6. Definition and Explanation of the term "title" title 此詞的定義和解釋
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
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領土所有權的文件 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
6.25 Transfer of the "title" of territory (1) 領土方面，關於 title 的轉移 (1)
6.35 Transfer of the "title" of territory (2) 領土方面，關於 title 的轉移 (2)
7. Translation of Article 2(b) 第2(b)條之翻譯
(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「賦予的事實」，是肯定或否定某權利歸屬於所有者的事實。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對領土T的所有權因此永久消失，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），此行為並未導致對「領土所有權」的獲得，也無法作為擁有「領土主權」的依據。
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。
(6) In response to formal inquiries from the Appeal Court of Hong Kong, the Foreign Office of Her Majesty's Government (H.M.G.) issued a reply dated February 11, 1950, clarifying that:
應香港上訴法庭的正式質詢，英國政府 (H.M.G.) 的外交部於 1950年02月 11日做出答覆，澄清道：
在1943年時，福爾摩沙是屬於日本帝國領土的一部分，而且英國政府認為：福爾摩沙在法律上仍然是該領土的一部分。
The Foreign Office also provided full background information, clarifying that:
外交部還提供了完整的背景資訊，澄清道：
1943年12月01日，在開羅，羅斯福總統、蔣介石委員長和丘吉爾首相宣布：日本從中國竊取的包括台灣在內的所有領土都應歸還中華民國。 1945年07月26日，美國、英國和中華民國政府首領在波茨坦重申 "應執行開羅宣言的條款"。1945年10月25日，根據有關同盟國協商一致下達的命令，台灣的日軍向蔣介石投降。
See 參閱: Civil Air Transport Incorporated v. Central Air Transport Corporation (Hong Kong), Appeal Court of Hong Kong, (Appeal No. 15 of 1952) UKPC 25 (28 July 1952).
Clearly, in the view of the U.K. government officials, whose country was one of the highest-ranking members of the Allies fighting against Japan in WWII, October 25, 1945, was not "Taiwan Retrocession Day".
顯然，二戰期間與日本作戰的盟軍中排名最高的成員之一，在英國政府官員的觀點中，1945年10月25日並非「台灣光復節」。
|
DETAILED COMMENTARY
(英文) |
