangements were made for the territory to attain a "final legal status". Attaining a final legal status would necessitate a proclamation by the (principal) occupying power regarding the end of its military government jurisdiction.
這種 "類託管領土" 情況將一直持續到做出安排該領土獲得 "最終法律地位" 為止。 獲得最終法律地位將必要涉及由(主要)佔領權國宣布其軍政府管轄之結束。
The similarities between the situations of Cuba, the Ryukyus, and Taiwan are explained in the three detailed historical FLOWCHARTS presented on this website.
本網站提供的三個詳細的歷史流程圖解釋了古巴、琉球和台灣局勢之間的相似之處。
[English version] https://www.twdefense.info/trust3/three.html
[Chinese version] https://www.twdefense.info/trust3/threech.html
| 6.25
|
Transfer of the "title" of territory
|
|
|
領土方面，關於 title 的轉移
|
In regard to territorial cession as a means of transferring title, in the post-Napoleonic era, territorial cession is always done by treaty.(FN: 5)
關於領土割讓作為轉移 title 的一種方式，在後拿破崙時代，領土割讓始終是通過條約進行的。(FN: 5)
| 7.
|
Translation of Article 2(b)
|
|
|
第2(b)條之翻譯
|
Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
日本政府放棄對台灣、澎湖的一切權利、所有權與請求權。
Footnotes:
(1) Vestitive fact is one which determines positively or negatively, the vesting of a right in its owner. It is one which either creates or destroys or transfers rights. Example: If a treaty is made, and Country A cedes a territory ("Territory T") to Country B, then Country A’s right to ownership in Territory T is (forever) devested, and this right vests in Country B.
Vestitive fact 即「賦與的事實 (認定)」，是肯定或否定某權利歸屬於其所有者的事實。這是一種建立、移除或轉讓權利的事實。舉例來說，如果國家A通過條約將其領土
（在此簡稱領土T）割讓給國家B，則國家A因此對領土T 的所有權(永久)消失，該權利歸屬於國家B。
Importantly, if someday in the future Country A wants to re-obtain Territory T, a treaty must be concluded whereby Country B definitively cedes Territory T to Country A.
再者，將來為了使國家A能夠在某天重新獲得領土T，還必須制定另一項條約，將領土T 明確地割讓給A國。
[Note: After some time has passed, Country B's renunciation of the "title" to Territory T, even if stipulated in a treaty, but without the definitive designation of Country A as the "receiving country," will not effect a transfer of "title" of Territory T (back) to Country A.]
註：一段時間之後， B國放棄對這領土T 的title， 即使在條約中有規定， 但在未將A國明確地指定為 "收受國" 的情況下，也不會導致此 領土T 的title "返還" 再向A國的轉移。
(2) Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (譯：國際公法原理 ) Oxford University Press 牛津大學出版社 (6th edn, 2003), at 129. However,
even in the post-Westphalia Treaty era, and especially in advocating "prescription" (i.e. uninterrupted use and control of territory for a lengthy duration), Brownlie doubted the abstract notion of "title to territory" in public international law, and urged the establishment of standards of proof.
即使在後《西發里亞條約》時代，尤其是提昌“時效"方面的主張（即長期不間斷地使用和控制領土），Brownlie 懷疑國際公法中 "領土之 title" 的抽象概念的存在，並敦促建立舉證標準。
[Note: Hence, this author maintained that a method for clarifying such territorial title more concretely should be utilized, in order to prove the holding of territorial sovereignty.
註：因此，這位作家認為，應該使用一種更具體的方法來闡明或釐清「領土的 title」，以利證明擁有「領土主權」。]
(3) E.g., According to international law (in particular the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions) the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in early August 1990 was never considered to have resulted in the acquisition of territorial title, or the holding of territorial sovereignty, even though Iraq took control of the territory.
伊拉克於1990年08月初入侵科威特。儘管伊拉克控制了科威特領土，
但依據國際法 (尤其是海牙公約和日內瓦公約)，此行為 (或 "動作") 從來無法導致了「領土所有權」的獲得、或可作為擁有「領土主權」之依據。
參考：UN Security Council Resolution 聯合國安理會決議 660 (1990). Cf. 又參考： E. Milano, Unlawful Territorial Situations in International Law: Reconciling Effectiveness, Legality and Legitimacy (2006); Distefano, "The Conceptualization (Construction) of Territorial Title in the Light of the International Court of Justice Case Law", 19 Leiden Journal of International Law (2006) 1041, at 1067–1074.
(4) See: U.S. v. Tiede, 86 FRD 227, U.S. Court of Berlin, 1979. 見： 美國在柏林法院，U.S. v. Tiede案，86 FRD 227，1979年。
Internet: https://www.taiwanadvice.com/westberlint.htm
(5) In regard to WWII in the Pacific, the definition of "treaty" under the laws of the leading Allies was/is much narrower that that given in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which came into force in January 1980. Looking back to the period of the early 1940s to mid-1950s, the Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Proclamation, and Japanese surrender documents were not regarded as "treaties".
關於太平洋第二次世界大戰，主要盟國法律對 "條約" 的定義比1980年01月生效的《維也納條約法公約》的定義要狹窄得多。 在1940年代初期 至1950年代中期，《開羅宣言》、《波茨坦公告》和日本的投降文件不被視為 "條約"。
At any rate, in regard to the post-WWII disposition of Taiwan, the SFPT clearly has the highest legal weight under international law. 無論如何，就第二次世界大戰後台灣的處置而言，根據國際法，SFPT顯然具有最高的法律權重。
