n*******r
发帖数: 2010 | 1 在二战结束前是日本占有领土. 1939年日本占领东西南沙群岛置于高雄辖下.
战后中华民国公布十一段线并置诸沙于海南特别行政区下.
1951年旧金山和约中, 日本放弃南沙和西沙主权, 但没有提及主权让渡予谁. 中华人民
共和国和中华民国未参加旧金山和约.
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%88%8A%E9%87%91%E5%B1%B1%E5%92%
1952年日本和中华民国签订中日和平条约, 日本放弃南沙和西沙主权. 这个条约实质上
等同于说日本将两沙让渡于中华民国.
http://zh.wikisource.org/zh/%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8
1972年中日联合声明/建交公报, 日本理解及尊重台湾是中国领土. (日本外相大平正芳
於該聯合聲明簽署后的記者會中代表日本政府宣布：「最後，要確認的是，在聯合聲明
中雖然沒有觸及，日本政府的見解是，作為日中邦交正常化的結果，日華和平條約（中
日和約）已失去了存在的意義，並宣告結束」)
http://zh.wikisource.org/zh/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%9
虽然有些咯咯噌噌, 不过法理上的大概延续的粗线条是存在的.
一本有趣的书, The Spratly Islands Dispute: Who's on First?
https://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/publications/view/?id=232 | n*******r
发帖数: 2010 | 2 From a Taiwanese:
Who is really destabilizing South China Sea and Asian Continent?
President Obama plus EU created chaotic Middle East and made military
conflict in the Middle East possible, now the Ukrainian crisis. It seems to
me that the President Obama and US defense secretary Mr. Chuck Hagel are
going to create a third crisis in Asian continent.
The question is if President Obama and Mr. Hagel has encouraged Vietnam and
Philippine to start confrontation with China for the purpose of containment
against China. President administration criticize China for South China Sea
incident between China and Vietnam but completely silent when Vietnamese
rioters rampaged in industrial zones as pretext for purpose to rob the
factories and get free merchandises, then set foreign factories on fire. The
Vietnamese government admitted that they had behind the Vietnamese protest.
Now the question is if Philippine, Vietnam or Japan takes advantage of
Americans’ paranoia about China as China gradually becoming a developed
country to achieve their own territory aggression. It does not matter that
we go by history or Modern International maritime Laws. China still prevails
over Vietnam or Philippine. China does have sufficient evidences to
underpin its claims of sovereignty of the South China Sea. Chinese still
prevail over other nations Under Modern International Laws as Chinese
Kuomintang was first government to establish a physical presence on of the
Spratlys following Japanese departure after WWII. Vietnam claims all Spratly
Islands first in 1973 and the first official claim by the Philippine
government came in 1971, mainly in response to a Philippine fishing vessel
being fired upon by Taiwanese forces stationed on Itu Aba Island. The
Philippine government reacted by protesting the incident and then asserted
legal title by annexing islands in the Spratly group
Alone among claimants, China is capable of coupling ‘continuous and
effective occupation’ of the islands, islets and reefs with a robust modern
international maritime law-based claim backed by relevant multilateral and
bilateral instruments.
In 1952, Japan renounced all right, title and claim to the Spratly and
Paracel Islands to the Republic of China (Taiwan), by way of Article 2 of
the bilateral Japan–Taiwan Treaty of Taipei. This treaty followed — and
referenced — the territorial renunciations of the Islands by Japan under
the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, which had not identified the
beneficiary at the time — a treaty that was ratified by both the Philippine
and (South) Vietnamese governments.
Following I quoted from Vikipedia:
In 1958, the People's Republic of China (PRC) issued a declaration defining
its territorial waters within what is known as the nine-dotted line which
encompassed the Spratly Islands. North Vietnam's prime minister, Ph?m Van &#
208;?ng, sent a diplomatic note to Zhou Enlai, stating that "The Government
of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision."The diplomatic
note was written on September 14 and was publicized on Nhan Dan newspaper (
Vietnam) on September 22, 1958. In 1959, the islands were put under at the
administrative level of banshichu in 1959. In 1988, the banshichu were
switched to the administration of the newly-founded Hainan Province.
Again, the dispute will be resolved peacefully as long as US do not involve
in the conflict. US can not support the country or countries tending toward
aggressive behavior, Sadam Hussein of Iraq is a good example. Again, US may
not be a winner and China may not be a loser if South China Sea escalated
into armed conflict.
Pasted from <https://www.facebook.com/plugins/comments.php?api_key=
263116810509534&channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2Fconnect%
2Fxd_arbiter%2FV80PAcvrynR.js%3Fversion%3D41%23cb%3Df3f570f27407d%26domain%
3Dwww.straitstimes.com%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.straitstimes.com%
252Ff28c92c30110114%26relation%3Dparent.parent&colorscheme=light&href=http%
3A%2F%2Fwww.straitstimes.com%2Fthe-big-story%2Fshangri-la-dialogue-2014%
2Fstory%2Fhagels-strong-comments-security-summit-could-see-dip-us&locale=en_
US&numposts=15&sdk=joey&skin=light&width=522>
【在 n*******r 的大作中提到】
: 在二战结束前是日本占有领土. 1939年日本占领东西南沙群岛置于高雄辖下.
: 战后中华民国公布十一段线并置诸沙于海南特别行政区下.
: 1951年旧金山和约中, 日本放弃南沙和西沙主权, 但没有提及主权让渡予谁. 中华人民
: 共和国和中华民国未参加旧金山和约.
: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%88%8A%E9%87%91%E5%B1%B1%E5%92%
: 1952年日本和中华民国签订中日和平条约, 日本放弃南沙和西沙主权. 这个条约实质上
: 等同于说日本将两沙让渡于中华民国.
: http://zh.wikisource.org/zh/%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8
: 1972年中日联合声明/建交公报, 日本理解及尊重台湾是中国领土. (日本外相大平正芳
: 於該聯合聲明簽署后的記者會中代表日本政府宣布：「最後，要確認的是，在聯合聲明
| n*******r
发帖数: 2010 | 3 By Chen Hurng-yu 陳鴻瑜
Disputes between China and Vietnam and the Philippines involving territorial
claims over the Spratly Islands (南沙群島) have once more hit the headlines
. My contention is that only territorial claims on the Spratlys that were
established on the “critical date” when the Treaty of San Francisco came
into effect are relevant.
Exactly 60 years ago, on Sept. 8, 1951, 48 nations signed the treaty in San
Francisco. Article 2, Paragraph F of the treaty reads: “Japan renounces all
right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands (
西沙群島).”
Now, the word “renounce” in the text of the treaty is confusing, because
it could lead one to conclude, mistakenly, that the Spratly and Paracel
Islands were therefore res nullius, a term referring to an entity — in this
case a territory — to which no one has justifiable claim.
However, the international laws governing such matters cannot render the
Spratlys terra nullius. In the context of international law, the term terra
nullius refers specifically to a territory that belongs to no country, or to
land that falls under the jurisdiction of no sovereign nation or entity,
which was not the case here.
It is consequently necessary to go back further, to explore the status of
the Spratly Islands prior to the signing of the treaty. We could usefully
start with 1917, when the Japanese conducted a phosphate survey there, and
1919, when a company called Rasa Island Phosphate Ore obtained a license
from the Japanese government to extract minerals from the islands.
In 1925, the French placed the main Spratly island under the jurisdiction of
Ba Ria Province of French Cochin-China, and in 1933 announced its
annexation of a further nine islands within the group. Both China and Japan
objected to this move and entered into diplomatic negotiations on the issue.
In 1939, Japan occupied the Pratas Islands (東沙群島), the Spratly Islands
and the Paracel Islands, and brought them all under the jurisdiction of
Takao (Kaohsiung) Prefecture in Taiwan, which was then a Japanese colony.
This was likely the first time in history that the three island groups had
been brought together under one administration. It also meant that, between
March 1939 and August 1945, the Spratly Islands were under the
administrative jurisdiction of Taiwan.
Whether de facto or de jure, the Republic of China (ROC) took on the right
to control the Spratly Islands from Japan in December 1946, incorporating
them as part of the territory of the ROC from January 1947. At this point
they were placed under the jurisdiction of what was then the Hainan Special
Administrative Region of the ROC’s Guangdong Province. In May 1950, ROC
troops were temporarily withdrawn from the area as they were required
elsewhere, but at no point did the ROC declare that this constituted
renouncing territorial rights over the islands or that it has any intention
of doing so.
In terms of international law, the ROC had sovereignty over the Spratly
Islands and did not indicate that this was no longer the case when it
temporarily withdrew its troops. Neither did the exercising of these
sovereign rights end when the Treaty of San Francisco came into effect on
April 28, 1952, or with the signing of the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, also
known as the Treaty of Taipei, on the same day, with immediate effect. The
ROC’s claim of sovereignty over the Spratly Islands was consequently intact.
Pasted from <http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2011/09/08/2003512718>
【在 n*******r 的大作中提到】
: 在二战结束前是日本占有领土. 1939年日本占领东西南沙群岛置于高雄辖下.
: 战后中华民国公布十一段线并置诸沙于海南特别行政区下.
: 1951年旧金山和约中, 日本放弃南沙和西沙主权, 但没有提及主权让渡予谁. 中华人民
: 共和国和中华民国未参加旧金山和约.
: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%88%8A%E9%87%91%E5%B1%B1%E5%92%
: 1952年日本和中华民国签订中日和平条约, 日本放弃南沙和西沙主权. 这个条约实质上
: 等同于说日本将两沙让渡于中华民国.
: http://zh.wikisource.org/zh/%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8
: 1972年中日联合声明/建交公报, 日本理解及尊重台湾是中国领土. (日本外相大平正芳
: 於該聯合聲明簽署后的記者會中代表日本政府宣布：「最後，要確認的是，在聯合聲明
| C*********l
发帖数: 10248 | 4 国共内战，留下了很多后遗症，抹杀了很多二战果实
【在 n*******r 的大作中提到】
: 在二战结束前是日本占有领土. 1939年日本占领东西南沙群岛置于高雄辖下.
: 战后中华民国公布十一段线并置诸沙于海南特别行政区下.
: 1951年旧金山和约中, 日本放弃南沙和西沙主权, 但没有提及主权让渡予谁. 中华人民
: 共和国和中华民国未参加旧金山和约.
: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%88%8A%E9%87%91%E5%B1%B1%E5%92%
: 1952年日本和中华民国签订中日和平条约, 日本放弃南沙和西沙主权. 这个条约实质上
: 等同于说日本将两沙让渡于中华民国.
: http://zh.wikisource.org/zh/%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E6%B0%91%E5%9C%8
: 1972年中日联合声明/建交公报, 日本理解及尊重台湾是中国领土. (日本外相大平正芳
: 於該聯合聲明簽署后的記者會中代表日本政府宣布：「最後，要確認的是，在聯合聲明
|
|
